Help

Bulletins

Decision Information

Decision Content

 
SUPREME COURT                                       COUR SUPRÊME

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES


This Bulletin is published at the direction of the Registrar and is for general information only.  It is not to be used as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved by Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court.  While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is assumed for errors or omissions.

 

Ce Bulletin, publié sous l'autorité du registraire, ne vise qu'à fournir des renseignements d'ordre général.  Il ne peut servir de preuve de son contenu.  Celle‑ci s'établit par un certificat du registraire donné sous le sceau de la Cour.  Rien n'est négligé pour assurer l'exactitude du contenu, mais la Cour décline toute responsabilité pour les erreurs ou omissions.


 

 

 


 


Subscriptions may be had at $200 per year, payable in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff.  During Court sessions it is usually issued weekly.

 

Le prix de l'abonnement, fixé dans le tarif de la Cour, est de 200 $ l'an, payable d'avance.  Le Bulletin paraît en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la Cour.


 

 

 


 


The Bulletin, being a factual report of recorded proceedings, is produced in the language of record.  Where a judgment has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the Registrar, with a remittance of $10 for each set of reasons.  All remittances should be made payable to the Receiver General for Canada.

 

Le Bulletin rassemble les procédures devant la Cour dans la langue du dossier.  Quand un arrêt est rendu, on peut se procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande au registraire, accompagnée de 10 $ par exemplaire.  Le paiement doit être fait à l'ordre du Receveur général du Canada.


 

 

 


 

 

December 22, 2000  2338 - 2419                                                      le 22 décembre 2000


CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

 

 

 

Applications for leave to appeal

filed

 

Applications for leave submitted

to Court since last issue

 

Oral hearing ordered

 

Oral hearing on applications for

leave

 

Judgments on applications for

leave

 

Judgment on motion

 

Motions

 

Notices of appeal filed since last

issue

 

Notices of intervention filed since

last issue

 

Notices of discontinuance filed since

last issue

 

Appeals heard since last issue and disposition

 

Pronouncements of appeals reserved

 

 

Rehearing

 

Headnotes of recent judgments

 

Weekly agenda

 

Summaries of the cases

 

Cumulative Index ‑ Leave

 

Cumulative Index ‑ Appeals

 

Appeals inscribed ‑ Session

beginning

 

Notices to the Profession and

Press Release

 

Deadlines: Motions before the Court

 

Deadlines: Appeals

 

Judgments reported in S.C.R.

 

2338 - 2339

 

 

2340 - 2347

 

 

-

 

-

 

 

2348 - 2354

 

 

-

 

2355 - 2365

 

2366

 

 

2367

 

 

-

 

 

2368

 

 

-

 

 

-

 

-

 

2369 - 2370

 

2371 - 2388

 

2389 - 2413

 

2414 - 2417

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

2418

 

2419

 

-

 

Demandes d'autorisation d'appel

déposées

 

Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la dernière parution

 

Audience ordonnée

 

Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation

 

 

Jugements rendus sur les demandes                                                                                  d'autorisation

 

Jugement sur requête

 

Requêtes

 

Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière parution

 

Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la                                                                                    dernière parution

 

Avis de désistement déposés depuis la     dernière parution

 

Appels entendus depuis la dernière

parution et résultat

 

Jugements rendus sur les appels en

délibéré

 

Nouvelle audition

 

Sommaires des arrêts récents

 

Ordre du jour de la semaine

 

Résumés des affaires

 

Index cumulatif ‑ Autorisations

 

Index cumulatif ‑ Appels

 

Appels inscrits ‑ Session

commençant le

 

Avis aux avocats et communiqué

de presse

 

Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour

 

Délais: Appels

 

Jugements publiés au R.C.S.



APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED

 

DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES


                                                                                                                                                                                                                  


The Law Society of Alberta

Lindsay MacDonald, Q.C.

The Law Society of Alberta

 

v. (28275)

 

Craig Charles Krieger et al. (Alta.)

Christopher D. Evans, Q.C.

 

FILING DATE 27.11.2000

 

 

Chief Ron Ignace, Chief of the Skeetchestn Indian Band, on behalf of himself and all other members of the Skeetchestn Indian Band et al.

Leslie J. Pinder

Clarine Ostrove

Mandell Pinder

 

v. (28276)

 

The Registrar of Land Titles, Kamloops Land Title District et al. (B.C.)

Paul Pearlman, Q.C.

Fuller, Pearlman, McNeil

 

FILING DATE 27.11.2000

 

 

Dr. Bernard Lyons

Symon Zucker

Danson, Zucker and Connelly

 

v. (28254)

 

Dr. Joseph Multari (Ont.)

Ronald G. Slaght, Q.C.

Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin

 

FILING DATE 27.11.2000

 

Regent Millette

Regent Millette

 

c. (28277)

 

Le sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.)

Pierre Séguin

Veillette & Associés

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.11.2000

 

 

Joseph Shaun Finnessey

Jeanine E. Le Roy

Bentley & Associates

 

v. (28251)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Tina Yuen

A.G. for Ontario

 

FILING DATE 30.11.2000

 

 

Diane Boucher

Michael B. Murphy

Murphy Collette Murphy

 

v. (28278)

 

Gaston Doiron et al. (N.B.)

Yassin Choukri

Sheehan Choukri

 

FILING DATE 30.11.2000

 

 


Claudette Sicotte

Henri Petit

Petit Blaquière Dagenais

 

c. (28279)

 

Zurich du Canada Compagnie d’assurance-vie (Qué.)

Jean St-Onge

Lavery, de Billy

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 1.12.2000

 

 

Maurice Boucher

Jacques Larochelle

Alan D. Gold

 

c. (28280)

 

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

France Charbonneau

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 8.12.2000

 

 

Dana Michael Fash

L.G. Anderson, Q.C.

Anderson Dawson Knisely & Stevens

 

v. (28284)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

J.A. Bowron

A.G. of Alberta

 

FILING DATE 10.11.2000

 

 

The City of Calgary et al.

John Gescher

City of Calgary

 

v. (28266)

 

Donald R. Saggers et al. (Alta.)

Virginia L. Palsgrove

 

FILING DATE 11.12.2000

 

C.T.

C.T.

 

c. (28281)

 

L.G. (Qué.)

L.G.

 

DATE DE PRODUCTION 11.12.2000

 




APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE 

SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE

 

 

DEMANDES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION


DECEMBER 18, 2000 / LE 18 DÉCEMBRE 2000

 

                                              CORAM:  Chief Justice McLachlin and Iacobucci and Major JJ. /

Le juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Iacobucci et Major

 

P.S.P.

 

v. (28182)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal Law - Evidence - Videotaped interview of child complainant - Police videotape an interview of a child complainant with respect to alleged sexual assault three days after learning of the complaint but approximately two years after the alleged incident - Child complainant unresponsive at trial in examination-in-chief and cross-examination - Videotape of interview admitted into evidence - Whether videotape was “made within a reasonable time after the alleged offence” for the purpose of s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


April 14, 1998

Superior Court of Justice

(MacLeod J.)

 

Convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference

 

 

 

April 28, 2000

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Carthy, Moldaver, MacPherson JJ.A.)

 

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed

 

 

 

October 2, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Applications for leave to appeal and time extension filed

 

 

 


 

Brentwood Pioneer Holdings Ltd

 

v. (28013)

 

Provincial Agricultural Land Commission (B.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Property law - Real property - Agricultural land reserve - Lands “suitable for farm use” to be included in reserve - Provincial Agricultural Land Commission including parcel in reserve - Parcel not economically viable as farm - Whether effect given to all provisions of Section 17 of the Agricultural Land Commission (Amendment) Act 1994  - Whether provision should be given broad interpretation or narrowly construed because it took away vested rights - Whether Commission was not swayed by the irrelevant consideration of future expectations.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


August 27, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Dorgan J.)

 

Applicant’s application to quash the decision of the Respondent commission dismissed

 

 

 

May 15, 2000

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Rowles, Finch, Hall JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

July 14, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

 

v. (28020)

 

Sierra Club of Canada, The Minister of Finance of Canada, The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, The Minister of International Trade of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - Interlocutory motion - Confidentiality order - Balance between public interest in open and accessible justice and private interest in ensuring justice between the parties - Proper test to be applied where a litigant seeks an order sealing confidential material to be introduced as evidence in a proceeding  - To what extent should the courts recognize and protect the obligations of confidentiality taken by Canadian companies to sovereign states in respect of proprietary and confidential information received from those states?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


October 26, 1999

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Pelletier J.)

 

Applicant’s interlocutory motion for leave to file a supplementary affidavit granted; motion for confidentiality dismissed

 

 

 


May 15, 2000

Federal Court of Appeal

(Robertson [dissenting], Evans and Sharlow JJ.A.)

 

Applicant’s appeal dismissed;

Respondent Sierra Club of Canada’s cross-appeal dismissed

 

 

 

July 20, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 



Alexander Jaworski

 

v. (28052)

 

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Administrative law - Judicial review - Decision by Commissioner of the RCMP resulting in dismissal - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in applying the civil standard of proof to a disciplinary charge that was, in essence, a charge of criminal conduct involving potentially career-threatening consequences to the individual involved - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal failed to recognize the inability of the discipline tribunal to apply fundamental principles as to the use of identification evidence in such charges, and failed to correct their erroneous application - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in applying the strict standard of judicial review of “patent unreasonableness”, notwithstanding the administrative tribunal’s complete lack of expertise with respect to the sole issue of contention before the tribunal, i.e., the sufficiency of eyewitness identification evidence, and one which falls squarely within the expertise and experience of Canadian courts of law - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal failed to apply a proper standard of judicial review such as “correctness” and accordingly, failed to adhere to the fundamental principles of judicial review enunciated in Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554 and Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748. - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal failed to give effect to the fundamental principles of fairness.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 12, 1998

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division

(Rothstein J.)

 

Judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police confirming the decision of an Adjudication Board dismissed

 

 

 

May 9, 2000

Federal Court of Appeal

(Décary, Sexton, Evans JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

August 8, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada                                  

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

CORAM:   L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel

 

Randy Edward Malcolm

 

v. (28153)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 


Criminal Law - Offences - Sexual assault - Defence - Defence of honest but mistaken belief as to consent - Section 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - Whether the Court of Appeal of Manitoba erred in law in allowing an appeal against acquittal because the trial judge, in his reasons, failed to discuss the operation and application of s. 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in interpreting s. 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code as requiring the accused to satisfy the Court that he took the steps that a reasonable man, aware of the same circumstances known to the accused at the time, would have taken to ascertain the consent of the complainant before proceeding with the sexual activity - Whether s. 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code violates s. 7 and s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


November 19, 1999

Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba

(Bryk J.)

 

Applicant acquitted of sexual assault

 

 

 

July 14, 2000

Court of Appeal of Manitoba

(Philp, Twaddle, and Helper JJ.A.)

 

Appeal against acquittal allowed; new trial ordered

 

 

 

September 27, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

Edwin Salmon

 

v. (28193)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal law - Offences - Testing for presence of alcohol in the blood - Section 254(3) of the Criminal Code - What are the legal limits defining the exercise of a peace officer’s discretion to demand a blood sample? - Does a peace officer have a duty of reasonable inquiry in relation to the exercise of the officer’s discretion to demand a blood sample? - Was there sufficient evidence to support the finding that the peace officer made reasonable inquiries before determining that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it was impracticable to obtain a sample of the Applicant’s breath?

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


December 1, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Taylor J.)

 

Applicant convicted of refusing to provide a blood sample contrary to s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code

 

 

 

November 29, 1999

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Lambert, Donald and Braidwood JJ.A.)

 

Application against conviction dismissed

 

 

 

October 11, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 



Jessy Jasinder Garcha

 

v. (28213)

 

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

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Criminal Law - Offences - Procedural Law - Conviction for use of an imitation firearm while committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence - Court of Appeal entered an order dismissing an appeal from conviction before counsel discovered that the conviction was based on an offence provision not yet  proclaimed on the date of the applicant’s conduct- Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal for want of jurisdiction - Application for reversal of judgment.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


November 2, 1998

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Catliff J.)

 

Convictions on 16 counts; Sentences from one to two years per count, some concurrent and some consecutive

 

 

 

March 10, 2000

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Lambert, Finch and Donald JJ.A.)

 

Appeal from convictions dismissed

 

 

 

October 12, 2000

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Rowles, Finch and Mackenzie JJ.A.)

 

Judgment reserved on appeal from sentence; Application for leave to appeal from one conviction, use of an imitation firearm, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

 

 

 

October 30, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Applications for leave to appeal and for reversal of judgment filed

 

 

 


 

Garth Aselford, Garth Aselford Limited, John Martin,

J. Walton Martin Limited et 2958‑3838 Québec Inc.

 

c. (28088)

 

Fernande Ross et L.G. Ross Ltée (Qué.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit commercial - Faillite - Interprétation des notions de “personnes liées” et de “contrôle” en droit de la faillite - Mauvaise appréciation de la preuve - Responsabilité personnelle des administrateurs d’une corporation à l’égard des préférences qu’aurait reçues la corporation.

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 



Le 19 décembre 1996

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Barakett j.c.s.)

 

 

 

 

 

Requête des intimées en annulation d’un paiement préférentiel accueillie; demandeurs condamnés à payer la somme de 1 822 000 $

 

 


Le 26 mai 2000

Cour d'appel du Québec 

(Michaud j.c.q., Pidgeon et Philippon [ad hoc] jj.c.a.)

 

Appel accueilli

 

 

 

Le 25 août 2000

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

 

 

Le 13 septembre 2000

Cour suprême du Canada

(LeBel J.)

 

Requête pour suspendre l’exécution du jugement rejetée

 

 

 


 

CORAM:   Gonthier, Binnie and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Binnie et Arbour

 

James King

 

v. (27990)

 

Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, J.A.G.  MacDonald, R.E. Good, C.W. Earle, G.F. Lawrence and T.E. Williams (Nfld.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Administrative law - Remedies - Torts - Negligence - Procedural law - Appeal - Judgments, Orders - Whether the court of appeal erred in finding no discernable potential merit in the Applicant’s case - Whether the court of appeal erred in not recognizing that the Applicant was denied the opportunity to establish bad faith when the trial judge refused to let the Applicant examine the individual commissioners under oath - Whether the court of appeal erred in its interpretation of the onus of proof according to the Motor Carrier Act - Whether it is unjust that the Applicant is left without a remedy in light of the finding of the lower court that the approval by the Respondents was a “mockery of the system”.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 30, 1992

Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Trial Division

(Lang J.)


Applicant’s action for damages dismissed with costs


April 26, 2000

Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Court of Appeal

(Marshall, Mahoney and Steele JJ.A.)


Applicant’s application to reinstate a notice of appeal that had been struck down for want of prosecution dismissed without costs, trial judge’s cost award repealed


June 23, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada


Application for leave to appeal filed



Claudio Zanchettin, ès qualités de tuteur à son fils Daniel Zanchettin

 

c. (28087)

 

René Demontigny (Qué.)

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Responsabilité civile - Négligence - Preuve - Quasi-noyade en eau glacée - Efficacité des manoeuvres de réanimation - Lien de causalité - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en n’acceptant pas la preuve de la causalité à l’aide des présomptions de faits imposant plutôt au demandeur ès qualités de faire une preuve de causalité scientifique impossible à faire compte tenu de l’état des connaissances scientifiques? - Compte tenu des conclusions de faits retenues par la Cour d’appel, celle-ci devait-elle déduire le lien de causalité juridique entre la faute d’omission de l’intimé et les dommages subis par la victime? - La Cour d’appel n’aurait-elle pas dû accepter qu’une simple hypothèse, soulevée en défense et fondée sur aucune donnée factuelle ni aucune donnée scientifique précise, suffise à empêcher le demandeur ès qualités de rencontrer son fardeau de preuve sur la causalité? - La Cour d’appel en ne qualifiant pas de faute l’erreur d’omission admise par l’intimé, a -t-elle ignoré les règles de l’art prouvées faisant l’objet d’un large consensus dans l’ensemble de la communauté médicale que correspondent au standard de prudence reconnu, enseigné et pratiqué dans la communauté médicale du Québec?.

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 17 novembre 1994

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Nolin j.c.s.)

 

Action en responsabilité professionnelle rejetée

 

 

 

Le 26 mai 2000

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Gendreau, Deschamps et Biron jj.c.a.)

 

Appel du demandeur ès qualités rejeté

 

 

 

 

 

Le 24 août 2000

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demandes d'autorisation d'appel et de sursis d’exécution déposées

 

 

 


 

The North West Company Inc.

 

v. (27991)

 

Construction General Labourers, Rock and Tunnel Workers, Local 1208 and Newfoundland Labour Relations Board (Nfld.)

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Labour law - Administrative law - Certification - Judicial review - Approach to be taken for statutory interpretation - Application of  unreasonableness test of judicial review - Jurisdiction of administrative tribunal to freshly decide the sufficiency of that untested evidence after hearing - Evidentiary value of a secret report to the trier of fact and law once a hearing has been held under rules of natural justice.     


PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


June 22, 1999

Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Trial Division

(Lang J.)

 

Respondents’ application for certiorari granted; Labour Relations Board order quashed and Respondents’ application for certification remitted to Board for reconsideration

 

 

 

April 26, 2000

Supreme Court of Newfoundland

Court of Appeal

(Gushue, Marshall and Cameron [dissenting]

JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

June 26, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 



JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS

FOR LEAVE

 

JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION


 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 

DECEMBER 21, 2000 / LE 21 DÉCEMBRE 2000

 

27951                    THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MISSISSAUGA, THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF OAKVILLE ‑ v. ‑ SLOUGH ESTATES CANADA LIMITED, SLOUGH/MARWOOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED, WINSTON OFFICE PARKS LIMITED, MENKES INDUSTRIAL PARKS LIMITED, 745629 ONTARIO LIMITED, STELLAR CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES LIMITED, 779008 ONTARIO LIMITED AND ONTARIO PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION (FORMERLY REGIONAL ASSESSMENT COMMISSIONER, REGION NO. 15) ‑ and between ‑ ONTARIO PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION (FORMERLY REGIONAL ASSESSMENT COMMISSIONER, REGION NO. 15) ‑ v. ‑ SLOUGH ESTATES CANADA LIMITED, SLOUGH/MARWOOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED, WINSTON OFFICE PARKS LIMITED, MENKES INDUSTRIAL PARKS LIMITED, 745629 ONTARIO LIMITED, STELLAR CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES LIMITED, 779008 ONTARIO LIMITED, THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MISSISSAUGA AND THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF OAKVILLE (Ont.) (Civil)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

 

Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Municipal law - Assessment - Farmland re-zoned for industrial purposes - Land temporarily reverting to farm use by bona fide farming tenants notwithstanding industrial zoning - Whether farming assessment applicable given that farming use in breach of municipal zoning by laws.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


January 20, 1999

Supreme Court of Ontario

(Rosenberg, Meehan and Caswell JJ.)

 

Applicant “Corporation of the City of Mississauga`s” appeal allowed; order altering the assessments for the 14 parcels of land in question

 

 

 

April 6, 2000

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Catzman, Laskin and Rosenberg JJ.A.)

 

Respondents’ appeal allowed; order of Divisional Court set aside and decision of Ontario Municipal Board restored

 

 

 

June 2, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 

June 5, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 



27864                    CLEMENCE ROLES AND JOAN ROLES ‑ v. ‑ 306972 SASKATCHEWAN LTD., ART SHOQUIST, GWEN SHOQUIST, GRANT WALTERS, LEN WALTERS, BRUNO RIEMER AND PAM RIEMER (Sask.) (Civil)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Commercial law - Company law - Shareholders - Oppression remedy - Whether denial of information to a director and significant shareholder raises an issue of mixed fact and law of national importance.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


July 9, 1999

Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan

(Baynton J.)

 

Applicants’ application for oppression remedy dismissed

Respondents’ application for an order dissolving corporation allowed

 

 

 

February 24, 2000

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

(Bayda, Tallis and Vancise JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed

 

 

 

April 20, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

28023                    PETER FEHR ‑ v. ‑ ROMAN BRODOWSKI AND GREY GOOSE CORPORATION LIMITED (Man.) (Civil)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Torts - Damages - Whether the Manitoba Court of Appeal erred in law by interfering with the trial judge’s award of $52,148.86 for past loss of income and substituting its own arbitrary award of $25,000 - Whether the Manitoba Court of Appeal erred in law by interfering with the trial judge’s discretionary award for general damages of $65,000.00 and substituting its own award of $40,000 - Whether the Manitoba Court of Appeal erred in law by interfering with the trial judge’s award of $60,000 for loss of earning capacity - Whether the Manitoba Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to make any award for loss of earning capacity despite its own finding that the Applicant suffered a loss of earning capacity.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


April 27, 1999

Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba

(Barkman J.)

 

Applicant awarded a total of $184,580.91 for general damages, loss of earning capacity and retraining, past loss of income, special damages and pre-judgment interest against the Respondents

 

 

 

May 5, 2000

Court of Appeal of Manitoba

(Scott C.J.M. and Philp and Monnin JJ.A.)

 

Appeal allowed; award of general damages,  past loss of income and pre-judgment interest  reduced; award for future loss of income set aside; cross-appeal on the quantum of the damages dismissed

 

 

 

July 24, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

28109                    HAZEL JACKO ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ‑ and between ‑ JONAS ANDREW ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ‑ and between ‑ JOBBY METCHEWAIS ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ‑ and between ‑ NOEL CHARLAND ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ‑ and between ‑ SOLOMON SCANIE ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Alta.) (Civil)

 

CORAM:               L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel JJ.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Native Law - Treaty Rights - Fish and game ‑ Fisheries Acts - Treaty No. 6 - Regulation of Indian fishery - Selling fishing without licence - Members of First Nations charged with selling fish without a license - Whether offence provisions in Fisheries Act infringes treaty rights and the Constitution Act, 1982 - Right to share, trade, barter, or sell fish - Whether right to sell, barter or exchange fish under Treaty 6 extinguished and replaced by s. 12 of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement - Whether R. v. Gladue, [1996] 1 C.N.L.R. 153 is still good law in the light of R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 770 and R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 901.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


May 11, 1998

Provincial Court of Alberta

(Stevens-Guille J.)               


Convictions for illegal sale of fish not caught under license


January 15, 1999

Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta

(Wilson J.)

 

Appeals from convictions dismissed

 

 

 


June 22, 2000

Court of Appeal of Alberta

(McClung, Russell, Sulatycky JJ.A.)

 

 

 

 

 

Appeal dismissedAugust 25, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

27974                    ESTATE OF MARIE VYNA RUMAN ‑ v. ‑ THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE (N.W.T.) (Civil)

 

CORAM:               L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel JJ.

 

The motion for 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

 

Municipal law  - Taxation - Unpaid property taxes - Deceased failed to pay property taxes for several years - Whether aboriginal right exempts estate from municipal taxation - Whether limitation period applies to stop accrual of interest - Whether municipality obliged to provide property tax relief for senior or disabled taxpayers.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


July 30, 1998

Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories

(Irving J.)                                                                              

 

 


Finding that no aboriginal right exempts the

deceased, Ruman, from municipal taxation; applicable limitation period for interest on outstanding property taxes confirmed to be ten years; finding providing property tax relief for seniors and the disabled is not obligatory on the part of the City


April 11, 2000

Court of Appeal of the Northwest Territories

(Tallis, Russell and Hudson JJ.A.)

 

Appeal dismissed; amount owing by the Applicant reduced

 

 

 

June 19, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

27940                    HUGUETTE DOIRON ‑ c. ‑ OLIVIER LIPP, HÔPITAL LOUIS‑HYPPOLITE LAFONTAINE ET COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES SOCIALES (Qué.) (Civile)

 

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel.

 

La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimés Olivier Lipp et Hôpital Louis-Hyppolite Lafontaine.

 

The motion for extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents Olivier Lipp and Louis-Hyppolite Lafontaine Hospital.

 

 

 

 


NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Responsabilité civile - Procédure - Preuve - Action en responsabilité médicale et hospitalière contre intimés pour avoir subi cure fermée à l’hôpital - Droit d’être représenté par avocat lors d’audience de la Commission des Affaires Sociales.

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 10 juin 1999

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Jasmin j.c.s.)

 

Action en responsabilité médicale et hospitalière à l’encontre des trois intimés rejetée

 

 

 

Le 19 octobre 1999

Cour d'appel du Québec 

(Beauregard, Gendreau et Baudouin jj.c.a.)

 

Pourvoi rejeté; requêtes pour rejet d’appel des intimés accueillie

 

 

 

Le 24 mai 2000

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

 

 


 

27871                    L'ORDRE DES CHIROPRATICIENS DU QUÉBEC ‑ c. ‑ PHILIPPE THOMAS  (Qué.) (Civile)

 

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache et LeBel.

 

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

 

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

 

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

 

Droit du travail - Droit des professions - Dans quelle mesure les activités associées aux professions à titre réservé, telles que décrites à l’art. 37 du Code des professions, peuvent-elles comporter des actes ou des activités qui font partie du champ d’exercice d’une profession d’exercice exclusif et ainsi déroger à l’exclusivité d’exercice conférée par la loi aux membres de cette professoin? - La règle d’interprétation formulée par cette Cour en 1954 dans l’arrêt Pauzé c. Gauvin, selon laquelle les lois créatrices de monopoles professionnels s’interprètent restrictivement, est-elle applicable aux lois modernes de réglementation des professions au Canada, dont la finalité est la protection du public non pas la défense des intérêts des membres de monopole professionnels? Ces questions constituent-elles des questions de droit d’importance pour le public dont cette Cour devrait se saisir?

 

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

 


Le 1er mai 1996

Cour du Québec

(Pigeon j.c.q.)

 

Intimé trouvé coupable sur trois chefs d’accusation d’avoir exercé la profession de chiropraticien sans être inscrit au tableau de l’ordre des chiropraticiens du Québec

 

 

 


Le 26 mars 1997

Cour supérieure du Québec

(Hébert j.c.s.)

 

 

 

 

 

Appel rejetéLe 25 février 2000

Cour d'appel du Québec

(Otis, Forget et Pidgeon jj.c.a.)

 

Appel accueilli

 

 

 

Le 25 avril 2000

Cour suprême du Canada

 

Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée

 

 

 

 


 

28012                    CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE ‑ v. ‑ SAMOS INVESTMENTS INC. ‑ and between ‑ JAMES A. PATTISON, P. NICHOLAS GEER, JIM PATTISON LTD., JIM PATTISON INDUSTRIES LTD., GREAT PACIFIC INDUSTRIES INC. AND GREAT PACIFIC CAPITAL CORP. ‑ v. ‑ SAMOS INVESTMENTS INC. ‑ and between ‑ DONALD C. SELMAN ‑ v. ‑ SAMOS INVESTMENTS INC. (B.C.) (Civil)

 

CORAM:               L'Heureux‑Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel JJ.

 

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

 

Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens.

 

NATURE OF THE CASE

 

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give effect to that part of the doctrine against collateral attack which holds that it is an issue of process to bring a civil action for damages where the damages alleged to have been suffered were caused by a prior court order and that prior order has not been set aside or quashed - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an order of the court approving an arrangement or compromise between a company and its shareholders or creditors (as provided for in various provincial and federal statutes) does not pronounce upon the substantive fairness of the arrangement or compromise having regard to all relevant facts, but instead is limited to pronouncing upon the terms of the arrangement or compromise without regard to any facts in existence prior to the proposal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an action for review to impeach a previous judgement of a superior court may be joined with an action for damages caused by the other - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an order, made pursuant to s. 252 of the Company Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 62, approving an arrangement or compromise, does not determine the substantive fairness of the proposed arrangement or compromise - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594 permitted an action for review of a prior order or judgment to be brought concurrently with claims constituting a collateral attack on the correctness of such order or judgment, rather than requiring that such claims be brought only after such order or judgment has been set aside on appeal or on a successful proceeding for its variation, reversal or nullification.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 


February 3, 2000

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Bauman J.)

 

Applications for a stay of proceedings by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, James A. Pattison, P. Nicholas Geer, Jim Pattison Ltd., Jim Pattison Industries Ltd., Great Pacific Industries Inc., Great Pacific Capital Corp., Westar Group Ltd. and 461847 British Columbia Ltd. dismissed

 

 

 


July 4, 2000

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Rowles, Hall [dissenting] and Mackenzie JJ.A.)

 

 

 

 

 

Appeal dismissedAugust 18, 2000

Supreme Court of Canada

 

Application for leave to appeal filed

 

 

 


 

27511                    BRIAN WILLIAM KILOH ‑ v. ‑ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (FC) (Civil)

 

CORAM:               The Chief Justice, Iacobucci and Major JJ.

 

The application for reconsideration is dismissed.

 

La demande de réexamen est rejetée.

 

 



MOTIONS

 

REQUÊTES

 


 

2.11.2000

 

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

 


Motion for leave to intervene

2000 SCC 59

 

BY/PAR Stepping Stone

 

IN/DANS:              N.M.P. (young person)

 

v. (27936)

 

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)(N.S.)


Requête en autorisation d’intervention

2000 CSC 59

 

 


ADJOURNED / AJOURNÉE

 

The applicant, Stepping Stone, was an intervener before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and supported the position of the accused, NMP whose appeal from conviction was dismissed by that Court.  NMP now seeks leave to appeal to this court pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act.   In support of NMP’s application, Stepping Stones seeks leave to intervene on the application for leave to appeal.

 

The Rules of this Court that are relevant to this application are Rule 18, which deals with interveners, and Rule 24, which concerns the hearing of applications for leave. Rule 18(1) provides that any person interested in an appeal may apply to a judge for leave to intervene.  Rule 18(2) provides that a motion for intervention shall be filed and served within 60 days after the filing of the notice of appeal or the reference.  It is implicit in Rule 18(2) that the application for leave to intervene will not be addressed by this court until after leave to appeal has been granted.

 

In a Notice to the Profession concerning interveners dated August, 1999, this Court indicated that the deadline for applying for leave to intervene is sixty days from the filing of the notice of appeal or reference, pursuant to R. 18(2).  Once the sixty-day period has expired, the Registrar will submit to the rota judge all applications for intervention that have been filed within the deadline.  These applications will then be determined together as provided for in the Rules.  This Notice to the Profession indicates that the normal process is for all applications for intervention to be heard together, following the granting of leave to appeal by this court. 

 

Rule 24(5) further supports the view that applications for leave to intervene will not usually be considered until after leave to appeal has been granted.  It curtails interventions at an earlier stage by providing that: “[n]o person shall intervene on an application for leave or a motion before the Court unless ordered by a judge prior to the hearing of the application or motion, on such terms and conditions and with such rights and privileges as the judge may determine”.

 

This court has indicated that leave to intervene prior to the granting of leave to appeal will rarely be granted.  In R.J.R. MacDonald Inc. v. A.G. (Can.) (4 October 1993) the court granted leave to intervene to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, on consent, in an application to stay certain proposed federal regulations pending an application for leave to appeal.  However, the court clearly indicated that granting leave at this stage of the proceedings was not the norm, stating: “let the record reflect that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that intervener status is granted in proceedings of this nature”.  In my view, this application does not present exceptional circumstances that would justify departure from the normal rule that applications for leave to intervene will only be considered once leave to appeal has been granted. 


For these reasons, I adjourn the application for leave to intervene pending the disposition of the application for leave to appeal.  If leave to appeal is granted in this case, the application for leave to intervene may be brought back before this court on notice to the parties to the proceedings.

 

 

[TRADUCTION]

 

La requérante Stepping Stone était une intervenante devant la Cour d’appel de la Nouvelle-Écosse et elle appuyait l’accusée N.M.P. dont l’appel contre sa condamnation a été rejeté par cette cour.  N.M.P. demande maintenant l’autorisation de se pourvoir devant notre Cour conformément au par. 40(1) de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, L.R.C. (1985), ch. S-26.  Stepping Stones demande l’autorisation d’intervenir dans la demande d’autorisation de pourvoi afin d’appuyer la demande de N.M.P.

 

Les règles de notre Cour qui s’appliquent à la présente demande sont l’art.18 qui traite des intervenants et l’art.24 qui porte sur l’audition des demandes d’autorisation.  Le paragraphe 18(1) prévoit que toute personne ayant un intérêt dans un appel peut demander à un juge l’autorisation d'intervenir.  Le paragraphe 18(2) prévoit que la requête en intervention doit être signifiée et déposée dans les 60 jours suivant le dépôt de l’avis d’appel ou de renvoi.  Le paragraphe 18(2) prévoit implicitement que la demande d’autorisation d’intervenir ne sera examinée par notre Cour qu’une fois l’autorisation de pourvoi accordée.

 

Dans l’Avis aux avocats daté du mois d’août 1999 et concernant les intervenants, notre Cour a mentionné que les demandes d’autorisation d’intervenir doivent être déposées dans les soixante jours suivant le dépôt de l’avis d’appel ou de renvoi, conformément au par. 18(2).  Après l’expiration de ce délai, le Registraire soumet au juge de service toutes les demandes déposées dans le délai imparti.  Celles‑ci sont ensuite décidées ensemble, conformément aux Règles.  Cet Avis aux avocats indique que toutes les demandes d’intervention sont normalement entendues ensemble après que l’autorisation de pourvoi a été accordée par notre Cour.

 

Le paragraphe 24(5) étaye également le point de vue selon lequel les demandes d’autorisation d’intervenir ne sont habituellement examinées qu’une fois l’autorisation accordée.  Il empêche les interventions à un stade antérieur en prévoyant que «[n]ul ne peut intervenir dans une demande d'autorisation ou une requête à la Cour, à moins d’y être autorisé par une ordonnance rendue par un juge avant l'audience relative à la requête et de respecter les conditions et d’agir dans les limites des droits et privilèges établis par celui-ci.»

 

Notre Cour a affirmé que l’intervention sera rarement autorisée avant que que l’autorisation de pourvoi ait été accordée.  Dans l’arrêt RJR MacDonald Inc. c. Canada (Procureur général), C.S.C., no 23460, 4 octobre 1993 (transcription), la Cour a accordé à la Fondation des maladies du coeur du Canada, avec le consentement des parties, l’autorisation d’intervenir dans une demande de suspension de l’application de certaines nouvelles dispositions réglementaires fédérales jusqu’à ce qu’une demande d’autorisation de pourvoi ait été tranchée.  Cependant, la Cour a clairement indiqué qu’il n’était pas normal d’accorder l’autorisation à ce stade des procédures:  [traduction] «veuillez noter que ce n’est que dans des circonstances très exceptionnelles que le statut d’intervenant est accordé dans des procédures de cette nature.»  À mon avis, la présente demande ne comporte pas des circonstances exceptionnelles qui justifieraient que l’on s’écarte de la règle normale selon laquelle les demandes d’autorisation d’intervenir ne sont examinées qu’une fois l’autorisation de pourvoi accordée.

 

Pour ces motifs, j’ajourne la demande d’autorisation d’intervenir jusqu’à ce que la demande d’autorisation de pourvoi ait été tranchée.  Si l’autorisation de pourvoi est accordée en l’espèce, la demande d’autorisation d’intervenir pourra être présentée de nouveau à notre Cour après que les parties à l’instance auront été avisées.

 


12.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  THE CHIEF JUSTICE

 


Motion to state a constitutional question

 

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick as represented by The Minister of Finance, et al.

 

v. (27722)

 

Ian P. Mackin, et al (N.B.)


Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Notices of intervention are to be filed on or before January 15, 2001.

 

1.             Does An Act to Amend the Provincial Court Act, S.N.B. 1995, c. 6, which repealed the supernumerary scheme for Provincial Court Judges in New Brunswick, interfere with the judicial tenure and financial security of members of the Provincial Court and thereby violate in whole or in part the principle of judicial independence as guaranteed by

 

(a) the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, or

 

(b) s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

 

2.             Does An Act to Amend the Provincial Court Act, S.N.B. 1995, c. 6, which repealed the supernumerary scheme for Provincial Court Judges in New Brunswick, and which was enacted without reference to an independent remuneration commission, thereby violate in whole or in part the principle of judicial independence as guaranteed by:

 

(a) the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, or

 

(b) s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

 

3.             If the answer to question 1(b) or question 2(b) is yes, is the Act demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter?

 

 

1.             La Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour provinciale, L.N.B. 1995, ch. 6, qui a abrogé le système surnuméraire des juges de la Cour provinciale du Nouveau-Brunswick, porte-t-elle atteinte au mandat judiciaire et à la sécurité financière des membres de la Cour provinciale et, en conséquence, contrevient-elle en totalité ou en partie au principe de l’indépendance judiciaire garanti, selon le cas, par :

 

(a) le préambule de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867,

 

(b) l’art. 11(d) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?

 

2.             La Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour provinciale, L.N.B. 1995, ch. 6, qui a abrogé le système surnuméraire des juges de la Cour provinciale du Nouveau-Brunswick, et qui a été adoptée sans référence à une commission indépendante de rémunération, en conséquence, contrevient-elle en totalité ou en partie au principe de l’indépendance judiciaire garanti, selon le cas, par :

 


(a) le préambule de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867,

 

(b) l’art. 11(d) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?

 

3.             Si la réponse à la question 1(b) ou à la question 2(b) est oui, s’agit-il d’une Loi dont la justification peut se démontrer en tant que limite raisonnable prévue par une règle de droit en vertu de l’article premier de la Charte?

 

 

12.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  L’HEUREUX-DUBÉ J.

 


Motion for leave to intervene

 

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of British

Columbia

 

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen

 

v. (27738)

 

Clayton George Mentuck

(Crim.)(Man.)


Requête en autorisation d'intervention


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

 

UPON APPLICATION by the Attorney General of British Columbia for an extension of time and for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

 

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

1.                  The motion  for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Attorney General of British Columbia is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a  factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

 

The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

 

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondent any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondent by the intervention.

 


12.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

 


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

 

Mansour Ahani

 

v. (27792)

 

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al.

(F.C.)


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les dossier, mémoire et cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine des intimés


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 13, 2001.

 

 

12.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

 


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

 

Manickavasagam Suresh

 

v. (27790)

 

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al.

(F.C.)


Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer les dossier, mémoire et cahier de jurisprudence et de doctrine des intimés


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to February 13, 2001.

 

 

13.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  THE CHIEF JUSTICE

 


Motion to state a constitutional question

 

Her Majesty the Queen

 

v. (27717)

 

Ford Ward (Nfld.)


Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Notices of intervention are to be filed on or before January 22, 2001.


1.             Is section 27 of the Marine Mammal Regulations, SOR 56-93, within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada as being legislation pertaining to the sea coast and inland fisheries under s. 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867?

 

2.             Is section 27 of the Marine Mammal Regulations within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada as being legislation pertaining to the criminal law under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867?

 

 

1.             L’article 27 du Règlement sur les mammifères marins, DORS 56-93, relève-t-il de l’autorité législative du Parlement du Canada en tant que mesure législative relative aux pêcheries des côtes de la mer et de l’intérieur en vertu de l’art. 91(12) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867?

 

2.             L’article 27 du Règlement sur les mammifères marins, DORS 56-93, relève-t-il de l’autorité législative du Parlement du Canada en tant que mesure législative relative au droit criminel en vertu de l’art. 91(27) de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867?

 

 

13.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  GONTHIER J.

 


Motion to extend the time in which to serve and file an application for leave

 

A.S.

 

c. (28249)

 

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Ont.)


Requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d'autorisation


REFERRED to the panel seized of the application for leave to appeal. / DÉFÉRÉE à la formation saisie d’une demande d’autorisation d’appel à présenter.

 

 

13.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  LEBEL J.

 


Motion to extend the time in which to serve the application for leave to the mis-en-cause the Attorney General of Quebec

 

Transport Robert (1973) Ltée, et al.

 

c. (28270)

 

La Société Québécoise de développement de la main d’oeuvre (Qué.)


Requête en prorogation du délai de signification de la demande d'autorisation à la mise-en-cause la Procureure générale du Québec


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 27 novembre 2000.

 


13.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  LEBEL J.

 


Motion to extend the time in which to serve the application for leave to the mis-en-cause the Attorney General of Quebec

 

Express du Midi Inc.

 

c. (28269)

 

La Société Québécoise de développement de la main d’oeuvre (Qué.)


Requête en prorogation du délai de signification de la demande d'autorisation à la mise-en-cause la Procureure générale du Québec

 


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 27 novembre 2000.

 

 

13.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  LEBEL J.

 


Motion to extend the time in which to serve the application for leave to the mis-en-cause the Attorney General of Quebec

 

Transport Belmire Inc., et al

 

c. (28268)

 

La Société Québécoise de développement de la main d’oeuvre (Qué.)


Requête en prorogation du délai de signification de la demande d'autorisation à la mise-en-cause la Procureure générale du Québec


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Délai prorogé au 27 novembre 2000.

 

 

14.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  LEBEL J.

 


Motion for leave to intervene

 

BY/PAR:                Heenan Blaikie, Barristers and

Solicitors

 

IN/DANS:              Rashid Aziz

 

v. (27824)

 

United Used Auto & Truck Parts Ltd., et al. (B.C.)


Requête en autorisation d'intervention


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

 

UPON APPLICATION by Heenan Blaikie, Barristers and Solicitors  for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

 

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

The motion  for leave to intervene of the applicant Heenan Blaikie, Barristers and Solicitors is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

 

The intervener shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

 

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the intervener shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the intervention.

 

 

15.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  GONTHIER J

 


Miscellaneous motion

 

Manickavasagam Suresh

 

v. (27790)

 

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al.

(F.C.)


Autre requête


DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉE AVEC DÉPENS

 

The Respondent applies for an order declaring that certain evidence relating to assurances which the Respondent Minister allegedly obtained from the Sri Lankan government as to the security of the Appellant is within the parameters of rule 33 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada and, as such, is part of the record in the present appeal or, alternatively, that the Respondent  be permitted to supplement the Respondent’s record with the said evidence on the hearing of this appeal.  The Appellant contests the said motion and further requests in the event that the Respondent’s motion be allowed, that the Appellant be permitted to produce certain evidence. 

 

It appears that the said evidence was not part of the record in this matter before the courts below although it was part of the record on an application for a stay of judgment.  I therefore conclude that the said evidence is not properly part of the record on this appeal pursuant to rule 33 and the Respondent’s motion in this regard must be dismissed.  It further appears that the Minister’s decision leading to the deportation order against the Appellant was not based on any such assurances’ having been obtained and that the initial decision of the Minister and subsequent appeals therefrom have proceeded and ultimately have been decided without recourse to any such assurances.  It appears that such assurances have been extant for some time; it has not been  established, and I am not satisfied,  that they could not have been obtained or produced earlier.  In any event, the admission of such evidence would open the door to  legal debate on a different factual basis in departure from that on which leave to appeal was granted. 

 


In conclusion, the Respondent’s alternative request for permission to introduce these assurances as new evidence and the Appellant’s responding motion to produce new evidence should be denied. 

 

The Respondent’s motion and the Appellant’s motion in response are accordingly dismissed with costs to the Appellant.

 

 

18.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  LEBEL J.

 


Motions for leave to intervene

 

BY/PAR:                B.C. First Nations

 

Attorney General of British Columbia

 

Adrian Stimson, Chief of the Siksika Nation, on behalf of himself and all other members of the Siksika Nation

 

IN/DANS:              Norman Sterriah, on behalf of all members of the Ross River Dena Council Band, et al.

 

v. (27762)

 

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al. (Y.T.)


Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention


UPON APPLICATION by B.C. First Nations, Adrian Stimson, Chief of the Siksika Nation, on behalf of himself and all other members of the Siksika Nation, and Her Majesty The Queen in right of the province of British Columbia  for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

 

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

1.             The motion  for leave to intervene of the applicant B.C. First Nations is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

2.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Adrian Stimson, Chief of the Siksika Nation, on behalf of himself and all other members of the Siksika Nation is denied.

 

3.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Her Majesty The Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

 


The interveners shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

 

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the interveners shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the interventions. 

 

 

18.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR

 


Miscellaneous motion

 

Ian Vincent Golden

 

v. (27547)

 

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


Autre requête


GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The motion on behalf of the intervener Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc. for an order allowing its factum to be filed without marginal numbering is granted.

 

 

18.12.2000

 

Before / Devant:  GONTHIER J.

 


Motions for leave to intervene

 

BY/PAR:                Canadian Civil Liberties Association

 

Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture and the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims

 

Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils

 

Canadian Council of Churches

 

Canadian Arab Federation

 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

 

Amnesty International (Canadian Section)

 

Canadian Council for Refugees

 

Centre for Constitutional Rights


Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention



IN/DANS:              Manickavasagam Suresh

 

v. (27790)

 

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. (F.C.)


 


UPON APPLICATION by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Arab Federation, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Amnesty International (Canadian Section), the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture,  the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and the Centre for Constitutional Rights for extensions of time and   for leave to intervene in the above appeal;

 

AND HAVING READ the material filed ;

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

 

1.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Canadian Civil Liberties Association is denied.

 

2.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicants Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture and the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims is denied.

 

3.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

4.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Canadian Council of Churches is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

5.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Canadian Arab Federation is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

6.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

7.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Amnesty International (Canadian Section) is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

8.             The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant Canadian Council for Refugees is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

9.             The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Centre for Constitutional Rights is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

 

The request to present oral argument is deferred to a date following receipt and consideration of the written arguments of the parties and the interveners.

 

The interveners shall not be entitled to adduce further evidence or otherwise to supplement the record of the parties.

 

Pursuant to Rule 18(6) the interveners shall pay to the appellant and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellant and respondents by the interventions.

 



NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE

 

AVIS D’APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION


                                                                                                                                                                                                                  


31.10.2000

 

Her Majesty the Queen

 

v. (28226)

 

Lloyd Alfred Pakoo (Man.)

 

AS OF RIGHT

 

 


 




NOTICES OF INTERVENTION FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE

 

AVIS D’INTERVENTION DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION


                                                                                                                                                                                                                  


 

 


 


BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Alberta

Attorney General of British Columbia

Attorney General of Manitoba

Attorney General of New Brunswick

Attorney General of Ontario

 

IN/DANS:              Louise Gosselin

 

   v. (27418)

 

The Attorney General of Quebec (Que.)

 

 

 

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada

 

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen et al.

 

v. (27722)

 

Ian P. Mackin et al. (N.B.)

 

 



APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION

 

APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT

 


 

15.12.2000

 

CORAM:               Chief Justice McLachlin and L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Arbour JJ.

 


Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders

 

v. (27252)

 

Sa Majesté du Chef du Québec, et al. (Ont.)


David W. Scott, Q.C., Barry H. Bresner and Ira Nishisato for the appellant.

 

Sheila R. Block, James C. Tory, Michel Jolin and Claude G. Rioux for the respondent Sa Majesté du Chef du Québec.

 

Glenn F. Leslie and Matthew J. Halpin for the respondent Société Nationale de l’Amiante.

 

Tim Moseley for the respondent Ontario Securities Commission.


 

RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ

 


Nature of the case:

 

Commercial law - Securities - Minority shareholders - Public Interest Jurisdiction - Whether as a result of this decision securities regulators may now decline to exercise their “public interest” jurisdiction in change of control transactions because of the lack of geographic transactional connection, even when the transaction is “abusive of” and “manifestly unfair to” minority shareholders - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the OSC to require a finding of “conscious motive” to structure the transaction as an extra-provincial one for the purpose of evading regulatory scrutiny, as a pre-condition to the exercise of its “public interest” jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the standard of review.


Nature de la cause:

 

Droit commercial - Valeurs mobilières - Actionnaires minoritaires - Compétence en matière d’intérêt public - Cette décision fait-elle en sorte que les organismes de réglementation du commerce des valeurs mobilières peuvent maintenant refuser d’exercer leur compétence en matière d’« intérêt public » relativement au contrôle des transactions en raison de l’absence de lien transactionnel géographique, même lorsque la transaction est « abusive » et « manifestement inéquitable » envers les actionnaires minoritaires? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en permettant à la CVMO d’exiger, en tant que condition préalable à l’exercice de sa compétence en matière d’« intérêt public », la conclusion à l’existence de l’« intention délibérée » de rendre la transaction extra-provinciale aux fins d’échapper à l’examen réglementaire? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur dans son application de la norme de contrôle?

 


 

 



WEEKLY AGENDA

 

ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA

SEMAINE

 


 

The next session of the Supreme Court of Canada commences on January 15, 2001.

La prochaine session de la Cour suprême du Canada débute le 15 janvier 2001.

 

The next bulletin of proceedings will be published on January 12, 2001.

Le prochain bulletin des procédures sera publié le 12 janvier 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                      SEASON’S GREETINGS!

                            MEILLEURS VOEUX!



WEEKLY AGENDA

 

ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE

 


 

AGENDA for the weeks beginning January 15 and January 22, 2001.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour les semaines commençant les 15 janvier et 22 janvier 2001.

 

 

Date of Hearing/                     Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                        Numéro et nom de la cause

 

2001/01/15                                Motions / Requêtes

 

2001/01/16                                Daniel Matthew Nette v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (27669)

 

2001/01/16                                Her Majesty the Queen v. Ulybel Enterprises Limited (Nfld.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (27543)

 

2001/01/17                                Willis Barclay Frederick Boston v. Shirley Isobel Boston (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (27682)

 

2001/01/18                                2858‑0702 Québec Inc., et al. c. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée (Qué.) (Civile)

(Autorisation) (27324)

 

2001/01/22                                Ellis‑Don Construction Ltd., et al. v. Naylor Group Incorporated, et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (27321)

 

2001/01/24                                Martin Richard McKinley, et al. v. BC TEL, et al. (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (27410)

 

2001/01/25                                Westec Aerospace Inc. v. Raytheon Aircraft Company (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (27356)

 

2001/01/26                                Kenneth Deane v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right) (27776)

 

2001/01/26                                Her Majesty the Queen v. Lorie Ferguson (Ont.) (Criminal) (As of Right) (27800)

 

 

 

NOTE: 

 

This agenda is subject to change.  Hearing dates should be confirmed with Registry staff at (613) 996-8666.

 

Cet ordre du jour est sujet à modification.  Les dates d'audience devraient être confirmées auprès du personnel du greffe au (613) 996-8666.



SUMMARIES OF THE CASES

 

RÉSUMÉS DES AFFAIRES


 

 

27669                      Daniel Matthew Nette v. Her Majesty The Queen

 

Criminal Law - Murder - Causation - Whether the causation standard for second degree murder is lower that the standard for first degree murder articulated by R. v. Harbottle, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 306, for first degree murder - If the answer to the question is “yes”, was the Appellant’s right to a fair trial prejudiced by the learned trial judge’s misdirection on the standard of causation for second degree murder?

 

Mrs. Loski, a 95‑year old widow, lived alone in her own house in Kelowna.  Two men entered her house, tied her hands together with wire, tied her feet together with wire, and tied her hands to her feet behind her back.  They wrapped clothing around her head and left her on a bed while they stole money and left the house.  Mrs. Loski eventually fell off the bed.  Her dentures came loose in her mouth and the clothing around her neck was tightly wound.  She died of asphyxiation after 24 to 48 hours had passed.  At trial, the Crown tendered evidence consisting of a recorded admission by the Appellant to undercover police officers that he and another male broke into Mrs. Loski’s home, tied her up, took money and left.  The Appellant testified at trial that he had made up this admission to impress the undercover police officers of whom he was afraid.  He also testified that he and the other young male had knocked on Mrs. Loski’s door while canvassing for a newspaper, after which he returned to his mother’s residence and remained there at the relevant times.  He testified that the next day he broke into Mrs. Loski’s home where he found her already tied-up and apparently dead, and the house already ransacked.  He testified that the other male admitted breaking into the home and tying up Mrs. Loski.

 

In his jury charge, Wilkinson J. of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the trial judge directed the jury with respect to the causation element for manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree murder.  He instructed the jury that the standard of causation was one of contributing to the  death and was more than trivial or insignificant, for the purposes of both second degree murder and manslaughter, but that a conviction for first degree murder pursuant to s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code required that the Crown prove that the accused's actions were a substantial and integral cause of death.  The cause is “a much more direct and substantive cause than the slight or trivial cause necessary to find second degree murder”.

 

After some deliberation, the jury asked for further instruction on the elements of first degree murder and the substantial cause test.  Wilkinson J. redirected the jury in essentially the same terms as in his main charge. The jury convicted the Appellant of second degree murder.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for ten years.  He appealed from the conviction.  The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal.

 

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

 

File No.:                                                                 27669

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     December 13, 1999

 

Counsel:                                                                                Gil D. McKinnon Q.C. for the Appellant

Richard C.C. Peck Q.C. for the Respondent

 

 


27669                      Daniel Matthew Nette c. Sa Majesté la Reine

 

Droit criminel - Meurtre - Causalité - La norme de causalité applicable au meurtre au deuxième degré est-elle moins élevée que celle applicable au meurtre au premier degré énoncée dans l’arrêt R. c. Harbottle, [1993] 3 R.C.S. 306? - Si la réponse est «oui», la directive erronée du juge du procès quant à la norme de causalité applicable au meurtre au deuxième degré a‑t‑elle porté préjudice au droit de l’appelant à un procès équitable?

 

Mme Loski, une veuve de 95 ans, vivait seule dans sa propre maison à Kelowna.  Deux hommes sont entrés chez elle, ont attaché ses mains ensemble avec un fil, ont fait de même avec ses pieds et ont attaché ses mains à ses pieds derrière son dos.  Ils ont enroulé des vêtements autour de sa tête, l’ont laissée sur un lit, ont volé l’argent et ont quitté la maison.  Mme Loski a fini par tomber du lit.  Son dentier s’est détaché et les vêtements autour de son cou étaient très serrés.  Elle est décédée d’asphyxie après 24 à 48 heures.  Au procès, la Couronne a soumis des éléments de preuve consistant en une admission enregistrée de l’appelant à des policiers banalisés selon laquelle un autre homme et lui sont entrés par effraction chez Mme Loski, l’ont attachée, ont pris l’argent et sont partis.  L’appelant a témoigné au procès qu’il avait inventé cette admission pour impressionner les policiers banalisés dont il avait peur.  Son témoignage indiquait également que l’autre jeune homme et lui avaient frappé à la porte de Mme Loski alors qu’ils faisaient du démarchage pour un journal, qu’il était par la suite retourné chez sa mère et qu’il y était encore pendant la période pertinente.  Il a témoigné que le lendemain, il était entré par effraction chez Mme Loski et qu’il l’avait trouvée déjà attachée et apparemment décédée, la maison ayant déjà été pillée.  D’après son témoignage, l’autre homme avait admis être entré par effraction dans la maison et avoir attaché Mme Loski.

 

Dans son exposé au jury, le juge du procès, le juge Wilkinson de la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique, a donné des directives relativement à l’élément de causalité applicable à l’homicide involontaire coupable, au meurtre au deuxième degré et au meurtre au premier degré.  Il a informé le jury que la norme de causalité applicable était de contribuer à la mort et exigeait davantage que la causalité de peu d’importance applicable au meurtre au deuxième degré et à l’homicide involontaire coupable, mais qu’une déclaration de culpabilité pour meurtre au premier degré aux termes du par. 231(5) du Code criminel exigeait de la Couronne qu’elle établisse que les actes de l’accusé étaient une cause substantielle et essentielle du décès.  La causalité est [traduction] «une causalité beaucoup plus directe et substantielle que la causalité de peu d’importance nécessaire pour conclure à un meurtre au deuxième degré».

 

Après avoir délibéré, le jury a demandé des directives additionnelles quant aux éléments du meurtre au premier degré et au critère de la cause substantielle.  Le juge Wilkinson a donné de nouvelles directives au jury, utilisant essentiellement les mêmes termes que dans son exposé principal. Le jury a déclaré l’appelant coupable de meurtre au deuxième degré.  Ce dernier a été condamné à l’emprisonnement à perpétuité sans possibilité de bénéficier de la libération conditionnelle avant dix ans.  Il a interjeté appel de la déclaration de culpabilité.  La Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique a rejeté l’appel.

 

Origine:                                                  Colombie-Britannique

 

No du greffe:                                          27669

 

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                    13 décembre 1999

 

Avocats:                                                                Gil D. McKinnon c.r. pour l’appelant

Richard C.C. Peck c.r. pour l’intimée

 

 


27543                      Her Majesty The Queen v. Ulybel Enterprises Limited

 

Criminal Law - Seizure - Defence - Evidence - Maritime Law - Fisheries - Procedural Law - Courts - Jurisdiction - Statutes - Interpretation - Seizure and sale of ship - Forfeiture of sales proceeds - Whether the continued physical detention of a thing seized pursuant to s. 51 of the Fisheries Act is a condition precedent to an order of forfeiture under the Act - Whether a convicting court has jurisdiction under section 72(1) of the Fisheries Act to order the forfeiture of the proceeds of sale of a thing seized pursuant to section 51 of the Act where the thing giving rise to the proceeds has been sold pursuant to authority other than the Fisheries Act, and by order of another court - Whether the Federal Court of Canada has the jurisdiction to preserve the rights of parties arising under the Fisheries Act.

 

On April 2, 1994, Canadian Fisheries officers boarded a fishing vessel named the M.V. Kristina Logos, arrested the crew, seized the ship, and laid charges. The Respondent, the registered owner of the vessel, was charged with four counts of permitting the use of the Kristina Logos to fish for cod and redfish without a vessel registration card or a fishing licence in an Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization convention area, contrary to s. 13 of the Atlantic Fisheries Regulations, 1985, P.C. 1985 ‑ 3662, as amended, an offence punishable under s. 78 of the Fisheries Act, R.S.C., 1985, C.F‑14, as amended.  The Respondent did not dispute that the vessel had been fishing in these areas for cod and redfish nor that the vessel lacked a vessel registration card and a license.

 

The Crown took physical possession of the vessel.  A cargo of fish on board the vessel was sold. On April 5, 1994 and May 23, 1995, warrants of arrest of the vessel were issued out of the Federal Court by creditors seeking unpaid claims against the Respondent and the vessel.  In December, 1996, in one of the actions in the Federal Court, the Kristina Logos was released from arrest for the purpose of allowing the vessel to be sold by the Crown.  The Crown sold the vessel.   The sale occurred before the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in which the Respondent was found guilty on each charge and fined $120,000. $50,000 of the proceeds from the sale of the Kristina Logos and all of the proceeds from the sale of the vessel’s cargo were ordered forfeited.  The Respondent appealed from the convictions and the sentence.  The Crown cross‑appealed the sentence.  The appeals from the convictions were dismissed.  The appeals and cross‑appeals from the sentence were dismissed, except that the order of forfeiture was set aside.

 

Origin of the case:                                                Newfoundland

 

File No.:                                                                 27543

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     August 17, 1999

 

Counsel:                                                                                Graham Garton Q.C./Gordon S. Campbell for the Appellant

John R. Sinnott Q.C. for the Respondent

 

 


27543                      Sa Majesté la Reine c. Ulybel Enterprises Limited

 

Droit criminel - Mise sous séquestre - Défense - Preuve - Droit maritime - Pêches - Droit procédural - Tribunaux - Compétence - Lois - Interprétation - Saisie et vente d’un navire - Confiscation du produit de la vente - La mise sous séquestre continue d’un bien saisi en vertu de l’art. 51 de la Loi sur les pêches est-elle une condition préalable à la délivrance d’une ordonnance de confiscation en application de la Loi? - Le tribunal qui a rendu un verdict de culpabilité peut-il, en vertu du par. 72(1) de la Loi sur les Pêches, ordonner la confiscation du produit de la vente d’un bien saisi aux termes de l’art. 51 de la Loi lorsque le bien qui a généré le produit de la vente a été vendu en vertu d’un pouvoir autre que celui conféré par la Loi sur les Pêches et suivant l’ordonnance rendue par un autre tribunal? - La Cour fédérale du Canada a-t-elle compétence pour conserver les droits des parties qui sont conférés par la Loi sur les Pêches?

 

Le 2 avril 1994, des agents canadiens des pêches sont montés à bord d’un bateau de pêche, le M.V. Kristina Logos, ont mis les membres de l’équipage en état d’arrestation, ont saisi le navire et ont déposé des accusations.  L’intimée, propriétaire inscrite du navire, a été mise en accusation relativement à quatre chefs liés au fait d’avoir permis l’utilisation du Kristina Logos pour les fins de la pêche à la morue et au sébaste, en l’absence d’un certificat d’enregistrement de bateau ou d’un  permis de pêche, à l’intérieur de la zone de compétence de l’Organisation des pêches de l’Atlantique nord‑ouest, en contravention de l’art. 13 du Règlement de pêche de l'Atlantique de 1985, C.P. 1985 ‑ 3662, sous sa forme modifiée, une infraction punissable en vertu de l’art. 78 de la Loi sur les Pêches, L.R.C. (1985), ch. F‑14, sous sa forme modifiée.  L’intimée ne conteste pas que le navire avait servi à la pêche à la morue et au sébaste dans cette zone, ni que le navire ne détenait aucun certificat d’enregistrement de bateau ou permis.

 

La Couronne a pris possession du navire.  Une cargaison de poissons à bord du navire a été vendue.  Le 5 avril 1994 et le 23 mai 1995, la Cour fédérale a fait droit à la demande des créanciers d’ordonner la saisie conservatoire du navire, les créanciers réclamant le solde impayé par l’intimée et le navire.  En décembre 1996, dans l’une des actions intentées en Cour fédérale, une ordonnance portant mainlevée de la saisie du Kristina Logos a été rendue pour permettre à la Couronne de procéder à la vente du navire.  La Couronne a vendu le navire.  La vente s’est produite avant que l’issue des poursuites pénales ne soit connue, savoir que l’intimée a été déclarée coupable relativement à chaque chef d’accusation et condamnée à payer une amende de 120 000 $.  La somme de 50 000 $ du produit de la vente du navire Kristina Logos et le produit entier de la vente des cargaisons à bord du navire ont été visés par une ordonnance de confiscation.  L’intimée a interjeté appel des déclarations de culpabilité et de la peine imposée.  La Couronne a déposé un appel incident de la peine infligée.  Les appels des déclarations de culpabilité ont été rejetés.  Les appels et les appels incidents relativement à l’imposition de la peine ont été rejetés, sauf que l’ordonnance de confiscation a été annulée.

 

Origine :                                                                 Terre-Neuve

 

No du greffe :                                                         27543

 

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                                   Le 17 août 1999

 

Avocats :                                                               Graham Garton, c.r./Gordon S. Campbell pour l’appelante

John R. Sinnott, c.r., pour l’intimée

 

 


27682                      Willis Barclay Frederick Boston v. Shirley Isobel Boston

 

Family law - Spousal support - Material change in circumstances - Pension in payment - Payor having few assets but having pension income of $98,000 per annum -  Recipient spouse having assets of $495,000 but little income - Pension previously subject to equalization of assets with recipient spouse - Method to be used to determine quantum of spousal support payable when pension been previously shared - Whether recipient spouse obliged to invest her assets to produce an income or if not invested, court to impute an income based on those assets.

 

The parties were married in 1955 and separated after 36 years of marriage in 1991.  The Appellant is 66 years of age, and is a retired Director of Education.  His income in 1999 was derived from his pension and from Canada Pension Plan benefits for a total of approximately $8,000 per month, or $96,000 per annum.  He resides with his new wife who works part time as a nurse, earning approximately $450 per month.  The Respondent is 62 years of age and has never been gainfully employed.  She receives $3,240 annually in Canada Pension Plan benefits, and $3,000 in farming income.  The Court of Appeal imputed $15,000 in investment income to her, based on the assumption that she could invest all of her assets, with the exception of her home and farm to earn this income. 

 

On October 21,1994, the parties settled property and support matters by way of a consent judgment. In exchange for his pension, which was valued at $333,000 after tax, on valuation date, the Respondent received the mortgage-free matrimonial home and contents, the surrounding farm property and various other assets.  Several vacant lots owned by the parties were sold, with the Respondent receiving most of the proceeds of sale.  In addition, the Appellant transferred RRSP’s to the Respondent.  The Appellant  agreed to pay support to the Respondent in the amount of $3,200 per month, when he was earning $115,476.96 per annum.  The Respondent’s assets are now worth $495,000.  She has no debts.  The Appellant’s assets exceed his debts by approximately $7,000.

 

The Appellant retired in 1997, and since 1999 has received only his pension income and CPP benefits.  Some of his pension credits were earned following the date of separation and thus, were not equalized in the consent judgment.  This unequalized portion produces approximately $2,300 per month of the $7,600 the Appellant receives in pension income.  The Appellant contends that the portion of his pension that has already been equalized should not be available for spousal support.  He argues that the Respondent should be required to contribute to her own support from the assets she has amassed since the date of separation.   The Respondent’s stated needs are $3,400 per month. 

 

The courts below are in agreement that there has been a material change in circumstances, permitting the Appellant to reduce the amount of spousal support he must pay.  The Chambers judge reduced the support to $950 per month from the $3,400 per month the Appellant had been paying at the time of the order.   On appeal, the Court of Appeal raised that amount to $2,000 per month.

 

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

 

File No.:                                                                 27682

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     November 5, 1999

 

Counsel:                                                                                J. Yvonne Pelley for the Appellant

Maurice J. Neirinck for the Respondent

 

 


27682                      Willis Barclay Frederick Boston c. Shirley Isobel Boston

 

Droit de la famille - Pension alimentaire au profit d’un époux - Changement important des circonstances - Versement de la pension - Le débiteur ne possède que peu d’actifs, mais reçoit un revenu de pension se chiffrant à 98 000 $ par année - Le conjoint bénéficiaire possède un actif de 495 000 $, mais tire peu de revenus - La pension a déjà fait l’objet d’une péréquation par rapport à l’actif du conjoint bénéficiaire - Méthode à appliquer pour déterminer le montant de la pension alimentaire due lorsque la pension a déjà été partagée - Le conjoint bénéficiaire est-il tenu de faire des placements sur son actif en vue de produire un revenu ou, en l’absence de placements, le tribunal doit-il calculer un revenu fondé sur cet actif?

 

Les parties se sont mariées en 1955 et se sont séparées en 1991 après 36 ans de mariage.  L’appelant, directeur d’enseignement aujourd’hui à la retraite, est âgé de 66 ans.  Son revenu en 1999 provenait de sa pension et des prestations du Régime de pensions du Canada, pour un total d’environ 8 000 $ par mois ou de 96 000 $ par année.  Il vit avec sa nouvelle épouse, qui travaille à temps partiel comme infirmière et qui gagne environ 450 $ mensuellement.  L’intimée a 62 ans et n’a jamais eu d’emploi rémunérateur.  Elle reçoit annuellement 3 240 $ en prestations du Régime de pensions du Canada et 3 000 $ en revenus d’agriculture.  La Cour d’appel lui a calculé 15 000 $ en revenus de placements, en se fondant sur la prémisse qu’elle pouvait faire des placements sur son actif, à l’exception de sa maison et de sa ferme. 

 

Le 21 octobre 1994, les parties ont réglé les questions relatives à la propriété et à la pension alimentaire par voie de jugement par consentement.  En échange de la pension, évaluée à 333 000 $ après impôt à la date de l’évaluation, l’intimée a hérité de la résidence conjugale libre de toute hypothèque et de tout contenu, de la propriété agricole avoisinante et de divers autres éléments d’actif.  Plusieurs lots vacants que possédaient les parties ont été vendus, l’intimée recevant la plupart du produit de la vente.  En outre, l’appelant a transféré ses REER à l’intimée.  L’appelant a accepté de verser à l’intimée une pension alimentaire de 3 200 $ par mois lorsqu’il gagnait 115 476,96 $ par année.  L’actif de l’intimée se chiffre aujourd’hui à 495 000 $.  Elle n’a aucune dette.  L’actif de l’appelant dépasse son passif d’environ 7 000 $.

 

L’appelant a pris sa retraite en 1997 et, depuis 1999, n’a reçu que son revenu de pension et ses prestations du RPC.  Certains de ses droits à pension ont été acquis après la date de la séparation et n’ont pas par conséquent été pris en compte au moment du jugement par consentement.  Ces droits à pension, qui n’ont pas fait l’objet d’une péréquation, génèrent environ 2 300 $ des 7 600 $ que reçoit mensuellement l’appelant à titre de revenu de pension.  L’appelant soutient que la partie de sa pension qui a déjà fait l’objet d’une péréquation ne devrait pas servir pour les fins de la pension alimentaire.  Il fait valoir que l’intimée devrait être tenue de subvenir à ses propres besoins à même les actifs qu’elle a amassés depuis la date de la séparation.  L’intimée déclare avoir besoin de 3 400 $ par mois.

 

Les instances inférieures conviennent qu’il est survenu un changement important dans les circonstances de nature à permettre à l’appelant de réduire le montant qu’il est tenu de verser à titre de pension alimentaire.  Le juge siégeant en chambre a diminué le montant de la pension à 950 $ par mois, comparativement à 3 400 $ par mois que l’appelant versait au moment où l’ordonnance a été rendue.  En appel, la Cour d’appel a augmenté ce montant à 2 000 $ par mois. 

 

Origine :                                                                 Ontario

 

No du greffe :                                                         27682

 

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                                    Le 5 novembre 1999

 

Avocats :                                                               J. Yvonne Pelley pour l’appelant

Maurice J. Neirinck pour l’intimée

 

 


27324                      2858-0702 Québec Inc. and Lac d’amiante du Canada Ltée v. Lac d’amiante du Québec Ltée

 

Procedure – Civil Procedure – Evidence – Examination on discovery – Confidentiality of information and documents communicated – Art. 397 and 398 of the Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q. c. C-25 – Did the Court of Appeal majority err in ruling that the information and documents a person must disclose on examination on discovery held pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure are confidential and may not be used for purposes other than this case? – Should the information and documents the respondent was required to communicate in the case at bar remain confidential?

 

The parties are asbestos producers bound by various contractual agreements. In 1992 and 1996, the respondent sued the appellants for sums in excess of $12,000,000 and $31,000,000 respectively in repayment of expenses incurred in the context of lawsuits brought by asbestos victims.

 

After filing their defence, the appellants proceeded to examine a senior official of the respondent. They asked him to produce evidence of the amounts claimed. The respondent objected to the production of certain documents, but Richer J. of the Superior Court dismissed the objection on March 3, 1997. The respondent therefore assembled the requested information but explained that it would like to execute an agreement of confidentiality with the appellants so as to ensure that the documents would not be disclosed or given to third parties. The appellants refused.

 

On July 22, 1997, the respondent filed a “Motion to suspend proceedings or order confidential certain documents and information and to declare that documents and information cannot be used for any other purposes than the present action”. On October 23, 1997, Barbeau J. of the Superior Court dismissed the respondent’s motion. On March 30, 1999, the Court of Appeal majority allowed the respondent’s appeal and held that the information and documents that it must disclose are confidential and may not be used for purposes other than this action. Biron J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal. On January 27, 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appellants’ application for leave to appeal.

 

Origin:                                                    Que.

 

Registry no.:                                         27324

 

Court of Appeal decision:                  March 30, 1999

 

Counsel:                                                                Philippe Casgrain, Q.C., Gérard Dupré and Catherine Pilon for the appellants

James Wood and Christopher Richter for the respondent

 

 


27324                      2858-0702 Québec Inc. et Lac d'amiante du Canada Ltée c. Lac d'amiante du Québec Ltée

 

Procédure - Procédure civile - Preuve - Interrogatoire préalable - Confidentialité des renseignements et documents communiqués - Art. 397 et 398 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25 - La Cour d'appel à la majorité a-t-elle erré en statuant que les renseignements et documents qu'une personne doit dévoiler lors d'un interrogatoire préalable tenu conformément au Code de procédure civile sont confidentiels et ne peuvent être utilisés à d'autres fins que le présent dossier? - Les renseignements et documents que l'intimée a été requise de communiquer en l'espèce doivent-ils demeurer confidentiels?

 

Les parties sont des producteurs d’amiante liés par diverses ententes contractuelles.  En 1992 et en 1996, l’intimée poursuit les appelantes solidairement pour des sommes respectives de plus de 12 000 000$ et de plus de 31 000 000$, en remboursement des frais engagés dans le cadre de poursuites intentées par des victimes de l’amiante.

 

Après production de leur défense, les appelantes procèdent à l’interrogatoire d'un haut dirigeant de l’intimée.  Elles lui demandent de produire la preuve des montants réclamés.  L’intimée s’objecte à la production de certains documents mais le juge Richer de la Cour supérieure rejette l’objection le 3 mars 1997.  L’intimée collige donc l’information demandée mais précise qu'elle aimerait conclure une entente de confidentialité avec les appelantes afin de s’assurer que les documents ne seront pas divulgués ou remis à des tierces parties.  Les appelantes refusent. 

 

Le 22 juillet 1997, l’intimée produit une requête intitulée “Motion to suspend proceedings or order confidential certain documents and information and to declare that documents and information cannot be used for any other purposes than the present action”.  Le 23 octobre 1997, le juge Barbeau de la Cour supérieure rejette la requête de l’intimée.  Le 30 mars 1999, la Cour d’appel accueille à la majorité le pourvoi de l'intimée et déclare que les renseignements et documents qu'elle doit dévoiler sont confidentiels et ne peuvent être utilisés à d’autres fins que la présente action.  Le juge Biron, dissident, aurait rejeté le pourvoi.  Le 27 janvier 2000, la Cour suprême du Canada accorde la demande d'autorisation d'appel des appelantes.

 

Origine:                                                  Qué.

 

No du greffe:                                          27324

 

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                    Le 30 mars 1999

 

Avocats:                                                                Mes Philippe Casgrain c.r., Gérard Dupré et Catherine Pilon pour les appelantes

Mes James Wood et Christopher Richter pour l’intimée

 

 


27321                      Ellis-Don Construction Ltd. v. Naylor Group Incorporated and Naylor Group Incorporated v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd.

 

Commercial law - Contracts - Tendering process - Bid Depository System - Prime contractor refusing to enter into construction contract with subtrade carried in its successful tender due to intervening labour incompatibility problem  - Whether Court of Appeal erred in implying a term into contract A requiring the prime contractor to enter into contract B unless there was a reasonable objection to using the subcontractor - Even if contract A contained such a term, whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding Ellis-Don did not have a reasonable objection - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding contract A was not frustrated by the decision of the O.L.R.B.

 

In 1991, the Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital called for tenders for the construction of an addition and renovation project through the Toronto Bid Depository.  The Appellant submitted the lowest tender for the work, while the Respondent submitted the lowest bid to Ellis-Don for the electrical work in the amount of $5,541,232.  Representatives of both parties met to discuss the details of working together, and in particular, the Respondent advised the Appellant that it had a collective bargaining agreement with a union not affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”).  The Respondent was advised by the Appellant that this would not be a problem. 

 

The Respondent was vaguely aware that the Appellant was involved in an ongoing dispute with the IBEW, which had filed a grievance against the Appellant in 1989, claiming that the Appellant was not entitled to contract with non-IBEW affiliated unions.  The matter was tried before the Ontario Labour Relations Board in 1990, over the course of 18 days, and judgment was reserved.  The judgment was released on February 28, 1992, in the middle of the contracting process for the OTMH project, upholding the union’s grievance.  The Appellant concluded from the judgment that it could not thereafter contract with a non-IBEW union affiliate. 

 

On May 6, 1992, OTMH awarded the prime contract to the Appellant, which had submitted the lowest bid.  It had been widely known and expected that the Appellant would obtain the prime contract because of the low bid, as far back as January, 1992.  From that time, expecting that it would be performing the electrical work, the Respondent had sent personnel to the site to make drawings, set crew sizes, and plan the phasing of the electrical work.

 

The Appellant began to have serious concerns about using the Respondent on the project when the O.L.R.B. decision was released, and began to attempt to find an IBEW affiliated union to replace the Respondent.  The Appellant did not inform the Respondent that it was seeking an alternative contractor until April 15.

 

The Respondent sued, and was awarded damages for unjust enrichment at trial in the amount of $14,560, an amount corresponding to the costs of preparing the bid submitted to the Appellant.  The Respondent appealed and was awarded damages for breach of contract in the amount of $182,500 plus pre-judgment interest and costs.  The Appellant appeals from that decision on the issue of liability alone.  The Respondent cross-appeals on the issue of quantum of damages.

 

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

 

File No.:                                                                 27321

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     March 31, 1999

 

Counsel:                                                                                Earl A. Cherniak Q.C./Sandra L. Coleman/Lou-Anne F. Farrell

for the Appellant

Alan A. Farrer and Leah K. Bowness for the Respondent

 

 


27321                      Ellis-Don Construction Ltd. c. Naylor Group Incorporated et Naylor Group Incorporated c. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd.

 

Droit commercial - Contrats - Processus d’appel d’offres - Système de dépôt des offres - L’entrepreneur principal refuse de conclure un contrat de construction avec le sous-traitant qui avait soumis la meilleure offre en raison d’un problème d’incompatibilité se rapportant à la main d’oeuvre - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en supposant l’existence d’une clause dans le contrat A qui obligeait l’entrepreneur principal à conclure le contrat B à moins qu’il ait un motif raisonnable de ne pas faire appel aux services du sous-traitant? - Même si le contrat A comprenait une telle clause, la Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que l’opposition d’Ellis-Down n’était pas raisonnable? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en concluant que la décision de la Commission des relations de travail de l’Ontario (la CRTO) ne rendait pas le contrat A inexécutable?

 

En 1991, l’hôpital Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial (l’HOTM) a lancé un appel d’offres, par l’entremise du bureau de dépôt des soumissions de Toronto, pour un projet de rénovation et de construction d’une annexe.  L’appelante a soumis l’offre la plus basse pour les travaux, et l’intimée a soumis l’offre la plus basse à Ellis‑Don pour les travaux électriques, au montant de 5 541 232 $.  Les représentants des parties se sont rencontrés pour discuter des détails de leur collaboration et, en particulier, l’intimée a dit à l’appelante qu’elle avait une convention collective avec un syndicat qui n’était pas affilié à la Fraternité internationale des ouvriers en électricité (la FIOE).  L’appelante a dit à l’intimée que cela n’était pas un problème. 

 

L’intimée était vaguement au courant que l’appelante était en conflit avec la FIOE, qui avait déposé un grief contre cette dernière en 1989, alléguant que celle-ci n’avait pas le droit de conclure des contrats avec des entreprises dont le syndicat n’était pas affilié avec la FIOE.  L’affaire a été entendue par la CRTO en 1990; l’audience a duré dix-huit jours et le prononcé du jugement a été suspendu.  Le jugement, accueillant le grief du syndicat, a été rendu le 28 février 1992, pendant le processus contractuel du projet de l’HOTM.  L’appelante a alors conclu d’après le jugement qu’elle ne pouvait plus conclure des contrats avec des entreprises dont le syndicat n’était pas affilié à la FIOE. 

 

Le 6 mai 1992, l’HOTM a accordé le contrat principal à l’appelante, qui avait soumis l’offre la plus basse.  Depuis janvier 1992, tout le monde s’attendait déjà grandement à ce que l’appelante obtienne le contrat principal, en raison de son offre basse.  À partir de ce moment, l’intimée, prévoyant faire le travail en électricité, avait envoyé des employés sur le site pour préparer les plans, déterminer la taille des équipes et planifier les phases du travail en électricité.

 

Quand la CRTO a rendu sa décision, l’appelante a commencé à avoir de sérieuses appréhensions quant au fait de faire appel aux services de l’intimée pour le projet, et elle a tenté de trouver une entreprise dont le syndicat était affilié à la FIOE pour remplacer l’intimée.  L’appelante n’a pas avisé l’intimée qu’elle était à la recherche d’un autre entrepreneur avant le 15 avril.

 

L’intimée a intenté une action et s’est vu accorder des dommages-intérêts au montant de 14 560 $ pour enrichissement injustifié, montant qui représente les coûts de préparation de l’offre soumise à l’appelante.  L’intimée a interjeté appel de cette décision et s’est vue accorder des dommages-intérêts, en raison de la rupture du contrat, au montant de 182 500 $, ainsi que les intérêts avant jugement et les dépens.  L’appelante se pourvoit contre cette décision sur la question de la responsabilité seulement.  L’intimée interjette un pourvoi incident relativement au quantum des dommages.

 

Origine :                                                 Ontario

No du greffe :                                         27321

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                   Le 31 mars 1999

Avocats :                                               Earl A. Cherniak c.r./Sandra L. Coleman/ Lou-Anne F. Farrell pour l’appelante

Alan A. Farrer et Leah K. Bowness pour l’intimée

 

 


27410                      Martin Richard McKinley v. BC Tel et al

 

Labour law - Master and servant - Contract of Employment - Dismissal without cause - Damages - Jury Trial - Charge to the Jury - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the Respondents’ appeal and setting aside the verdict of the jury - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the Appellant’s cross appeal on punitive damages - Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct approach to just cause - Whether this is a case where the action ought to be dismissed in preference to an order for a new trial.

 

This is a wrongful dismissal action. At the date of trial, November 1997, the Appellant was 51 years of age and had been employed by the company for 17 years. The Appellant is a chartered accountant, and at the date of dismissal he was controller, treasurer and assistant secretary to one of the B.C. Tel group of companies. His base salary was $94,200 plus benefits. In October 1993, the Appellant began to experience high blood pressure as a result of hypertension. At the outset, this condition was controlled by medication and time off. However, by the spring of the next year, it was on the rise, and by June 12 it was rising on a daily basis. The Appellant “went off work” on doctor’s orders. In late June or early July 1994, the Appellant’s superior, Mr. Mansfield, raised the question of terminating the Appellant’s employment. The Appellant indicated that he wished to return to work, but at a job with less responsibility and less remuneration. Mr. Mansfield told him, that the company would do what it could to find another position within the company itself. The Appellant was not offered such a position, although jobs in areas of his expertise appear to have become available during this period of time, but the openings were filled by others.  The Appellant, Mr. Mansfield and the human resources manager of the company met on August 31, 1994. The Appellant was dismissed and an offer of severance was made, which was rejected by him. As far as the Appellant was concerned, no reason was given to him for his dismissal.

 

The Respondents took the position that the Appellant was dishonest, and this arises out of certain information given to the company by the Appellant that his hypertension could not be controlled by medication without risking his health. What the Respondents were not told was that one of the attending specialists, Dr. Graff, an internal medicine and cardiac specialist, had advised the Appellant that there was a medication - the beta blocker - that, to use the Respondent’s words, “might enable him to do his job without a risk to his health”. The Appellant testified that he wanted to change jobs within the company.  The Respondents’ position was that the Appellant was deliberately not telling the truth about what he had been told by Dr. Graff as to returning to his job as controller and controlling the high blood pressure with beta blockers without risk to his health. The reason for this being, as asserted by the Respondents, that what the Appellant wanted was a different position within the company which he would see as being less demanding. The Appellant’s evidence was that he did not lie to the Respondents.

 

After a trial by judge and jury, the Appellant was awarded general damages, special damages, aggravated damages, an amount in pension contributions, prejudgement interest and costs. The Court of Appeal held that the jury award must be set aside and a new trial ordered, the  cross appeal on punitive damages was also dismissed. The Respondents were entitled to their costs of the appeal, and no order as to costs was made in the cross appeal. The Court ordered that costs in the court below would be left to the discretion of the judge hearing the new trial.

 

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

 

File No.:                                                                 27410

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     May 7, 1999

 

Counsel:                                                                                D. Murray Tevlin for the Appellant

Jack Giles Q.C. for the Respondent

 

 


27410                      Martin Richard McKinley c. BC Tel et al

 

Droit du travail - Commettant et préposé - Contrat d’emploi - Congédiement injustifié - Dommages-intérêts - Procès avec jury - Directives données au jury - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en accueillant l’appel interjeté par les intimées et en annulant le verdict rendu par le jury? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en rejetant l’appel incident interjeté par l’appelant sur la question des dommages-intérêts exemplaires? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle adopté la démarche appropriée quant au motif valable? - S’agit-il d’un cas dans lequel l’action doit être rejetée de préférence à la délivrance d’une ordonnance de nouveau procès?

 

Il s’agit d’une poursuite pour congédiement injustifié.  À la date du procès, soit en novembre 1997, l’appelant avait 51 ans et travaillait pour la société depuis 17 ans.  L’appelant est comptable agréé et, au moment de son congédiement, il exerçait les charges de contrôleur, de trésorier et de secrétaire adjoint pour l’un des groupes appartenant à B.C. Tel.  Son salaire de base s’établissait à 94 200 $, sans compter les bénéfices qu’il recevait.  En octobre 1993, l’appelant a commencé à ressentir les effets d’une pression artérielle élevée due à l’hypertension.  Dès le départ, ce sont les médicaments et le repos qui ont contribué à stabiliser son état de santé.  Cependant, sa pression artérielle est revenue à la hausse au printemps de l’année suivante et, à partir du 12 juin, elle augmentait de jour en jour.  L’appelant a « pris congé » suivant les recommandations de son médecin.  Vers la fin juin ou le début juillet de l’année 1994, le superviseur de l’appelant, M. Mansfield, a soulevé la question de la mise à pied de l’appelant.  L’appelant a indiqué qu’il souhaitait revenir au travail, mais avec un poste moins rémunérateur et comportant moins de responsabilités.  M. Mansfield l’a informé que la société s’efforcerait de lui trouver un autre poste au sein de la société même.  L’appelant ne s’est pas fait offrir un tel poste, malgré qu’il semble y avoir eu des offres d’emploi dans son domaine d’expertise au cours de cette période; cependant ces postes ont été pourvus par d’autres personnes.  L’appelant, M. Mansfield et le directeur des ressources humaines de la société se sont réunis le 31 août 1994.  L’appelant a été congédié et une offre d’indemnité de cessation d’emploi lui a été faite, qu’il a rejetée.  Selon l’appelant, aucun motif ne lui a été fourni au soutien de son congédiement.

 

Les intimées sont d’avis que l’appelant n’a pas été honnête, et ce point de vue se fonde sur certains renseignements donnés par l’appelant à la société portant que son hypertension ne pouvait être contrôlée avec des médicaments sans constituer une menace à sa santé.  Ce que les intimées n’ont pas su, c’est que l’un des médecins traitants, le Dr Graff, un spécialiste en médecine interne et en cardiologie, a informé l’appelant qu’il existait un médicament - le béta‑bloquant - qui, pour reprendre les termes utilisés par l’intimée, [TRADUCTION] « pourrait lui permettre d’exercer ses fonctions sans porter atteinte à sa santé ».  L’appelant a témoigné qu’il souhaitait changer d’emploi au sein de la société.  Les intimées font valoir que l’appelant a délibérément menti à propos de ce que le Dr. Graff lui a dit relativement au fait de retrouver son emploi de contrôleur et de contrôler sa pression artérielle élevée avec des béta-bloquants sans que sa santé ne soit menacée.  Les intimées soutiennent que l’appelant aurait agi ainsi parce qu’il voulait obtenir un poste différent au sein de la société qu’il percevrait comme étant moins exigeant.  L’appelant soutient qu’il n’a pas menti aux intimées.

 

Au terme d’un procès avec juge et jury, l’appelant s’est vu accorder des dommages-intérêts généraux, des dommages-intérêts spéciaux, des dommages-intérêts exemplaires, une somme pour les cotisations à un régime de retraite, les intérêts antérieurs au jugement et les dépens.  La Cour d’appel a conclu que les sommes accordées par le jury devaient être annulées, ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès et rejeté l’appel incident sur la question des dommages-intérêts exemplaires.  Les intimées se sont vus adjuger les dépens en appel, et aucune ordonnance quant aux dépens n’a été rendue pour l’appel incident.  La Cour a ordonné que la question de l’attribution des dépens dans les instances inférieures soit laissée à l’appréciation du juge qui présidera à l’audition du nouveau procès.

 

Origine :                                                                 Colombie-Britannique

No du greffe :                                                         27410

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel :                                   Le 7 mai 1999

Avocats :                                                               D. Murray Tevlin pour l’appelant

Jack Giles, c.r., pour l’intimée

 


27356                      Westec Aerospace Inc. v. Raytheon Aircraft Company

 

International law - Forum non conveniens - Whether unfairness and injustice bar an appeal to forum conveniens - Whether the applicant must show that the foreign forum is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the local forum - Whether there is a special rule for “parallel” proceedings.

 

The Respondent is a Kansas company which carries on its business of manufacturing aircraft in Kansas. The Appellant is a British Columbia company which carries on business in British Columbia. In 1989, the Appellant entered into a licensing contract with the Respondent for the use of certain computer software the Appellant had developed, together with various hardware components. The Appellant delivered the software and hardware to the Respondent in Kansas for use in Kansas. The Appellant alleges that it agreed to provide the Respondent with the source code used to develop the software and that the Respondent agreed to return all of the products to the Appellant on termination of the agreement, but that the Respondent failed to return those products.

 

On March 12, 1998, the Appellant made a settlement offer to the Respondent that was open for acceptance until noon on March 31, 1998. In its letter extending the settlement offer, the Appellant stated that legal proceedings would be commenced if the matters in dispute were not resolved. On March 31, 1998, less than an hour before the expiry of the time period for acceptance of the settlement offer, the Respondent filed suit against the Appellant in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. In that action, the Respondent sought declaratory relief that it owed nothing to the Appellant. On May 28, 1998, the Appellant commenced an action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for damages against the Respondent and claimed the right to serve the Writ and Statement of Claim ex juris. After commencing its action in British Columbia, the Appellant filed an Answer in the Respondent’s action in which it sought damages against the Respondent if the court in Kansas proceeded with the suit. The action was expected to be tried before a jury in the fall of 1999.

 

The Respondent moved for an order from the Supreme Court of British Columbia to set aside service of the Writ ex juris, and asked the Court to exercise its discretion and decline its jurisdiction given that largely parallel proceedings were already under way. That application was dismissed on December 10, 1998. The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the Respondent’s appeal and granted an order staying the Appellant’s action in British Columbia.

 

Origin of the case:                                                British Columbia

 

File No.:                                                                 27356

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     April 19, 1999

 

Counsel:                                                                                John Douglas Shields for the Appellant

Thomas S. Hawkins for the Respondent

 

 


27356                      Westec Aerospace c. Raytheon Aircraft Company

 

Droit international - Forum non conveniens - L’inéquité et l’injustice empêchent-elles un appel au forum conveniens? - Le demandeur doit-il démontrer que le forum étranger est clairement ou distinctement plus approprié que le forum local? - Existe-t-il une règle spéciale pour les procédures «parallèles»?

 

L’intimée est une société exploitant une entreprise de fabrication d’avions au Kansas. L’appelante est une société exploitant une entreprise en Colombie-Britannique. En 1989, l’appelante a conclu un contrat d’autorisation avec l’intimée pour l’utilisation de certains logiciels qu’elle avait mis au point ainsi que de différents composants de matériel informatique. L’appelante a livré les logiciels et le matériel informatique à l’intimée au Kansas à des fins d’utilisation à cet endroit. L’appelante allègue qu’elle a accepté de fournir à l’intimée le code source utilisé pour développer les logiciels et que l’intimée a accepté de lui renvoyer tous les produits à la fin de l’entente, mais que cette dernière ne les lui a pas retournés.

 

Le 12 mars 1998, l’appelante a fait à l’intimée une offre de règlement valide jusqu’au 31 mars 1998, à midi. Dans sa lettre prolongeant l’offre de règlement, l’appelant a indiqué que des procédures judiciaires seraient entreprises si les questions en litige n’étaient pas réglées. Le 31 mars 1998, moins d’une heure avant l’expiration du délai d’acceptation de l’offre de règlement, l’intimée a déposé une action contre l’appelante devant la cour de district des États-Unis pour le district du Kansas. Dans cette action, l’intimée a sollicité un jugement déclaratoire concluant qu’elle ne devait rien à l’appelante. Le 28 mai 1998, l’appelante a intenté une action en dommages-intérêts contre l’intimée devant la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique et a sollicité le droit de faire signifier le bref et la déclaration ex juris. Après avoir institué son action en Colombie-Britannique, l’appelante a déposé une réponse à l’action de l’intimée, dans laquelle elle réclamait des dommages-intérêts contre l’intimée dans le cas où la poursuite était continuée devant la cour du Kansas. L’action devait faire l’objet d’un procès devant un jury à l’automne 1999.

 

L’intimée a sollicité de la Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique une ordonnance annulant la signification du bref ex juris et lui a demandé d’exercer son pouvoir discrétionnaire pour décliner juridiction étant donné que des procédures en grande partie parallèles étaient déjà en cours. Cette demande a été rejetée le 10 décembre 1998. La Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique a accueilli l’appel de l’intimée et a rendu une ordonnance suspendant l’action intentée par l’appelante en Colombie-Britannique.

 

Origine:                                                  Colombie-Britannique

 

No du greffe:                                          27356

 

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                    Le 19 avril 1999

 

Avocats:                                                                John Douglas Shields pour l’appelante

Thomas S. Hawkins pour l’intimée

 


27776                      Kenneth Deane v. Her Majesty The Queen

 

Criminal law - Evidence - Failure to hold voir dire - Appellant police officer charged with criminal negligence in shooting of demonstrator - Officer required to report the shooting to his commander - Report to commander admitted into evidence without voir dire - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in applying the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) to uphold the Appellant’s conviction for criminal negligence causing death.

 

Ipperwash Provincial Park was occupied by a group of First Nations people in early August 1995 in connection with a land claim dispute.  As result of certain incidents, a crowd management unit of the Ontario Provincial Police (CMU) was instructed to secure a sand-covered roadway just outside the Park.  On the night of September 6, 1995, the CMU assembled and walked towards the Park.  They were supported by armed members of the Ontario Provincial Police Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU).  The Appellant had been a member of TRU for 10 years and was an Acting Sergeant.

 

When the CMU approached, people on the roadway retreated into the Park.  The police retreated, but some of the occupiers came out of the Park.  The CMU was commanded to rush towards them.  During the confrontations, the Appellant fired three shots at a man who was crouched in front of the sand-covered roadway.  This man, Dudley George, subsequently died from the injuries.  The Appellant proceeded to “fall back” with the rest of the CMU to their headquarters, the Tactical Operations Centre (TOC) site.

 

The Appellant was charged with criminal negligence causing death.  The Crown’s position at trial was that the Appellant had fired a spray of bullets randomly towards the Park.  The Appellant testified and denied that he had shot randomly into the Park.  He said that he had seen muzzle flashes from a sandy berm and fired his rifle at the muzzle flashes.  He saw a man with a rifle move from the sandy berm and hide down by a ditch.  The man aimed his rifle at the police and then the Appellant fired three bullets at him.

 

The Appellant was cross-examined with respect to statements that he made, or did not make, both during and immediately after the shooting.  Each officer had a walkie-talkie and could relay statements to other TRU members during the confrontations.  These communications were monitored by a supervising officer, Sgt. Skinner, located at the TOC site.  The second stage of communications was during the “fall back” and the third stage was at the TOC site itself, during which the Appellant testified that he made verbal reports to Sgt. Skinner.  No voir dire was held with respect to the statements made during these time periods.  During the Appellant’s cross-examination, defence counsel objected to the lack of a voir dire.  The trial judge ruled that there was no requirement for a voir dire because the statements were not made to someone in a position to control or influence the judicial proceedings.

 

The Appellant was convicted of criminal negligence causing death.  On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.  Weiler J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the trial judge had erred in failing to conduct a voir dire with respect to the admissibility of three statements of the Appellant.

 

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

 

File No.:                                                                 27776

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     February 18, 2000

 

Counsel:                                                                                Alan D. Gold for the Appellant

Milan Rupic for the Respondent

 


27776                      Kenneth Deane c. Sa Majesté la Reine

 

Droit criminel - Preuve - Omission de tenir un voir-dire - L’appelant, un policier, a été accusé de négligence criminelle en tirant sur un manifestant - Le policier est tenu de rapporter l’incident à son  commandant - Le rapport au commandant a été admis en preuve sans qu’un voir-dire ne soit tenu - La Cour d’appel à la majorité a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en appliquant la disposition réparatrice du sous-al. 686(1)b)(iii) pour confirmer la déclaration de culpabilité de l’appelant pour négligence criminelle causant la mort?

 

Un groupe des membres des Première Nations occupait le parc provincial d’Ipperwash au début du mois d’août 1995 au sujet d’une revendication territoriale.  En raison de certains incidents, une unité de contrôle des foules de la Police provinciale de l’Ontario (UCF) a reçu l’ordre d’assurer la sécurité d’une chaussée sablonneuse située juste à l’extérieur du parc.  Dans la soirée du 6 septembre 1995, l’UCF s’est réunie et s’est dirigée vers le parc.  Elle avait le soutien de membres armés de l’Unité tactique et de secours de la Police provinciale de l’Ontario (UTS).  L’appelant appartenait à l’UTS depuis 10 ans et était sergent intérimaire.

 

Quand l’UCF s’est approchée, des personnes qui se trouvaient sur la chaussée se sont retirées dans le parc.  La police a battu en retraite, mais certains des occupants sont sortis du parc.  L’UCF a reçu l’ordre de se précipiter sur eux.  Au cours des affrontements, l’appelant a tiré trois coups de feu sur un homme qui était accroupi face à la chaussée sablonneuse.  Cet homme, Dudley George, est par la suite décédé de ses blessures.  L’appelant et les autres membres de l’UCF «se sont repliés» dans leur quartier général, le site du Centre des opérations tactiques (COT).

 

L’appelant a été accusé de négligence criminelle causant la mort.  Au procès, le ministère public a prétendu que l’appelant avait tiré une grêle de balles au hasard en direction du parc.  L’appelant a témoigné et a nié avoir tiré des coups de feu au hasard dans le parc.  Il a dit qu’il avait vu des lueurs de départ provenant d’un talus sablonneux et qu’il avait tiré en direction de celles-ci.  Il a vu un homme avec un fusil quitter le talus sablonneux pour se cacher dans un fossé.  L’homme a pointé son arme sur la police et, par la suite, l’appelant a tiré trois coups de feu sur lui.

 

L’appelant a été contre-interrogé relativement aux déclarations qu’il a faites, ou n’a pas faites, pendant et immédiatement après l’incident.  Chaque agent était muni d’un talkie-walkie et pouvait retransmettre les déclarations à d’autres membres de l’UTS durant les affrontements.  Un agent surveillant qui se trouvait sur le site du COT, le sergent Skinner, écoutait ces communications.  La deuxième période de communications a eu lieu durant le «repli» et la troisième période de communications, au cours de laquelle l’appelant a, selon son témoignage, fait des rapports verbaux au sergent Skinner, s’est déroulée sur le site même du COT.  Aucun voir-dire n’a été tenu relativement aux déclarations faites au cours de ces trois périodes.  Durant le contre-interrogatoire de l’appelant, l’avocat de la défense s’est opposé à l’absence de voir-dire.  Le juge du procès a conclu qu’il n’y avait aucune obligation de tenir un voir-dire parce que les déclarations n’avaient pas été faites à une personne susceptible d’avoir quelque influence ou pouvoir sur les poursuites judiciaires.

 

L’appelant a été déclaré coupable de négligence criminelle causant la mort.  La Cour d’appel à la majorité a rejeté l’appel.  Le juge Weiler, dissident, était d’avis d’accueillir l’appel pour le motif que le juge du procès avait commis une erreur en ne tenant pas de voir-dire relativement à l’admissibilité de trois déclarations de l’appelant.

 

Origine:                                                                  Ontario

 

No du greffe:                                                          27776

 

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                                    18 février 2000

 

Avocats:                                                                                Alan D. Gold pour l’appelant

Milan Rupic pour l’intimée

 

 


27800                      Her Majesty The Queen v. Lorie Ferguson

 

Criminal law - Trial - Jury - Trial judge fulfilled the jury’s request for a transcript of the Crown’s closing address - Whether the trial judge erred in doing so - If not, did the trial judge err by not also providing a copy of defence counsel’s closing address, which neither the jury nor defence counsel requested - Whether the trial was rendered unfair, causing a miscarriage of justice, solely because the trial judge with the consent of both counsel, fulfilled the jury’s request for a copy of the Crown’s address, but did not provide a copy of the defence address - How significant is defence counsel’s failure to object at trial or to request that a copy of defence counsel’s closing address be provided to the jury in assessing whether there has been a miscarriage of justice?

 

The Respondent and Mr. David Rick Horne had lived together for 14 years.  By all accounts, the relationship was warm and affectionate.  They had two daughters, Jennifer, born in 1983, and Simone, born in 1989.  The couple owned four hunting rifles, which they kept in a locked gun cabinet in their basement.  The ammunition case was also locked.  Both Mr. Horne and Ms. Ferguson had the proper gun licences and both knew how to use the guns.  Both drank heavily.  Mr. Horne was the only one who had paid employment.

 

During the course of Sunday, June 16, 1996, Ms. Ferguson had 4 or 5 beers, while Mr. Horne had 7 or 8 and smoked some hashish oil.  They were at friends during the day and returned home at 4:30 pm.  Mr. Horne got angry at Ms. Ferguson because she was not cooking the roast for dinner.  Her assertion that it was too late for her to cook it, led to an argument in which he complained about Ms. Ferguson not having a job.  After the children went to bed, they sat on the couch drinking beer and continued their argument.  The argument continued in the bedroom.  Ms. Ferguson testified that Mr. Horne suddenly left the bedroom and returned with a rifle which he aimed at her telling her to get out.  She pushed him and tried to knock the rifle out of his hand.  A struggle ensued and a shot was fired.  Ms. Ferguson said that she found herself holding the gun, but did not know how the gun was fired or who fired it.

 

At trial, the Crown’s closing statement was a reiteration of all the evidence supporting its theory that Ms. Ferguson intended to shoot and kill Mr. Horne.  In his closing statement, counsel for Ms. Ferguson referred to the Crown’s evidence and tried to persuade the jury that it was equally consistent with her defence that the death of Mr. Horne was an accident.  After about 2 and a half hours after retiring to deliberate, the jury asked for a transcript of that part of the judge’s charge relating to manslaughter.  Two hours later, the jury requested a transcript of the Crown’s closing address.  Each juror was given a copy of the trial judge’s instructions on manslaughter and the Crown’s closing address.  The jury deliberated for an hour and a half that evening and for another two and a half hours the next morning before they announced their verdict convicting the Respondent of second degree murder.

 

On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.  Laskin J.A. dissenting on the basis that neither the fairness nor the appearance of fairness of this trial was so compromised by providing a transcript of the Crown’s closing address to the jury that a miscarriage of justice occurred.

 

Origin of the case:                                                Ontario

 

File No.:                                                                 27800

 

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:                     February 14, 2000

 

Counsel:                                                                                M. David Lepofsky and Gregory J. Tweney for the Appellant

Michelle K. Fuerst for the Respondent

 

 


27800                      Sa Majesté la Reine c. Lorie Ferguson

 

Droit criminel - Procès - Jury - Le juge du procès a accepté la demande formulée par le jury pour obtenir la transcription de l’exposé final du ministère public - Le juge du procès a-t-il commis une erreur en acceptant la demande? - Si non, le juge du procès a-t-il commis une erreur en ne fournissant pas également au jury une copie de l’exposé final de l’avocat de la défense, que ni le jury ni l’avocat de la défense n’ont demandée? - Le procès est-il devenu inéquitable, donnant lieu à un déni de justice, pour la seule raison que le juge du procès a, avec le consentement des deux avocats, accepté la demande du jury d’obtenir une copie de l’exposé du ministère, sans fournir une copie de l’exposé de la défense? - Afin de déterminer s’il y a eu déni de justice, quel poids doit-on accorder à l’omission de l’avocat de la défense de s’opposer au cours du procès ou de demander qu’une copie de son exposé final soit fournie au jury?

 

L’intimée et M. David Rick Horne ont vécu ensemble 14 ans.  Au dire de tous, ils entretenaient une relation chaleureuse et affectueuse.  Le couple a deux filles, soit Jennifer, née en 1983, et Simone, née en 1989.  Ils possédaient quatre carabines de chasse qu’ils gardaient dans un meuble sous clé au sous-sol.  La boîte de munitions était également sous clé.  M. Horne et Mme Ferguson détenaient les permis de port d’armes requis et tous deux savaient comment se servir des armes.  Tous deux consommaient beaucoup d’alcool.  M. Horne était le seul à avoir un emploi rémunéré.

 

Dans la journée du dimanche 16 juin 1996, Mme Ferguson a consommé 4 ou 5 bières, alors que M. Horne en a consommé 7 ou 8 et a fumé un peu d’huile de hachisch.  Ils se trouvaient chez des amis durant la journée et ils sont revenus à la maison à 16 h 30.  M. Horne s’est mis en colère contre Mme Ferguson parce que celle-ci ne faisait pas cuire le rôti pour le souper.  Elle prétendait qu’il était trop tard pour commencer la cuisson, ce qui a donné lieu à une dispute au cours de laquelle M. Horne s’est plaint du fait que Mme Ferguson était sans emploi.  Après que les enfants furent couchées, M. Horne et Mme Ferguson se sont mis à boire de la bière sur le divan et se sont remis à se disputer.  La dispute s’est poursuivie dans la chambre à coucher.  Mme Ferguson a témoigné que M. Horne est soudainement parti de la chambre pour y retourner avec une carabine qu’il a pointée vers elle, en lui ordonnant de sortir.  Elle l’a bousculé et a tenté de lui enlever la carabine des mains.  Ils se sont débattus et un coup est parti.  Mme Ferguson a déclaré qu’elle s’est retrouvée avec la carabine dans les mains, mais qu’elle ne savait pas comment le coup est parti et qui a appuyé sur la détente.

 

Au procès, l’exposé final du ministère public consistait en une réitération de tous les éléments de preuve au soutien de la théorie portant que Mme Ferguson avait l’intention de tirer sur M. Horne et de le tuer.  Dans son exposé final, l’avocat de Mme Ferguson a renvoyé aux éléments de preuve du ministère public et a tenté de convaincre le jury que ces éléments de preuve étaient également compatibles avec la défense de Mme Ferguson, savoir que la mort de M. Horne était accidentelle.  Environ deux heures et demi après qu’il se soit retiré pour délibérer, le jury a demandé la transcription du passage de l’exposé du juge au jury à propos de l’homicide involontaire coupable.  Deux heures plus tard, le jury a demandé la transcription de l’exposé final du ministère public.  On a distribué à chaque juré une copie des directives du juge relativement à l’homicide involontaire coupable, de même qu’une copie de l’exposé final du ministère public.  Le jury a délibéré pendant une heure et demi ce soir-là et pendant deux heures et demi le lendemain matin avant de faire connaître un verdict de culpabilité, à l’endroit de l’intimée, pour meurtre au deuxième degré.

 

En appel, la Cour d’appel a accueilli l’appel à la majorité, annulé la déclaration de culpabilité et ordonné la tenue d’un nouveau procès.  Le juge Laskin a rédigé des motifs dissidents au motif que ni l’équité ni l’apparence d’équité du procès n’ont été mises en péril par la distribution au jury de la transcription de l’exposé final du ministère public au point où il y aurait eu déni de justice.

 

Origine:                                                                  Ontario

No du greffe:                                                          27800

Arrêt de la Cour d’appel:                                    Le 14 février 2000

Avocats:                                                                                M. David Lepofsky et Gregory J. Tweney pour l’appelante

Michelle K. Fuerst pour l’intimée

 


CUMULATIVE INDEX -                                                                                                         INDEX CUMULATIF - REQUÊTES

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO                                                                                   EN AUTORISATION DE POURVOI

APPEAL

 

 

This index includes applications for leave to appeal standing for judgment at the beginning of 2000 and all the applications for leave to appeal filed or heard in 2000 up to now.

 

Cet index comprend les requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi en délibéré au début de 2000 et toutes celles produites ou entendues en 2000 jusqu'à maintenant.

 


 

*01            Refused/Refusée

*02            Refused with costs/Refusée avec dépens

*03            Granted/Accordée

*04            Granted with costs/Accordée avec dépens

*05            Discontinuance filed/Désistement produit

*06            Others/Autres


 

*A             Applications for leave to appeal filed/Requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi produites

*B             Submitted to the Court/Soumises à la Cour

*C             Oral Hearing/Audience

*D             Reserved/En délibéré

 


Status/                     Disposition/

CASE/AFFAIRE                                                                                                                          Statut                       Résultat                                                                       Page                                                                                      

 

 

146726 Canada Inc. v. City of Montreal (Que.), 27941, *A                                                1222(00)

1858-0894 Québec Inc. c. Compagnie d’assurance Standard Life (Qué.), 27302, 

   *02 27.1.00                                                                                                                                 1752(99)                           157(00)

2849-6180 Québec Inc. c. 3099-2325 Québec Inc. (Qué.), 27557, *02 22.6.00                 993(00)                             1181(00)

2858-0702 Québec Inc. c. Lac D’Amiante du Québec Ltée (Qué.), 27324, *03

   27.1.00                                                                                                                                         15(00)                               162(00)

2859-8803 Québec Inc. c. Jean Fortin & Associés Inc. (Qué.), 27368, *02 2.3.00           206(00)                             395(00)

2953-6778 Québec Inc c. Gallagher (Qué.), 27908, *02 5.10.00                                         1453(00)                           1615(00)

151730 Canada Inc. c. 167593 Canada Inc. (Qué.), 28271, *A                                        2227(00)

156036 Canada Inc. c. Les Pétroles Therrien Inc. (Qué.), 27158, *02 27.1.00                  16(00)                               163(00)

158514 Canada Inc. c. Stéphane Lachance & Associés Inc. (Qué.), 28082, *A             1445(00)

248524 Alberta Ltd. v. 155569 Canada Ltd. (Alta.), 27828, *B                                         1473(00)

539938 Ontario Ltd. v. Derksen (Ont.), 27524, *03 25.5.00                                                  785(00)                             956(00)

592123 B.C. Ltd. v. R. in right of British Columbia (B.C.), 28127, *A                              1596(00)

605715 Saskarchewan Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Licensing

   Commission (Sask.), 28152, *A                                                                                              2162(00)

610990 Ontario Inc. v. Business Development Bank of Canada (Ont.), 27479, *01

   3.2.00                                                                                                                                           19(00)                               214(00)

656203 Ontario Inc. v. Soloway, Wright (Ont.), 27525, *02 12.10.00                                 1126(00)                           1764(00)

698114 Alberta Ltd. v. Town of Banff (Alta.), 28209, *A                                                     2226(00)

702535 Ontario Inc. v. Tinmouth (Ont.), 27932, *02 16.11.00                                              1866(00)                           2076(00)

1238157 Ontario Inc. v. Corporation of the City of Brampton (Ont.), 27933, *02

   16.11.00  1869(00)                                                                                                                      2080(00)

A.H. c. Institut Philippe Pinel (Qué.), 27854, *02 23.11.00                                                   1930(00)                           2125(00)

A.H. c. Melançon (Qué.), 27937, *02 23.11.00                                                                         1931(00)                           2126(00)

A.K. v. The Queen (Ont.), 27697, *01 11.5.00                                                                           662(00)                             888(00)

A.K. v. The Queen (Sask.), 28028, *A                                                                                       1443(00)

A.-L. T. v. W.B.  (Que.), 27814, *02 25.5.00                                                                                855(00)                             965(00)

A.L.R. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27659, *03 27.7.00                                                           1119(00)                           1374(00)

Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of


   Canada, Local 63 (Nfld.), 28050, *A                                                                                    1441(00)

Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. (F.C.A.), 27051, *B                                        787(99)

ABI Biotechnology Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (Man.), 27795, *02  21.9.00                                     1369(00)                           1521(00)

AGB Halifax Enterprises Inc. v. Wood Street Developments Inc. (Ont.), 27668,

  *02 10.8.00                                                                                                                                  1077(00)                           1391(00)

Advanced Management Enterprises Limited v. Pate’s Variety Inc. (Ont.),

    28173, *A                                                                                                                                  1861(00)

Agricore Cooperative Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27347, *02 13.4.00                               450(00)                             675(00)

Ahani v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (F.C.A.), 27792, *04 25.5.00                  905(00)                             972(00)

Ahluwalia v. College of Physician and Surgeons of Manitoba (Man.), 27382,

   *02 6.4.00                                                                                                                                   491(00)                             613(00)

Aiken v. Aitken (B.C.), 27728, *02 11.5.00                                                                                724(00)                             870(00)

Air Wemindji Inc. v. Héli-Forex Inc. (Qué.), 27859, *02 5.10.00                                           1363(00)                           1626(00)

Albert v. Albert (Ont.), 27637, *02 10.8.00                                                                               1076(00)                           1390(00)

Ali c. Compagnie d’Assurance Guardian du Canada (Qué.), 27458, *01 8.6.00              857(00)                             1091(00)

All Seasons Display Inc. v. Mylett (B.C.), 28185, *A                                                             1924(00)

Alpha Laboratories Inc. v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27419, *02

    20.4.00                                                                                                                                        585(00)                             740(00)

Alvarez v. The Queen (B.C.), 28120, *B                                                                                    2270(00)

American Mobile Satellite Corp. v. Spar Aerospace Ltd. (Qué.), 28070, *A                   1446(00)

Andrew v. The Queen (Alta.), 28109, *01 21.12.00                                                                  2166(00)                           2350(00)

Anraj Fish Products Industries Ltd. v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. (F.C.A.),

   28125, *A                                                                                                                                   1596(00)

Antkiw v. Verscheure (Ont.), 27806, *02 5.10.00                                                                     1371(00)                           1628(00)

Apotex Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 28059, *A                                        1443(00)

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. (F.C.A.), 27764, *02  21.9.00                                                     1358(00)                           1516(00)

Arcand c. Denharco Inc. (Qué.), 27372, *02 13.4.00                                                              544(00)                             667(00)

Archibald v. The Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.A.), 28116, *A                                       1744(00)

Arcuri v. The Queen (Ont.), 27797, *03 15.6.00                                                                       1002(00)                           1137(00)

Arthur c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A.F.), 27772, *02 14.9.00                               1337(00)                           1494(00)

Aselford v. Ross (Qué.), 28088, *B                                                                                            2344(00)

Aseervathan (Vimalathas) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.), 28218,

   *A                                                                                                                                               2223(00)

Asservathan (Vimalathas) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.), 28232,

   *A                                                                                                                                               2224(00)

Ashmore v. Van Mol (B.C.), 27171, *01 20.1.00                                                                       2013(99)                           98(00)

Askey v The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 27607,

   *02 22.6.00                                                                                                                                 1003(009)                         1177(00)

Assiniboine South Teachers’ Association of the Manitoba Teachers’ Society v.

   Assiniboine South School Division No. 3 (Man.), 28115, *A                                          1595(00)

Association des policiers provinciaux du Québec c. Lauzon (Qué.), 27619, *01

   11.5.00                                                                                                                                         662(00)                             873(00)

Association des radiologistes du Québec c. Rochon (Qué.), 27313, *02 20.1.00              1968(99)                           101(00)

Association minière du Québec Inc. c. Bourbonnais (Qué.), 28135, *A                           1745(00)

Association pour la protection des automobilistes c. Édutile Inc. (C.A.F.),

   27981, *B                                                                                                                                    2168(00)

Atlas Industries v. Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (Sask.), 27402, *02

   20.4.00                                                                                                                                         584(00)                             738(00)

Atomic Energy Control Board v. Danilow (Ont.), 27632, *02 10.8.00                                1126(00)                           1394(00)

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. v. Sierra Club of Canada (F.C.A.), 28020, *B                 2341(00)


Attorney General of Canada v. Babcock (B.C.), 28091, *A                                                 1449(00)

Attorney General of Canada v. Harper (Alta.), 28210, *03 10.11.00                                   1995(00)                           2074(00)

Attorney General of Canada v. Matthews (F.C.A.), 27456, *02 20.4.00                             381(00)                             742(00)

Attorney General of Canada v. Pleau (N.S.), 27770, *01 28.9.00                                        1259(00)                           1529(00)

Attorney General of Nova Scotia v. Walsh (N.S.), 28179, *A                                              1923(00)

Attorney General of Ontario v. Starr (Ont.), 26514, *05 14.11.00                                        2097(00)                           2097(00)

Augustine v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 27695, *02 25.5.00                                                     853(00)                             963(00)

Auclair c. La Reine (Qué.), 28037, *B                                                                                      2116(00)

Austie v. Aksnowicz (Alta.), 27248, *02 17.2.00                                                                      136(00)                             304(00)

Autobus Thomas Inc. c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27804, *04 12.10.00                                           1456(00)                           1769(00)

Axa Boreal Assurances v. The Co-Operators Insurance Co. (Ont.), 28238, *A               2225(00)

Azar c. Gestion Hassake-Holdings Inc. (Qué.), 28001, *A                                                   1227(00)

Azco Mining Inc. c. Sam Lévy & Associés Inc. (Qué.), 27876, *04 29.6.00                         1124(00)                           1275(00)

Aziz v. United Used Auto & Truck Parts Ltd. (B.C.), 27824, *03 14.9.00                            1246(00)                           1491(00)

B. G. Schickedanz Investments Ltd. v. Szasz (Ont.), 27557, *A                                           1718(99)

Baas v. Jellema (B.C.), 27812, *02  9.11.00                                                                              1600(00)                           2011(00)

Backman v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27561, *04 8.6.00                                                                903(00)                             1087(00)

Bacon (Michel) c. La Reine (Qué.), 28147, *A                                                                      1746(00)

Bacon v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation (Sask.), 27469, *01 1.6.00           859(00)                             1015(00)

Bagola v. Ovadya (Ont.), 27691, *02 10.8.00                                                                           1234(00)                           1384(00)

Bailey c. The Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27427, *04 25.5.00                                591(00)                             968(00)

Bains v. Bhandar (B.C.), 28211, *A                                                                                          1925(00)

Banca Commerciale Italiana of Canada c. Soeurs du Bon Pasteur de Québec

   (Qué.), 27627, *02 29.6.00                                                                                                        1125(00)                           1275(00)

Bank of America Canada v. Clarica Trust Co. (Ont.), 27898,*03 14.9.00                          1329(00)                           1487(00)

Bank of Montreal v. Enchant Resources Ltd. (Alta.), 27766, *03 21.9.00                          1367(00)                           1519(00)

Bank of Montreal v. Korico Entreprises Ltd. (Ont.), 28224, *A                                         2225(00)

Banque nationale du Canada v. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.),

   26988, *B                                                                                                                                    1153(99)

Bannon v. The Coporation of the City of Thunder Bay (Ont.), 27985, *A                        1225(00)

Bareau v. Governors of the University of Alberta (Alta.), 27330, *02 27.1.00                   2015(99)                           167(00)

Barreau de Montréal c. Association professionnelle des sténographes officiels du

   Québec (Qué.), 27472, *05 13.5.00                                                                                          726(00)                             924(00)

Bayer Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27436, *01 15.6.00                             865(00)                             1135(00)

B.C. Shhickedanz Investments Ltd. v. Szasz (Ont.), 27558, *01 15.6.00                              867(00)                             1135(00)

B. Frégeau & Fils Inc. c. Société québecoise d’assainissement des eaux (Qué.),

   27942, *02 9.11.00                                                                                                                     1819(00)                           2013(00)

BDO Dunwoody Ltd. v. Superintendant of Bankruptcy (Man.), 27501, *03 25.5.00        785(00)                             957(00)

Barabasz v. Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Ont.), 28145, *A                              2162(00)

Beach v. United States of America (Crim.)(Man.), 27916, *01 5.10.00                                 1370(00)                           1627(00)

Beamish v. The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 27545, *01 8.6.00                                                        856(00)                             1090(00)

Beaver Lumber Co. v. Epoch (Ont.), 27193, *01 20.1.00                                                        1912(99)                           104(00)

Bedford v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 28004, *01 12.10.00                                                       1471(00)                           1773(00)

Bélanger c. Goulet (Qué.), 28178, *A                                                                                      1862(00)

Béliard c. Husbands (Qué.), 27241, *01 17.2.00                                                                      139(00)                             307(00)

Bell v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 28065, *A                                                                                     1441(00)

Bell Expressvu Ltd. Partnership v. Rex (B.C.), 28227, *A                                                    2162(00)

Bellegarde v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 27821, *01 12.10.00                                               1455(00)                           1768(00)

Belships (Far East) Shipping (Pte.) Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd.

   (F.C.A.), 27471, *02 25.5.00                                                                                                     731(00)                             970(00)


Benard v. The Queen (Man.), 27175, *01 13.4.00                                                                    386(00)                             668(00)

Ben-Hafsia c. City of Vancouver (B.C.), 27337, *02 27.1.00                                                  18(00)                               153(00)

Berendsen v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27312, *04 25.5.00                             452(00)                             967(00)

Bernardo v. The Queen (Ont.), 27925, *02  21.9.00                                                                1341(00)                           1501(00)

Bernier c. Commission de la Santé, de la Sécurité et de l’Indemnisation des

    accidents au travail du Nouveau-Brunswick (N.-B.), 28191, *A                                   1862(00)

Bernier c. Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec (Qué.), 27416, *01 27.4.00    594(00)                             763(00

Berry v. Pulley (Ont.), 27992, *B                                                                                               2073(00)

Bertrix Corp. c. Valeurs mobilières Desjardins Inc. (Qué.), 27401, *02 20.4.00               588(00)                             751(00)

Bérubé c. La Reine (Qué.), 27530, *01 20.1.00                                                                        1966(99)                           99(00)

Beyo v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27917, *01 5.10.00                                                              1353(00)                           1610(00)

Bhandar v. Bains (B.C.), 27199, *02 24.2.00                                                                            13(00)                               355(00)

Bhinder v. The Queen (B.C.), 27647, *02 22.6.00                                                                    1007(00)                           1182(00)

Biderman v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27841, *02 19.10.00                                                           1470(00)                           1826(00)

Biron (Jacques) c. Arthur Anderson Inc. (Qué.), 27426, *02 18.5.00                                  730(00)                             907(00)

Biron (Jacques), c. Champoux-Paillé (Qué.), 28216, *A                                                     2113(00)

Biron (Ronald) c. Lévesque Beaubien Geoffrion Inc. (Qué.), 28203, *A                          1924(00)

Biscuits Leclerc Ltée c. Compagnie d’assurance-vie Transamérica Occidental

   (Qué.), 28039, *A                                                                                                                      1440(00)

Black (David) v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27798, *01 29.6.00                                             1066(00)                           1266(00)

Black (Frederick) v. The Queen (N.S.), 27837, *01 14.9.00                                                  1250(00)                           1485(00)

Blackburn c. Boivin (Qué.), 28162, *A                                                                                    1860(00)

Blacklaws v. Morrow (Alta.), 28126, *A                                                                                 1596(00)

Blerot v. The Queen (Sask.), 27819, *02 26.10.00                                                                    1602(00)                           1876(00)

Bloom v. Meditrust Healthcare Inc. (Ont.), 27571, *02 6.4.00                                              485(00)                             608(00)

Bonamy v. Correctional Service Canada (F.C.A.), 28003, *02 23.11.00                            1928(00)                           2121(00)

Bonamy (Nicholas Y.) v. The Queen (B.C.), 28038, *01 16.11.00                                         1868(00)                           2079(00)

Bonamy v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27631, *01 25.5.00                                                         3(00)                                 954(00)

Boston v. Boston (Ont.), 27682, *03 16.3.00                                                                             298(00)                      502(00)

Boucher (Diane)  c. Doiron (N.-B.), 28278, *A                                                 2338(00)

Boucher (Maurice) c. La Reine (Qué.), 28280, *A                                            2339(00)

Boudreault c. Procureur général du Canada (C.A.F.), 27660, *02 24.8.00          1170(00)                   1410(00)

Bourbeau c. La Reine (Qué.), 27906, *01  21.9.00                                          1356(00)                   1514(00)

Boutilier v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27690, *02 31.8.00                1243(00)                   1478(00)

Braintech Inc. v. Kostiuk (B.C.), 27296, *02 9.3.00                                         297(00)                    453(00)

Brault & Bisaillon (1986) Inc. c. Éditions Le Canada Français Ltée (Qué.),

   27409,  *02 13.4.00                                                                                   388(00)                    671(00)

Brentwood Pioneer Holdings Ltd. v. Provincial Agricultural Land

   Commission (B.C.), 28013, *B                                                                   2340(00)

Brertton v. The Queen (Alta.), 26669, *01 30.3.00                                           441(00)                    600(00)

Brett v. Halifax Regional Municipality (N.S.), 27640, *02 29.6.00                       1067(00)                   1268(00)

Bri-Mel Developments Ltd. v. McLaren (Ont.), 27411, *02 11.5.00                     495(00)                    879(00)

Bridgesoft Systems Corp. v. The Queen in right of British Columbia (B.C.),

   28047, *A                                                                                                 1442(00)

British Aviation Insurance Group (Canada) Ltd. v. West Central Air Ltd. (Sask.),

   27590, *02 22.6.00                                                                                    952(00)                    1187(00)

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Tenneco Canada Inc. (B.C.),

   27507, *02 22.6.00                                                                                    989(99)                    1174(00)

British Columbia Institute of Technology v. Student Association of the British

   Columbia Institute of Technology (B.C.), 28240, *A                                     2163(00)


Bromby v. The Queen (Crim.)(Qué.), 28076, *01 23.11.00                                1996(00)                   2123(00)

Bromstein v. Khanna (Ont.), 27923, *02 14.9.00                                             1333(00)                   1493(00)

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. Litke (Man.), 27622,

   *02 10.8.00                                                                                              1013(00)                   1388(00)

Brown v. Synchronics Inc. (F.C.A.), 27405, *01 16.3.00                                   347(00)                    499(00)

Bruce Agra Foods Inc. v. Trilwood Investments Ltd (Ont.), 27260, *02 23.3.00  207(00)                    557(00)

Bryan v. The Queen (Man.), 27222, *01 3.2.00                                               94(00)                      211(00)

Buck Consultants Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27707, *02  21.9.00                  1459(00)                   1511(00)

Budreo v. The Queen (Ont.), 28230, *A                                                          2113(00)

Buhlers v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles for the Province of British Columbia

   (B.C.), 27268, *01 24.2.00                                                                         203(00)                    352(00)

Bull v. The Queen (Alta.), 26669, *01 30.3.00                                                 441(00)                    600(00)

Butcher v. Government of St. Lucia (Ont.), 27375, *02 11.5.00                        497(00)                    881(00)

Byer v. Bar of Montreal (Qué.), 28140, *A                                                       2226(00)

C.A.L. v. The Queen (N.S.), 27758, *01 22.6.00                                             988(00)                    1172(00)

C.L.L. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27564, *01 23.3.00                                    373(00)                    548(00)

C.S. c. Goupil (Qué.), 28138, *02 7.12.00                                                      2066(00)                   2235(00)

C.T. c. L.G. (Qué.), 28281, *A                                                                       2339(00)

C.V.M. v. The Queen (Alta.), 27779, *01 17.8.00                                            1160(00)                   1396(00)

Cabarat v. City of North York (Ont.), 28260, *A                                              2225(00)

Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27214, *02 3.2.00            92(00)                      209(00)

Cadillac Fairview Corp. v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (Sask.),

   27537, *01 30.3.00                                                                                    445(00)                    604(00)

Caine v. The Queen (B.C.), 28148, *A                                                           2223(00)

Calgary (City of) v. Nice (Alta.), 28161, *A                                                      1809(00)

Castineira v. The Queen (Qué.), 28186, *A                                                     1810(00)

Cameron v. Attorney-General of Nova Scotia (N.S.), 27584, *01 29.6.00           1073(00)                   1271(00)

Campbell (Dwaine) v. The Queen (Ont.), 27606, *05 23.12.99                          40(00)                      40(00)

Campbell v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27685, *02 22.6.00                                      1004(00)                   1178(00)

Campitelli v. The Corporation of the Town of Ajax (Ont.), 28156, *A                  1808(00)

Canadian Broadcasting Co. v. Thatcher (Sask.), 28246, *A                             2114(00)

Canadian Drug Manufacturers Assn. v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.),

   28059, *A                                                                                                 1443(00)

Canadian Newspapers Company Limited v. Hodgson (Ont.), 28136, *A             1745(00)

Carrie v. The Queen (B.C.), 27684, *01 11.5.00                                              589(00)                    884(000

Canada Life Assurance Co. v. Ryan (Nfld.), 27603, *02 3.8.00                         1000(00)                   1380(00)

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. v. Corporation of the District of North

   Vancouver (B.C.), 27874, *02 9.11.00                                                         1476(00)                   2010(00)

Canada Post Corp. v. Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association (F.C.A.),

   27377, *02 6.4.00                                                                                     492(00)                    614(00)

Canada Post Corp. c. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (N.S.), 28099, *A      1593(00)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Samos Investments Inc. (B.C.),

   28012, *02 21.12.00                                                                                  2229(00)                   2353(00)

Canadian Media Guild, Local 30213 of the Newspaper Guild v. Canadian

   Broadcasting Corp. (Nfld.), 27378, *02 6.4.00                                              540(00)                    611(00)

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 882 v. City of Prince Albert (Sask.),

   27816, *05 20.9.00                                                                                    1470(00)                   1642(00)

Can-Dive Services Ltd. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co. Inc. (B.C.), 27845, *02 26.10.00                            1816(00)           1881(00)

Cannella v. Toronto Transit Commission (Ont.), 27705, *01 14.9.00                 1245(00)                   1491(00)

Cape Breton -Vitoria Regional Shool Board v. Menzies (N.S.), 27962, *02 14.12.00                          2000(00)           2281(00)


Cardinal v. The Queen (Alta.), 26669, *01 30.3.00                                           441(00)                    600(00)

Carmichael v. The Queen (Ont.), 27634, *01 23.3.00                                       373(00)                    548(00)

Carrie v.  The Queen (B.C.), 27684, *A                                                          90(00)

Carrier c. Rochon (Qué.), 28234, *A                                                               2224(00)

Casey v. The Queen (Ont.), 28030, *01 7.12.00                                              2064(00)                   2233(00)

Castineira v. The Queen (Qué.), 28168, *A                                                     1810(00)

Caswell v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27538, *01 2.3.00                                    272(00)                    392(00)

Cavan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27582, *01 30.3.00                                    440(00)                    599(00)

Celik v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 28006, *B                 2272(00)

Celik v.  St. Paul Insurance Co. (Ont.), 28010, *B                                          2273(00)                  

Centra Gas Manitoba v. Bohemier (Man.), 27197, *02 20.1.00                         1967(99)                   100(00)

Challenge Team v. Revenue Canada (F.C.A.), 27946, *02 7.12.00                    1870(00)                   2232(00)

Chan v. Chiasson (Ont.), 27498, *02 18.5.00                                                  731(00)                    909(00)

Charland v. The Queen (Alta.), 28109 *01 21.12.00                                         2166(00)                   2350(00)

Chaoulli c. Ministre de la santé et des services sociaux (Qué.), 27910, *A         985(00)

Chase Manhattan Bank of Canada v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27740, *02 14.9.00  1261(00)                   1487(00)

Chaudhary v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27672, *01 25.5.00                              89(00)                      955(00)

Chief and Council of the Shubenacadie Indian Band v. Attorney General of Canada

   (F.C.A.), 28078, *A                                                                                   1446(00)

Chowdhury c. La Reine (Qué.), 28195, *A                                                       1863(00)

Chung v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27508, *01 27.1.00                                   2014(99)                   165(00)

CIBC Mortgage Corp. c. Vasquez (Qué.), 27963, *A                                        1159(00)

Cigana v. Millette (Que.), 28016, *A                                                               2161(00)

Cipollone v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 28035, *01 12.10.00                              1468(00)                   1773(00)

City of Calgary v. Saggers (28266, *A                                                            2339(00)

Clark v. The Queen (Alta.), 28242, *A                                                            2163(00)

Clarkson v. Government of the Kindgom of the Netherlands (B.C.), 28128, *01

   30.11.00                                                                                                  1998(00)                   2174(00)

Claveau c. Durand (Qué.), 27349, *02 2.3.00                                                  274(00)                    397(00)

Clay v. The Queen (Ont.), 28189, *A                                                              1923(00)

CLR Construction Labour Relations Associations of Saskatchewan v. PCL

   Industrial Constructors Inc. (Sask.), 27833, *02 26.10.00                             1471(00)                   1878(00)

Club Juridique c. Lafrenière (Qué.), 27633, *01 29.6.00                                   1074(00)                   1272(00)

Cobb v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 27610, *03 17.2.00                 142(00)                    310(00)

Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Pardhan (F.C.A.), 27392, *02 3.5.00                                    542(00)                    794(00)

Cogswell v. The Queen (N.B.), 28063, *05 26.10.00                                        1443(00)                   1946(00)

Collymore v. The Queen (Ont.), 27526, *01  28.9.00                                        1262(00)                   1523(00)

Comeau c. Comeau, (Qué.), 27692, *02 10.8.00                                             1234(00)                   1384(00)

Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders v.

   La Reine (Ont.), 27252, *03 27.1.00                                                            1964(99)                   155(00)

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail c. Société canadienne des

   postes (Qué.), 27311, *02 6.4.00                                                                350(00)                    616(00)

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse c. Centre

   dhébergement et de soins de longue durée Champlain-Manoir de

   Verdun (Qué.), 27639, *02 24.8.00                                                              1168(00)                   1408(00)

Commission des lésions professionnelles c. Société canadienne des postes (Qué.),

   27311, *02 6.4.00                                                                                     350(00)                    616(00)

Commission scolaire dIberville c. Syndicat de lenseignement du Haut-Richelieu

   (Qué.), 27369, *02 30.3.00                                                                         446(00)                    606(00)

Commission scolaire English-Montréal c. Procureure générale du Québec (Qué.),


   28196, *A                                                                                                 1863(00)

Commission scolaire Seignerie c. Syndicat des professionnelles et professionnels

   commissions scolaires de lOutaouais (Qué.), 28243, *A                              2163(00)

Commissioner of Patents v. The President and Fellows of Harvard College

   (F.C.A.), 28155, *A                                                                                   1747(00)

Commisso v. United States of America (Ont.), 27787, *01 24.8.00                   1167(00)                   1406(00)

Compagnie dassurance-vie Transamerica du Canada c. Goulet (Qué.),

   27939, *B                                                                                                 2118(00)

Conex Services Inc. v. Bogner Developments Ltd.  (B.C.), 27671, *02 21.9.00  1366(00)                   1507(00)

Conrad v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (N.S.), 27270, *02 2.3.00                                       274(00)                    396(00)

Conroy v. Friesen (B.C.), 27200, *01 27.1.00                                                  11(00)                      151(00)

Conseil scolaire de l’Île de Montréal c. Ville de l’Île Bizard (Qué.), 27651, *02

   14.9.00                                                                                                                                   1347(00)           1497(00)

Conseil de la Magistrature c. Moreau-Bérubé (N.-B.), 28206, *B                       2275(00)

Construction Aggregates Ltd. v. City of Coquitlam (B.C.), 28042, *A                 1440(00)

Conway v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27519, *02 8.6.00                  945(00)                    1083(00)

Continentale Compagnie dAssurance du Canada c. Club de Golf Oka Inc (Qué.),

   27379, *02 20.4.00                                                                                    544(00)                    748(00)

Cooper v. Hobart (B.C.), 27880, *03 17.8.00                                                   1230(00)                   1400(00)

Coopers and Lybrand v. Trustees of the Edmonton Pipe Industry Pension Plan

   Trust Fund (Alta.), 28090, *A                                                                     1448(00)

Corporacion transnacional de Inversiones v. Stet International S.P.A. (Ont.), 28237,

   *A                                                                                                           2225(00)

Corporation of the City of Brampton v. Bisoukis (Ont.), 27742, *02 17.8.00       1163(00)                   1399(00)

Corporation of the City of Kelowna v. Labour Relations Board of British Columbia

   (B.C.), 27315, *01 23.3.00                                                                         299(00)                    561(00)

Corporation of the City of Mississauga v. Slough Estates Canada Ltd. (Ont.),

   27951, *02 21.12.00                                                                                  2164(00)                   2348(00)

Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. 1037618 Ontario Inc. (Ont.), 27549,

   *02 8.6.00                                                                                                945(00)                    1082(00)

Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. Larson (Ont.), 28096, *A                   1592(00)

Corporation of the City of Toronto v. Toronto Terminals Railways Co. (Ont.),

   27626, *05 31.8.00                                                                                    2(00)                        1556(00)

Corrpro Canada, Inc. v. Edmonton Centre West Ltd. (Alta.), 28202, *A             1923(00)

Corsano v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27319, *02 20.4.00                                        451(00)                    753(00)

Cortese v. Nowsco Well Service Ltd. (Alta.), 27968, *02 16.11.00                    1869(00)                   2080(00)

Côté c. La Reine (Qué.), 27656, *02 28.9.00                                                   1256(00)                   1527(00)

Côté (Fernand) c. Taillefer (Qué.), 27882, *02 5.10.00                                     1453(00)                   1615(00)

Cotnoir c. La Reine (Qué.), 28258, *A                                                            2225(00)

Coulombe v. Office municipal dhabitation de Pointe-Claire (Qué.), 27536,

   *02 12.10.00                                                                                             1122(00)                   1756(00)

Couture (François) c. Ferme La Champignière Inc. (Qué.), 27301, *02 18.5.00   730(00)                    908(00)

Couture (Paul) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.) 27530, *B                                         1966(99)                  

Crawford v. The Queen (Sask.), 27195, *01 30.3.00                                        440(00)                    600(00)

Crestwood Lake Ltd. v. Pizzey (Ont.), 27462, *02 11.5.00                               597(00)                    887(00)

D.C.A. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27913, *01 5.10.00                                   1360(00)                   1623(00)

D.T.A. c. M.E.L. (Qué.), 27984, *02  21.9.00                                                  1369(00)                   1520(00)

Dagostino v. United States of America (Ont.), 27787, *B                                1167(00)

Dagher v. McDonnell-Ronald Limousine Service Ltd. (Ont.), 27829, *02 12.10.00                              1465(00)           1771(00)

Daisley v. City of Lethbridge (Alta.), 27890, *A                                               901(00)


Dawes v. Jajcaj (B.C.), 27403, *02 6.4.00                                                      492(00)                    613(00)

Dawson v. Attorney General of Alberta (Alta.), 27629, *01 13.4.00                    385(00)                    667(00)

De-Jai Holdings Inc. v. Corporation of the City of Guelph (Ont.), 27364,

   *02 3.2.00                                                                                                94(00)                      210(00)

Deane v. The Queen (Ont.), 27776, *05 22.2.00                                              461(00)

Del Grande v. Toronto Dominion Bank (Ont.), 27522, *02 30.3.00                    447(00)                    607(00)

Del Zotto v. Minister of National Revenue (F.C.A), 28100, *A                           1448(00)

Demix, Division de Ciment St-Laurent (Indépendant) Inc. c. Communauté urbaine

     de Montréal (Qué.), 27988, *A                                                                  1226(00)

Derksen v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 27642, *01 30.3.00                               444(00)                    603(00)

Desnomie v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27972, *02 23.11.00                                   1927(00)                   2120(00)

Devgan v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27567, *01 23.3.00                 374(00)                    549(00)

Devgan v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.), 27567, *01 20.4.00                 583(00)                    737(00)

Devinat c. Commission de lImmigration et du Statut de réfugié (C.A.F.),

   27727, *02 12.10.00 (La demande dautorisation dappel incident est rejetée

    sans dépens / The application for leave to cross-appeal is dismissed without

    costs)                                                                                                                                    1334(00)           1760(00)

Devji v. Corporation of the District of Burnaby (B.C.), 27667, *02 3.8.00            1120(00)                   1375(00)

Dhawan v. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la

    jeunesse (Qué.), 28122, *A                                                                       1745(00)

Dick v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27641, *03 12.10.00                                           1070(00)                   1749(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Collin (C.A.F.), 27451, *02 20.4.00       383(00)                    745(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Couture (C.A.F.), 27447, *02 20.4.00    380(00)                    741(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Cyr (C.A.F.), 27446, *02 20.4.00          380(00)                    742(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Duguay (C.A.F.), 27448, *02 20.4.00    382(00)                    744(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Duguay (C.A.F.), 27449, *02 20.4.00    384(00)                    745(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Duguay (C.A.F.), 27452, *02 20.4.00    384(00)                    746(00)

Directeur général, Région du Québec c. Leblanc (C.A.F.), 27450, *02 20.4.00   382(00)                    743(00)

Do c. La Reine (Qué.) 27805, *01 31.8.00                                                      1237(00)                   1483(00)

Dobie v. Boushey (Ont.), 27468, *01 23.12.99                                                1817(99)                   21(00)

Dobson v. The Queen (N.B.), 27775, *01 22.6.00                                           950(00)                    1185(00)

Dofasco v. NBD Bank (Ont.), 27754, *02 13.4.00                                           486(00)                    675(00)

Doiron c. Lipp (Qué.), 27940, *02 (Dépens en faveur des intimés Lipp et Hôpital

   Louis-Hyppolite Lafontaire/Costs to respondents Lipp and Louis-Hyppolite

   Lafontaine) 21.12.00                                                                                  2168(00)                   2351(00)

Dominion Bridge Inc. v. The Queen (Sask.), 27355, *01 30.3.00                      445(00)                    605(00)

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. v. Marchand (Ont.), 27244, *02

   17.2.00                                                                                                                                   141(00) 309(00)

Doody v. Professional Training Committee of the Barreau du Québec (Qué.),

   27334, *02 27.1.00                                                                                    8(00)                        160(00)

Doyle v. The Queen (Crim.)(P.E.I.), 27702, *01 25.5.00                                   271(00)                    954(00)

Dr. William N. Campbell Professional Corporation v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27687,

   *02 22.6.00                                                                                              1004(00)                   1178(00)

Drummie v. Society of Lloyds (N.B.), 27815, *02 5.10.00                                1462(00)                   1618(00)

Dubreuil Brothers Employees Association v. London Life Insurance Company

    (Ont.), 28165, *A                                                                                     1860(00)

Duca Community Credit Union Ltd. v. Sugarman (Ont.), 27417, *02 11.5.00      545(00)                    883(00)

Duchesne c. Picard (Qué.), 27625, *01 12.10.00                                             1013(00)                   1763(00)

Duguay c. Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (Qué.), 28143, *A                          1746(00)

Duguid v. Bank of Montreal (Ont.), 27973, *04 7.12.00                                    1933(00)                   2238(00)


Duncan v. Confederation Trust Co. (N.B.), 28043, *A                                      1440(00)

Dunmore v. Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.), 27216, *03 24.2.00                 140(00)                    353(00)

Durand v. Bastien (Alta.), 27818, *02  21.9.00                                                1359(00)                   1517(00)

Dwomoh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.), 27534, *01 11.5.00  495(00)                    879(00)

Dwyer v. Cavalluzzo, Hayes, Shilton, McIntyre & Cornish (Ont.), 28159, *A       1809(00)

E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Furlan (B.C.), 28154, *A                 1808(00)

E.S. v. The Queen (Ont.), 27862, *B                                                             1450(00)

E.S. Fox Ltd. v. Hagt (Ont.), 27834, *02 12.10.00                                           1466(00)                   1772(00)

E.T.H. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27709, *01 25.5.00                                   854(00)                    965(00)

Eamor v. Air Canada Ltd. (B.C.), 27661, *02 10.8.00                                       1078(00)                   1392(00)

Eastern Power Ltd. v. Azienda Comunale Energia & Ambiente (Ont.), 27595, *02

   22.6.00                                                                                                                                   1008(00)           1183(00)

Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. Thurber Consultants Ltd. (B.C.), 28177, *A       1861(00)

Edwards v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Ont.), 28108, *03 7.12.00                1926(00)                   2232(00)

Egido c. Le groupe Serpone syndic de faillite (Qué.), 28160, *A                       1809(00)

Eholor v. The Queen (Ont.), 27504, *02 6.1.00                                               1963(99)                   22(00)

Ekman v. The Queen (B.C.), 28056, *A                                                         1327(00)

Elder v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27219, *05 26.1.00                                      752(99)                    181(00)

Elliott (Bettyann) v. City of Toronto (Ont.), 27289, *02 16.11.00                        1866(00)                   2077(00)

Elliott (Veronica) v. Liczyk (Ont.), 27888, *02 16.11.00                                    1867(00)                   2078(00)

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Naylor Group Inc. (Ont.), 27321, *03 20.4.00                          376(00)                    733(00)

Emballage Graham du Canada Ltée c. Commission des droits de la personne et

   des droits de la jeunesse (Qué.), 27336, *02 17.2.00                                    138(00)                    307(00)

Endean v. The Queen in right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.), 26679,

   05 19.1.00                                                                                                113(00)                    113(00)

Entreprises Ab Rimouski Inc. c. Sa Majesté la Reine (C.A.F.), 27970, *A         1223(00)

Entreprises Ludco Ltée v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27320, *03 20.4.00                  487(00)                    734(00)

Epstein v. Salvation Army Scarborough Grace General Hospital (Ont.), 27608,

   *05 18.2.00                                                                                              2010(99)                   362(00)

Ernst & Young v. Webster (B.C.), 27948, *B                                                  1996(00)

Estate of Yuan Vercingetorix Woo v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada (F.C.A.)

   27497, *01 13.4.00                                                                                    490(00)                    665(00)

Éthier c. Entreprises P. F. St-Laurent (Qué.), 27413, *02 2.3.00                       275(00)                    398(00)

Express du Midi Inc. c. Société québécoise du développement de la main-

   doeuvre (Qué.), 28269, *A                                                                         2226(00)

F.C.B. v. The Queen (N.S.), 27868, *01 21.9.00                                             1264(00)                   1518(00)

Fabrikant v. Hyppolite (Qué.), 28005, *02 23.11.00                                         1871(00)                   2127(00)

Family Insurance Corp. v. Lombard Canada Ltd. (B.C.), 28093,*A                    1449(00)

Farhadi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27955, *B              1239(00)

Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Berg (Ont.), 28134, *A                           1597(00)

Fash v. The Queen (Alta.), 28284, *A                                                            2339(00)

Fashion John v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.), 28231, *A        2223(00)

Favreau c. Productions Avanti Cinévidéo Inc. (Qué.), 27527, *01 25.5.00          789(00)                    962(00)

Fehr v. Brodowski (Man.), 28023, *02 21.12.00                                               2228(00)                   2349(00)

Felker v. Cunningham (Ont.), 28215, *A                                                         2113(00)

Fellowes, McNeil v. Kansa General International Insurance Co. (Ont.), 28199, *A                             2114(00)

Fensom v. Kendall (Sask.), 28068, *A                                                           1445(00)

Feuerweker c. La Reine (Ont.), 27664, *01 11.5.00                                         590(00)                    885(00)

Figueroa v. A.G. of Canada (Ont.), 28194, *A                                                 1863(00)

Finnessey v. The Queen (Ont.), 28251, *A                                                     2338(00)


Firm of Kirkland, Murphy & Ain v. Wernikowski (Ont.), 27763, *02 12.10.00      1339(00)                   1766(00)

Filzmaier v. O.K.W. Ltd. (Ont.) 27700, *02 29.6.00                                         1067(00)                   1267(00)

Flamand c. La Reine (Qué.), 27589, *01 30.3.00                                             444(00)                    604(00)

Fletcher Challenge Canada Limited v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 28172, *A              1861(00)

Flexi-Coil Ltd. v. Bourgault Industries Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Sask.), 27273, *02 23.3.00  377(00)                    551(00)

Fliss v. The Queen (B.C.), 27998, *01 30.11.00                                              2062(00)                   2171(00)

Fortin c. Compagnie dassurance Wellington (Qué.), 28149, *A                        1746(00)

Fortin c. Fonds dassurance responsabilité professionnelle de la chambre des

   notaires du Québec (Qué.), 27400, *02 11.5.00                                            546(00)                    884(00)

Fortin (Alain) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 28066, *01 23.11.00                           1929(00)                   2124(00)

Fortin (Jean), ès-qualités de syndic à la faillite de André LHeureux (Qué.), 27350

   *A                                                                                                           2223(00)

Fournier v. The Queen (B.C.), 27881, *01 17.8.00                                           1240(00)                   1403(00)

Franks v. Attorney General of British Columbia (B.C.), 27414, *01 2.3.00         272(00)                    392(00)

Francis v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Ont.), 27615, *06  6.11.00

   Motion to quash appeal granted/Requête en annulation du pourvoi accueillie. 137(00)                    2027(00)

Fraternité des préposés à lentretien des voies c. Canadien Pacifique Ltée (Qué.),

   27434, *02  27.4.00                                                                                   595(00)                    763(00)

Fraternité des préposés à lentretien des voies c. Canadien Pacifique Ltée

    (Qué.), 28124, *A                                                                                     1745(00)

Freeman v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of  Canada (N.B.), 28024, *A     1326(00)

Fresco v. City of Montreal (Que.), 28164, *A                                                   1860(00)

Friedland v. United States of America (Ont.), 27773, *04 24.8.00                     1169(00)                   1409(00)

Friedman v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A), 27930, *02 5.10.00                              1349(00)           1621(00)

Friends of the West Country Association v. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

   (F.C.A.), 27644, *01  21.9.00                                                                     1248(00)                   1522(00)

Frito Lay Canada Ltd. v. Heynen (Ont.), 27628, *02 3.8.00                               1121(00)                   1376(00)

G.P. c. S.B. (Qué.), 27593, *02 3.2.00                                                           95(00)                      211(00)

Gadzella v. Hindmarsh Holdings Ltd. (Sask.), 28259, *A                                 2226(00)

Gajic v. Wolverton Securities Ltd. (B.C.), 27679, *02 5.10.00                           1452(00)                   1614(00)

Gajic (Dragisa) v. The Queen (B.C.), 27750, *02 21.9.00                                 1346(00)                   1512(00)

Galerie Dart Yves Laroche Inc. c. Théberge (Qué.), 27872, *04 9.11.00           1456(00)                   2017(00)

Galuego v. Canadian Human Rights Commission (F.C.A.), 27553, *01 22.6.00  991(99)                    1175(00)

Garcha v. The Queen (B.C.), 28213, *B                                                         2344(00)

Gaudreault c. Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 28040, *01 23.11.00              1928(00)                   2113(00)

Gauthier c. Gauthier (Qué.), 27592, *01 22.6.00                                              951(00)                    1185(00)

Gauthier (Jean-Robert) c. Conseil de la radiodiffusiion et des télécommunications

   canadiennes (C.F.), 28236, *A                                                                   2224(00)

Gavelin v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27686, *02 22.6.00                                         1005(00)                   1179(00)

General Manager, Liquor Control v. Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. (B.C.), 27371, *03

   16.3.00                                                                                                                                   377(00) 501(00)

General Motors du Canada Ltée c. Desrivières (Qué.), 28101, *A                      1593(00)

George v. The Queen (Ont.), 28031, *A                                                         1326(00)

Gérard Robitaille & Associés Ltée c. La Reine (Qué.), 27799, *02 14.9.00         1340(00)                   1498(00)

Gill (Ajmer) v. Gill (B.C.), 27025, *02 11.5.00                                                  496(00)                    880(00)

Gill (Jasbir) v. The Queen (B.C.), 27647, *02 22.6.00                                      1007(00)                   1182(00)

Girard c. Moisan (Qué.), 27964, *B                                                                2169(00)

Gindis v. Ritchie Scott Brisbourne (B.C.), 28827, *A                                       656(00)

Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Novopharm Ltd. (F.C.A.), 27457, *02 20.4.00                    584(00)                    738(00)

Glengarry Bingo Association v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 27166, *02 27.4.00  593(00)                    762(00)


Godbout c. Municipalité de la paroisse de St-Pie (Qué.), 27428, *01 11.5.00     591(00)                    885(00)

Godin v. Premier Salon International Inc. (N.B.), 28019, *A                             1326(00)

Golden v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27547, *03 23.3.00                                   143(00)                    553(00)

Golden Maple Leaf International Inc. v. Browne of Canada Ltd.. (Ont.), 28000, *02

   9.11.00                                                                                                                                   1825(00)           2015(00)

Goohsen v. The Queen (Sask.), 27926, *01  21.9.00                                       1355(00)                   1513(00)

Gorenko v. The Queen (Qué.), 27266, *03 27.1.00 *05 4.12.00                        1965(99)                   155(00) 2246(00)

Gordon v. Winnipeg Canoe Club (Man.), 27358, *02 30.3.00                            442(00)                    601(00)

Gordon Glaves Holdings Ltd v. Care Corporation of Canada Ltd. (Ont.),

   28086, *A                                                                                                 1449(00)

Gosselin c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 27418, *04 1.6.00                 729(00)                    1020(00)

Grabowski v. Joint chiropractic Professional Review Committee (Sask.),

   28067, *A                                                                                                 1444(00)

Gramaglia v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27729, *02 5.10.00             1350(00)                   1622(00)

Grant v. The Queen (Ont.), 27243, *B                                                            1151(99)

Great Lakes Power Ltd. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 31

   (Ont.), 27532, *02 8.6.00                                                                           790(00)                    1088(00)

Greater Europe Mission (Canada) v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27696, *01 24.8.00    1242(00)                   1405(00)

Greenwood v. Hickson (Sask.), 27807, *02 12.10.00                                       1372(00)                   1767(00)

Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp. v. Brzozowski (B.C.), 28097, *A         1592(00)

Groleau-Roberge c. Paradis (Qué.), 27591, *01 12.10.00                                 866(00)                    1762(00)

Gronnerud v. Gronnerud (Sask.), 27993, *03 9.11.00                                       1821(00)                   2002(00)

Grossman v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 27610, *03 17.2.00          142(00)                    310(00)

Groupe Forex Inc. v. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 28027, *A                1440(00)

Guindon c. Lortie et Martin Ltée (Qué.), 27954, *A                                           1157(00)

Guignard c. Ville de Saint-Hyacinthe (Qué.), 27704, *04 28.9.00                       1257(00)                   1528(00)

Guilbault v. Investors Group Trust Co. (Ont.), 27613, *02 10.8.00                    1077(00)                   1390(00)

Guyot c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27739, *01 8.6.00                                         947(00)                    1085(00)

H.K. c. La Direction de la protection de la  jeunesse (Qué.), 27745, *01 13.4.00                               543(00) 666(00)

Haley v. Thompson (Sask.), 28106, *A                                                          1594(00)

Hall v. Melna (Man.), 28034, *02 14.12.00                                                      2000(00)                   2282(00)

Hall (David Scott) v. The Queen (Ont.), 28223, *A                                           2162(00)

Halteren v. Wilhelm (B.C.), 27786, *B                                                            1368(00)

Hammell v. Friesen (B.C.), 27200, *01 27.1.00                                               11(00)                      151(00)

Hanmore v. Hanmore (Alta.), 27858, *01 26.10.00                                           1815(00)                   1880(00)

Harel c. Montambault (Qué.), 27517, *02 8.6.00                                              787(00)                    1083(00)

Hart v. The Queen (N.S.), 27784, *01 31.8.00                                                 1236(00)                   1483(00)

Harvey v. The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.),

   27849,*02 9.11.00                                                                                     1814(00)                   2002(00)

Hayat v. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto (Ont.), 27698, *02 28.9.00   1247(00)                   1526(00)

Hettema Inc. v. Claude & Conrad Toner Ltd. (N.B.), 27755, *02 28.9.00            1258(00)                   1528(00)

Hibbert v. The Queen (B.C.), 28021, *B                                                         2270(00)

Highland Park Financial Inc. v. Chalmers (Man.), 27920, *02 26.10.00             1600(00)                   1879(00)

Hill v. Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture (B.C.), 27801, *02 The

   application for leave to appeal entitled constitutional application is granted.  The

   application for leave to appeal entitled statutory interpretation application is

   dismissed with costs.  17.8.00  La demande dautorisation dappel intitulée

   demande relative à une question constitutionnelle est accueillie.  La demande

   dautorisation dappel intitulée demande relative à une question dinterprétation


   législative est rejetée avec dépens.                                                            1162(00)                   1398(00)

Hillier v. The Queen (Ont.), 28274, *A                                                            2269(00)

Hnatiw v. Scamstad (Sask.), 27601, *01 5.10.00                                            1460(00)                   1612(00)

Hoang v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 28014, *01 9.11.00                                    1823(00)                   2008(00)

Hogan v. Attorney General of Newfoundland (Nfld.), 27865, *01 9.11.00            1604(00)                   2005(00)

Holdbrook v. Emeneau (N.S.), 27957, *02 2.11.00                                          1813(00)                   1937(00)

Hollick v. City of Toronto (Ont.), 27699, *03 21.9.00                                        1249(00)                   1522(00)

Hongkong Bank of Canada v. Micron Construction Ltd. (B.C.), 27867,

   *02 26.10.00                                                                                             1598(00)                   1875(00)

Hoover v. Edwards (Ont.), 28151, *02 23.11.00                                               1994(00)                   2122(00)

Hospital Employees Union v. Children and Womens Health Centre (B.C.),

   27873, *01 12.10.00                                                                                  1466(00)                   1754(00)

Hoechst Celanese Corporation v. Furlan (B.C.), 28154, *A                               1808(00)

Housen v. Rural Municipality of Shellbrook No. 493 (Sask.), 27826, *03 9.11.00                               1607(00)           2018(00)

Huard c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27530, *B                                                    1966(99)

Hughes Communications Inc. (28070), *A                                                      1446(00)

Hunter v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 26580, *01 30.11.00                                  1931(00)                   2176(00)

Huovinen v. The Queen (B.C.), 28157, *A                                                      1808(00)

Hurst v. The Queen (B.C.), 27919, *01 21.9.00                                               1341(00)                   1502(00)

Hydro-Québec c. Ville de Hampstead (Qué.), 27883, *02 12.10.00                    1265(00)                   1765(00)

Hynes v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 27443, *03 27.1.00                                    1816(99)                   149(00)

Hysop v. The Queen (B.C.), 28192, *B                                                           2274(00)                  

Ian Brown and Marcus Leech carrying on business as Synchronics v. Synchronics,

    Incorporated (Ont.), 27995, *A                                                                  1808(00)

Ignace v. Registrar of Land Titles (B.C.), 28276, *A                                        2338(00)

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Lloyd (Alta.), 27744, *02 12.10.00                                      1263(00)                   1759(00)

Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Spasic (Ont.), 28174, *A                                          2161(00)

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Bevacqua (B.C.), 27614, *02 22.6.00                           1006(00)           1181(00)

Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Guardian Insurance Company of

   Canada (Ont.), 27431, *02 11.5.00                                                             724(00)                    870(00)

Isert v. Santos (B.C.), 27190,*02 17.2.00                                                       93(00)                      300(00)

ITT Industries of Canada Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 28069, *A                      1743(00)

J.H. v. The Queen (Ont.), 27670, *01 25.5.00                                                 596(00)                    969(00)

Jabarianha v. The Queen (B.C.)(Crim.), 27725, *03 8.6.00                               944(00)                    1081(00)

Jacko v. The Queen (Alta.), 28109 *01 21.12.00                                             2166(00)                   2350(00)

Jackson v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 28141, *A                            1597(00)

Jagna Limited c. Techno Bloc Inc.  (C.A.F.), 27657, *01 10.8.00                     1235(00)                   1385(00)

Jaworski v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 28052, *B                            2342(00)

Jazairi v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.), 27500, *02 3.5.00            658(00)                    795(00)

Jhajj v. The Queen (B.C.), 27647, *02 22.6.00                                                1007(00)                   1182(00)

Joly v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27715, *01 24.8.00                                       1168(00)                   1407(00)

Johnson v. Lester B. Pearson School Board (Qué.), 28166, *A                        1860(00)

Johnson-Paquette v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27966, *05 15.8.00                         1222(00)                   1435(00)

Johnston v. Johnston (Ont.), 27911, *02 17.8.00                                            1231(00)                   1401(00)

Jones v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 27778, *02 10.8.00                                  1166(00)                   1382(00)

Jones Power Co. v. Mitsui & Co. (Point Aconi) Ltd. (N.S.), 28205, *A               1924(00)

Jordan v. Salgado de Leon (Sask.), 27404, *02 17.2.00                                   134(00)                    302(00)

Jorgensen c. Crédit M.P. Ltée (Qué.), 27560, *02 8.6.00                                  949(00)                    1086(00)

Jules v. The Queen in Right of British Columbia (B.C.), 28071, *A                   1444(00)

Jumelle c. Soloway (Man.), 27701, *02 13.4.00                                               450(00)                    673(00)


K.D.J. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 28095, *01 2.11.00                                    1818(00)                   1939(00)

K.M.C. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 27731, *01 22.6.00                                   988(00)                    1172(00)

Kadar v. Kadar (Ont.) 28018, *A                                                                    1595(00)

Kadziolka v. Royal Bank of Canada (Sask.), 27220, *02 17.2.00                      747(99)                    303(00)

Kajat v. The Ship Arctic Taglu (F.C.A.), 27857, *02 12.10.00                       1473(00)                   1755(00)

Kakfwi v. The Queen (F.C.A.) (B.C.), 27577, *02 8.6.00                                  944(00)                    1081(00)

Kalashnikoff v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27803, *01 12.10.00                         1241(00)                   1751(00)

Kapoor v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 28054, *01 16.11.00                               1864(00)                   2075(00)

Karamouzos v. John and Jane Doe (B.C.), 27780, *01 20.4.00                        658(00)                    752(00)

Katriuk v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27741 , *02 11.5.00                               723(00) 869(00)

Kebe c. Agbor (Qué.), 27612, *02 3.8.00                                                       998(00)                    1378(00)

Kelemen v. El-Homeira (Ont.), 27693, *02 14.9.00                                          1329(00)                   1488(00)

Kelly v. The Queen (Ont.), 28007, *A                                                             1229(00)

Ken Toby Ltd. v. British Columbia Buildings Corp. (B.C.), 27326, *02 17.2.00   133(00)                    304(00)

Kerr v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27943, *01 5.10.00                                       1362(00)                   1625(00)

Khader v. The Queen (Ont.), 27986, *01 30.11.00                                           2062(00)                   2171(00)

Khan v. The Queen (Ont.), 27737, *01 10.8.00                                               1163(00)                   1381(00)

Kiloh v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27511, *02 23.3.00                                            375(00)                    550(00)

Kieling v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (Sask.), 27322, *01 27.1.00                    17(00)                      153(00)

Kilkanis v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.), 27309, *02 13.4.00   388(00)                    670(00)

Kimberly-Clark Nova Scotia v. Nova Scotia Woodlot Owners and Operators

   Association (N.S.), 27832, *01 23.11.00                                                     1873(00)                   2129(00)

King v. Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (Nfld.), 27990, *B                2345(00)

Kinkartz v. Kinkartz (Ont.), 27689, *02 13.4.00                                              390(00)                    673(00)

Klapstein v. Alberta Mortgage and Housing Corp. (Alta.), 28102, *A                 1593(00)

Klein v. Decock (Alta.), 27980, *03 7.12.00                                                    2065(00)                   2235(00)

Kleven v. The Queen (B.C.), 27586, *01 21.9.00                                             1342(00)                   1502(00)

Kloepfer v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 27453, *01 10.8.00                                 1075(00)                   1389(00)

Koch v. Hydro Québec (Qué.), 28077, *A                                                       1447(00)

Kosikar v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27604, *01 13.4.00                                  386(00)                    668(00)

Kovacevic v. The Queen (B.C.), 27886, *01 21.9.00                                        1250(00)                   1499(00)

Kowalchuk v. Adduri (Man.), 28200, *A                                                          1923(00)

KPMG v. Montreal Trust Co. (Ont.), 27959, *02 14.12.00                                 1999(00)                   2280(00)

Ku v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27466, *01 27.4.00                                         592(00)                    761(00)

L.K.W. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 28036, *01 2.11.00                                   1811(00)                   1936(00)

Lackowiak v. Maple Engineering & Construction Canada (Ont.), 27562,

   *02 8.6.00                                                                                                749(00)                    1086(00)

Lafrentz v. Michel (Alta.), 27234, *02 24.2.00                                                 202(00)                    352(00)

Lamerton & Associates Professional Surveyors v. Quinn (Y.T.), 27746,

   *02 14.9.00                                                                                              1346(00)                   1496(00)

Lamy c. Société canadienne des postes (Qué.), 27311, *02 6.4.00                   350(00)                    616(00)

Lansdowne v. Pensa & Associates (Ont.), 27842, *02 5.10.00                         1467(00)                   1619(00)

Lang v. Naccarato (Ont.), 28142, *A                                                              1597(00)

Langlois c. La Reine (Qué.), 27430, *02 15.6.00                                             996(00)                    1133(00)

Lanteigne c. La Reine (Crim.)(N.-B.), 27528, *01 27.1.00                                 15(00)                      162(00)

Laplante v. Fortin (Ont.), 27885, *01 9.11.00                                                  1606(00)                   2012(00)

Lapointe v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 26578, *06 The case is remanded to the Court

    of Appeal of Alberta to be reconsidered in accordance with the decision of this

   Court in Her Majesty the Queen v. Thomas Andrew Bunn (Crim.)(Man.)(26339),

   Her Majesty the Queen v. Jeromie Keith D. Proulx (Crim.)(Man.)(26376), Her


   Majesty the Queen v. R.A.R. (Crim.)(Man.)(26377), Her Majesty the Queen v.

   R.N.S. (Crim.)(B.C.)(26462), Her Majesty the Queen v. L.F.W. (Crim.)(Nfld.)

   (26329)./Laffaire est renvoyée à la Cour dAppel de lAlberta pour réexamen

   conformément à larrêt de notre Cour dans Sa Majesté la Reine c. Thomas Andrew

   Bunn (Crim.)(Man.)(26339), Sa Majesté la Reine c. Jeromie Keith D. Proulx

   (Crim.)(Man.)(26376), Sa Majesté la Reine c. R.A.R. (Crim.)(Man.)(26377), Sa

   Majesté la Reine c. R.N.S. (Crim.)(B.C.)(26462), Sa Majesté la Reine c. L.F.W.

   (Crim.)(T.-N.)(26329) 3.2.00.                                                                      1134(98)                   209(00)

Larose c. Fleury (Qué.), 28011,*A                                                                  1228(00)

Laufer v. Bucklaschuk (Man.), 27761, *02 14.9.00                                          1331(00)                   1488(00)

Laurendeau c. La Reine (Qué.), 27563, *02 20.1.00                                         2011(99)                   102(00)

Lavoie v. The Queen in Right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27427, *04 25.5.00               591(00)                    968(00)

Law c. La Reine (Crim.)(N.-B.), 27870, *04 5.10.00                                         1361(00)                   1624(00)

Lawpost, a division of Legal Research Consultants Inc. v. New Brunswick (N.B.),

   27683, *02 17.8.00                                                                                    1160(00)                   1397(00)

Law Society of Alberta v. Krieger (Alta.), 28275, *A                                         2338(00)

Lay v. Lay (Ont.), 28051, *28051 9.11.00                                                        1820(00)                   2013(00)

Lazeo v. The Queen (B.C.), 27830, *01 21.9.00                                              1357(00)                   1515(00)

Lebrun c. La Reine (Qué.), 27618, *01 28.9.00                                               1337(00)                   1531(00)

Lecompte v. The Queen (Que.), 28171, *A                                                     1861(00)

Ledoux c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27808, *02 5.10.00                                            1454(00)                   1616(00)

Lelacheur v. Burt (N.S.), 28181, *A                                                                1862(00)

Lenhardt v. The Queen (B.C.), 27396, *02 17.2.00                                          138(00)                    306(00)

Lessard c. Corporation municipale de Courcelles (Qué.), 28201, *A                  1923(00)

Létourneau c. Garantie, Compagnie dassurance de lAmérique du Nord (Qué.),

   27877, *02 5.10.00                                                                                    1363(00)                   1627(00)

Lévesque c. Commission des lésions professionnelles (Qué.), 27535, *02 1.6.00                              862(00) 1021(00)

Lévesque Automobile Ltée c. Denis (Qué.), 27730, *02 31.8.00                        1245(00)                   1479(00)

Lewis Energy Management Inc. v. MacKinnon (Ont.), 27294, *02 2.3.00            204(00)                    393(00)

LHeureux c. Fortin (Qué), 27350, *02 20.4.00                                                493(00)                    747(00)

Liao v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.), 27840, *02 5.10.00              1354(00)                   1612(00)

Lim v. Lim (B.C.), 27635, *01 29.6.00                                                            1068(00)                   1268(00)

Locke c. City of Calgary (Alta.), 27385, *02 23.3.00                                        208(00)                    559(00)

Longley v. The Queen as represented by The Minister of National Revenue

   (B.C.), 27927, *02 9.11.00                                                                         1820(00)                   2014(00)

Long Lake 58 First Nation v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27950,

   *02 19.10.00                                                                                             1469(00)                   1826(00)

Lopez v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.B.), 27971, *01 5.10.00                                    1461(00)                   1617(00)

Lord v. Maritime Life Assurance Co. (Ont.), 27630, *02 23.3.00                        146(00)                    556(00)

Lord (Mario) v. Attorney General of Québec (Qué.), 28060, *A                          1443(00)

Lord (Mario) v. Attorney General of Québec (Qué.), 28074, *A                          1444(00)

Lortie c. Commission dappel en matière de lésions professionnelles (Qué.),

   27331, *02 2.3.00                                                                                     204(00)                    394(00)

Lowe v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (N.S.), 27533, *02 11.5.00                                664(00)                    889(00)

Luke v. The Queen (Ont.), 28131, *A                                                             1596(00)

Luscar Ltd. v. Smoky River Coal Ltd. (Alta.), 27432, *05 12.1.00                      1317(99)                   113(00)

Lyons v. Multari (Ont.), 28254, *A                                                                  2338(00)

M.E.P. c. K.R.O. (Qué.), 27602, *02 27.1.00                                                  8(00)                        160(00)

M.S. c. L.C. (Qué.), 28256, *A                                                                      2225(00)

M.T. c. Dubé (Qué.), 28110, *01 30.11.00                                                      1998(00)                   2175(00)


MacDonald v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.),01 16.11.00, *B                                   1864(00)                   2074(00)

MacDonell c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 28092, *A                          1592(00)

Mach v. The Queen (Ont.), 27674, *01 20.4.00                                               586(00)                    749(00)

MacInnes v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27899,*01 5.10.00                                1348(00)                   1620(00)

MacIver v. The Queen (Man.), 28217, *A                                                        2162(00)

MacMaster v. Corporation of the Regional Municipality of York (Ont.), 27983, *B                              2169(00)

MacPherson (Kenneth) v. The Queen (Ont.), 27616, *01 14.9.00                      1262(00)                   1492(00)

MacPherson (Paul) v. Adga Systems International Inc. (Ont.), 27184, *02 6.4.00                              485(00) 608(00)

Madsen v. The Queen (F.C.A.) 27473, *02 11.5.00                                         598(00)                    887(00)

Magda v. St. Catharines Standard, a division of Southam Inc. (Ont.), 27420, *02

   20.4.00                                                                                                                                   585(00) 739(00)

Mailloux c. Revenu Canada (C.A.F.) 28072, *A                                               1444(00)

Malcolm v. The Queen (Man.), 28153, *B                                                       2342(00)

Malmo-Levine v. The Queen (B.C.), 28026, *A                                                2223(00)

Mankwe c. La Reine (Qué.), 27791, *03 9.11.00                                              1247(00)                   2017(00)

Marcoux v. Bouchard (Qué.), 27554, *04 15.6.00                                             948(00)                    1130(00)

Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline Management Ltd. v. Union of Nova Scotia

   Indians (F.C.A.), 27262, *01 17.2.00                                                           135(00)                    302(00)

Markel Insurance Co. of Canada v. Azevedo (Alta.), 27663, *02 12.10.00         1069(00)                   1748(00)

Martel c. La Reine (Qué.), 27907, *01  21.9.00                                                1356(00)                   1513(00)

Martelli c. Commission des affaires sociales (Qué.), 27811, *02 14.9.00           1335(00)                   1493(00)

Martens v. Gulfstream Resources Canada Ltd. (Alta.), 27638, *02 29.6.00        1072(00)                   1271(00)

Market News Publishing Inc. v. Southam Inc (B.C.), 27853, *02  21.9.00          1460(00)                   1511(00)

Martin v. Municipalité de la paroisse de St-Hubert (Qué.), 27568, *02  6.7.00     1009(00)                   1277(00)

Martin (Joey) v. Director, Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services (B.C.), 28094, *A                               1449(00)

Masmarti c. Cohen (Qué.), 27712, *02 25.5.00                                                855(00)                    966(00)

Mathers c. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (B.C.), 27387, *02 16.3.00                               349(00) 504(00)

Mattel Canada Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27174, *03 16.3.00                        10(00)                      500(00)

Maxwell v. The Queen (B.C.), 28204, *A                                                         1924(00)

Mayer Diamond c. Surintendant des faillites (Qué.), 27460, *02 25.5.00            728(00)                    960(00)

McCall Pontiac Buick Ltd. v. Hamer-Jackson (B.C.), 28175, *A                       1861(00)

McCormack v. The Queen (B.C.), 27793, *01 14.9.00                                     1252(00)                   1485(00)

McCorrister v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27677, *03 10.8.00           1079(00)                   1392(00)

McDonald v. Lesage (Ont.), 27365, *01 2.3.00                                                205(00)                    395(00)

McKinley v. B.C. Tel (B.C.), 27410, *03 20.4.00                                              488(00)                    735(00)

McKenna v. Lang (Ont.), 28222, *A                                                               2113(00)

McKenzie Forest Products Inc. v. Tilberg (Ont.), 27967, *02 9.11.00                1824(00)                   2009(00)

Médis services pharmaceutiques et de santé Inc. c. Syndicat des salariés de

    distribution de produits pharmaceutiques (FISA) (Qué.), 28111, *A               1744(00)

Meidel v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27909, *01 12.10.00                                  1352(00)                   1753(00)

Melville v. NBD Bank (Ont.), 27754, *02 13.4.00                                             486(00)                    675(00)

Mennes (Emile) v. Attorney-General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27588, *01 22.6.00     990(99)                    1174(00)

Mennes (Emile) v. Attorney-General of Canada (Ont.), 27706, *02 11.5.00        725(00)                    871(00)

Merasty v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 27756, *01 12.10.00                              370(00)                    1762(00)

Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Health and Welfare (F.C.A.),

   27370, *02 17.2.00                                                                                    96(00)                      309(00)

Merz v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27918, *01 5.10.00                                      1352(00)                   1609(00)

Metchewais v. The Queen (Alta.), 28109 *01 21.12.00                                     2166(00)                   2350(00)

Metro-Can Construction Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 28133, *A                        1597(00)

Metzner v. Metzner (B.C.), 27529, *06 (The Court of Appeal having rendered its


   decision on the basis of the impact on custodial arrangements occasioned by the

   application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and under s. 17(6.2) of the

   Divorce Act, without the benefit of the judgment of this Court in Francis v. Baker,

   [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250, which provides for support corresponding to the actual

   conditions of the children, the matter is remanded to the Court of Appeal to be

   disposed of in accordance with the decision in Francis v. Baker/Étant donné que

   la Cour dappel a rendu sa décision en fonction de lincidence de lapplication des

   Lignes directrices fédérales sur les pensions alimentaires pour enfants sur les

   modalités de la garde, et du par. 17(6.2) de la Loi sur le divorce, sans bénéficier

   de larrêt de notre Cour Francis c. Baker, [1999] 3 R.C.S. 250, qui prescrit une

   pension alimentaire correspondant aux conditions de vie réelles des enfants,

   laffaire est renvoyée à la Cour dappel pour que celle-ci la tranche conformément

   à larrêt Francis c. Baker) 27.1.00                                                              1910(99)                   159(00)

Metzner v. Metzner (B.C.), 28208, *02 14.12.00                                              2067(00)                   2279(00)

Midland Mortgage Corp. v. Jawl & Bundon (B.C.), 27520, *02 6.7.00                 946(00)                    1276(00)

Mil Systems v. Minister of Public Works and Government Services

       Canada (F.C.A.), 28022, *02 12.10.00                                                    1472(00)                   1774(00)

Millette (Régent) c. Dagenais (Qué.), 28045, *A                                              1441(00)

Millette (Régent) c. Individual Investment Corp.(Qué.), 27585, *01 15.6.00         994(00)                    1131(00)

Millette (Régent) c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27605, *02 3.8.00                                 999(00)                    1379(00)

Milette (Régent) c. Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec (Qué.), 28277, *A        2338(00)

Minister of Environment Canada v. Information Commissioner of Canada (F.C.A.),

   27956, *02 23.11.00                                                                                  1873(00)                   2128(00)

Ministère des affaires municipales c. Communauté urbaine de Québec (Qué.),

   27455, *02 25.5.00                                                                                    727(00)                    959(00)

Ministry of Finance v. Higgins (Ont.), 27191, *02 20.1.00                                 1969(99)                   105(00)

Minors v. Toronto Sun Publishing Corp. (Ont.), 27518, *02 25.5.00                   790(00)                    963(00)

Moffatt v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.), 27895, *A                  2227(00)

Mohammed v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27690, *02 31.8.00        1243(00)                   1478(00)

Mole Construction Inc. c. Compagnie dassurances Canadian Surety (Qué.),

   27643,   *05 20.3.00                                                                                  5(00)                        567(00)

Molson Breweries v. John Labatt Ltd (F.C.A.), 27839, *02 14.9.00                    1252(00)                   1486(00)

Monachino v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Ont.), 27902, *05 6.7.00         942(00)                    1294(00)

Monaghan v. Chester (Ont.), 28081, *A                                                          1447(00)

Monenco Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. (B.C.), 27258, *03 16.3.00        273(00)                    502(00)

Monopro Ltd. c. Montréal Trust (Qué.), 27953, *A                                            1157(00)

Montreuil c. Directeur de l’État civil (Qué.), 27621, *02 22.6.00                         992(00)                    1180(00)

Morand v. Marx (Qué.), 28257, *A                                                                  2226(00)

Morrill v. Krangle (B.C.), 27891,*04 9.11.00                                                    1601(00)                   2002(00)

Morris v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27354, *01 30.3.00                   447(00)                    606(00)

Morrison v. Society of Lloyds (N.B.), 27813, *02 5.10.00                                 1461(00)                   1617(00)

Morrow (Valerie) v. Constantini (B.C.), 27332, *01 3.2.00                                 12(00)                      212(00)

Morrow (Valerie) v. Acedemy Mechanical Services Ltd. (Alta.), 27531, *02 22.6.00                            951(00) 1186(00)

Morrow (Valerie) v. The Queen (Alta.), 27441,*02 20.1.00                                1911(99)                   103(00)

Moss v. Attorney General of Canada (Man.), 28228, *A                                   2162(00)

Mulligan v. The Queen (Alta.), 27726, *01 17.8.00                                           1230(00)                   1399(00)

Mullings v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27710, *01 1.6.00                                   858(00)                    1015(00)

Musqueam Holdings Ltd. v. Assessor of Area #09-Vancouver, 28032, *B          2271(00)

Nadeau v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27478, *01 27.1.00                                  1820(99)                   164(00)

N.M.P. v. The Queen (N.S.), 27936, *B                                                          2164(00)


Narain v. The Queen (Ont.), 28212, *A                                                           2161(00)

Narvey v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27785, *02 10.8.00  1236(00)                   1386(00)

Nasser v. Mayer-Nasser (Ont), 27879, *02 10.8.00                                          1233(00)                   1383(00)

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union

   of Canada v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Ont.), 28105, *A                                1593(00)

Nelson (Terrance) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27594, *01 17.2.00                  92(00)                      300(00)

Nelson (Vena) v. Lodin (Ont.), 27437, *02 1.6.00                                            859(00)                    1016(00)

Nette v. The Queen (B.C.), 27669, *03 25.5.00                                               589(00)                    967(00)

Nguiagain c. Ville de Québec (Qué.), 27809, *B                                              2072(00)

Nichols Gravel Ltd. v. Corporation of the Township of Delhi (Ont.), 27720, *02

   28.9.00                                                                                                                                   1333(00)           1524(00)

Nikkanen v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27645, *01 29.6.00                               1071(00)                   1270(00)

Nishnawbe-Aski Nation v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27950,

   *02 19.10.00                                                                                             1469(00)                   1826(00)

No. 1 Collision Repair & Painting (1982) Ltd. v. Insurance Corporation of

    British Columbia (B.C.), 28184, *A                                                            1810(00)

North West Company Inc. v. Construction General Labourers (Nfld.), 27991, *B                               2346(00)

Nourcy c. Compagnie dAssurance-vie Transamerica du Canada (Qué.), 27335,

   *02 23.3.00                                                                                              207(00)                    558(00)

Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Hospital (Ont.), 27425, *01 23.3.00                            378(00)                    552(00)

Novak v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.), 27922, *02 26.10.00     1817(00)                   1882(00)

Nu-Pharm Inc. v. Merck & Co. (F.C.A.), 27861, *02 22.6.00                            1001(00)                   1176(00)

Nu-Pharm Inc. v. Rochon (Qué.), 28247, *A                                                   2114(00)

Oerlikon Aérospatiale Inc. c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 27352, *02 11.5.00                 545(00)                    882(00)

Offei-Tsumasi v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27749, *01 22.6.00                         989(00)                    1173(00)

Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages v. Lavigne (F.C.A.), 28188, *A                             1862(00)

Oger c. Boulakia (Ont.), 27681, *02 13.4.00                                                   390(00)                    672(00)

OGrady v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.) 27278, *01 23.12.99                                1816(99)                   21(00)

OHagan v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27690, *02 31.8.00               1243(00)                   1478(00)

ONeill c. Sirois (Qué.) 27464, *05 10.2.00                                                     1322(99)                   316(00)

Olszynko v. Larocque (Ont.), 27665, *02 29.6.00                                            1069(00)                   1269(00)

Olympia Interiors Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27550, *02 20.1.00                     1969(99)                   105(00)

Omari v. The Queen (Crim.), 28049, *01 2.11.00                                             1811(00)                   1935(00)

Ondo c. La Reine (Ont.), 28233, *A                                                               2223(00)

Ontario Property Assessment Corp. v. Slough Estates Canada Ltd. (Ont.), 27951

   *02 21.12.00                                                                                             2163(00)

Ontario Power Generation Inc. v. Minister of Revenue (Ont.), 27435, *02 6.4.00 541(00)                    611(00)

Ontario Teachers Federation (OTF) v. A.G. for Ontario (Ont.),

   28113, *A                                                                                                 1744(00)

Ordre des chiropraticiens du Québec c. Thomas (Qué.), 27871, *01 12.12.00    2228(00)                   2352(00)

Osoyoos Indian Band v. Town of Oliver (B.C.), 27408, *03 20.4.00                   540(00)                    736(00)

Ouellet c. La Reine (Qué.), 28064, *01 23.11.00                                             1929(00)                   2125(00)

P.S.P. v. The Queen (Ont.), 28182, *B                                                          2340(00)

Pal v. Opoku (Ont.), 28075, *A                                                                     1445(00)

Palmer v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 27574, *01 27.4.00                                 593(00)                    761(00)

Pan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27424, *03 27.1.00                                       2012(99)                   150(00)

Panduit Corp. v. Thomas & Betts, Ltd. (F.C.A.), 27789, *02 12.10.00               1365(00)                   1753(00)

Paradis c. Gendreau (Qué.), 27900,*A                                                           902(00)

Paramount Resources Ltd. v. Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal Existing Leases

   Land Access Panel (Alta.), 27743, *05 26.6.00                                            296(00)                    1294(00)


Paramount Towing Ltd. v. Woodridge Lincoln Mercury Sales Ltd. (Alta.), 28055,

   *A                                                                                                           1442(00)

Pardee Equipment Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Alta.), 27165, *01 20.1.00          2013(99)                   98(00)

Paquet c. Les Banquets Fine-Gueule Inc. (Qué.), 27569, *02 15.6.00               1787(99)                   1136(00)

Pascal c. Household Trust Co. (Qué.), 27769, *A                                           371(00)

Patterson v. Attorney General of British Columbia (B.C.), 27757, *02 12.10.00  1164(00)                   1757(00)

Pattison v. Samos Investments Inc. (B.C.), 28012, *02 21.12.00                     2229(00)                   2353(00)

Paul DAoust Construction Ltd. v. Markel Insurance Company of Canada (Ont.),

   27438, *03 10.8.00                                                                                    1012(00)                   1388(00)

Pawar v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27578, *02 8.6.00                                             948(00)                    1085(00)

Penfold v. The Queen (Alta.), 27794, *01 17.8.00                                           1241(00)                   1404(00)

Pennett v. The Queen (Ont.), 28239, *A                                                         2225(00)

Penty v. The Law Society of British Columbia (B.C.), 27676, *02 3.8.00            1121(00)                   1376(00)

Perera v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 28114, *A                               1594(00)

Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd. (Alta.), 27934,

    *04 6.7.00                                                                                               1171(00)                   1278(00)

Perron c. Ministre du Revenu national (C.A.F.), 28121, *A                               1595(00)

Persaud v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27771, *01 12.10.00                               1259(00)                   1752(00)

Pérusse c. Ministre du Revenu national (C.A.F.), 27835, *02 12.10.00              1455(00)                   1768(00)

Pham v. The Queen (B.C.), 27572, *01 6.4.00                                                489(00)                    612(00)

Phillips v. R. D. Realty Ltd. (Ont.), 27566, *02 1.6.00                                      860(00)                    1017(00)

Piché c. La Reine (C.A.F.), 28107, *A                                                            1743(00)

Pimentel v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 27931, *01 9.11.00                               1822(00)                   2007(00)

Pirès c. Monty (Qué.), 28139, *A                                                                   1746(00)

Placements R.I.O. Inc. c. La Reine (Qué.), 27454, *02 25.5.00                        728(00)                    960(00)

Poulin c. Solidarité, Compagnie dassurance sur la vie (Qué.), 27303, *01 27.1.00                            1751(99)           156(00)

Pouliot c. La Reine (Qué.), 28168, *A                                                            1863(00)

Prabhakara Chowdary Balla v. Alliance Semiconductor Corp. (B.C.), 28220, *A 2113(00)

Premier Horticulture Ltée c. Lévesque (Qué.), 27654, *02 12.10.00                   1164(00)                   1757(00)

Presteve Foods Ltd. v. The Queen (Ont.), 28119, *A                                       1595(00)

Prévost-Masson c. Perras (Qué.), 27623, *04 22.6.00                                      1010(00)                   1184(00)

Privacy Commissioner v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27846, *03 17.8.00                          1232(00)           1401(00)

Procureur général du Canada c. Lord (Qué.), 27989, *A                                   1226(00)

Procureur général du Canada c. Thibault (C.A.F.), 27445, *02 20.4.00              379(00)                    740(00)

Procureure générale du Québec c. Le Camp Watchichou Inc. (Qué.), 27463, *02

   La demande dautorisation dappel est rejetée avec dépens sur la requête

   seulement./The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the

   leave application only. 8.6.00                                                                     857(00)                    1091(00)

Procureure générale du Québec c. Raymond, Chabot Inc. (Qué.), 27653, *02

   14.9.00                                                                                                                                   1345(00)           1495(00)

Procureure générale du Québec c. Ville de l’Île Bizard (Qué.), 27651, *B           1347(00)

Province de Nouveau-Brunswick c. Le juge Jocelyne Moreau-Bérubé (N.-B.),

   28206, *B                                                                                                 2275(00)                  

Provincial Superior v. Health Services Restructuring Commission (Ont.), 27475,

   *02 17.2.00                                                                                              202(00)                    305(00)

Prudhomme c. Prudhomme (Qué.), 28117, *A                                              1744(00)

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.),

   27901, *02 9.11.00                                                                                    1604(00)                   2006(00)

Pumice v District of Squamish (B.C.), 28085, *A                                            1447(00)

Pupovic v. The Queen (Ont.), 28235, *A                                                        2223(00)


Quinlan v. The Queen in Right of Newfoundland (Nfld.), 27510, *B                    732(00)

R. c. Auclair (Qué.), 28037, *B                                                                      2116(00)

R. v. B.J.S. (B.C.), 27847, *01  21.9.00                                                         1364(00)                   1505(00)

R. v. B.J.S. (B.C.), 27976, *01  21.9.00                                                         1364(00)                   1505(00)

R. c. Bolduc (Crim.)(Qué.), 27580, *01 13.4.00                                               387(00)                    669(00)

R. v. Cinous (Crim.)(Qué.), 27788, *03 12.10.00                                              1253(00)                   1758(00)

R. v. Denton (Crim.)(Qué.), 27579, *03 11.5.00                                               448(00)                    875(00)

R. v. Denton (Crim.)(Qué.), 27579, *B                                                            2068(00)

R. v. Dew (Crim.)(Man.), 27017, *01 27.1.00                                                   202(99)                    148(00)

R. v. Diu (Ont.), 28084, *05 13.12.00                                                             1448(00)                   2290(00)

R. v. Dudney (F.C.A.), 27869, *02 2.11.00                                                      1813(00)                   1938(00)

R. v. First Vancouver Finance (Sask.), 28062, *A                                           1441(00)

R. v. Fournier (Qué.), 27866, *B                                                                    1366(00)

R. v. Groot (Crim.)(Ont.), 26929, 4.3.99 (The application for leave to cross-appeal

   is dismissed/la demande dautorisation dappel incident est rejetée)              393(99)                   

R. v. Handy (Crim.)(Ont.), 27996, *03 9.11.00                                                                           1818(00)                    2019(00)

R. v. Harris (F.C.A.), 28041, *02 26.10.00                                                        1602(00)                         1877(00)

R. v. Hoyles (Crim.)(Nfld.), 27678, *01 15.6.00                                                                         864(00)                      1134(00)

R. v. Huff (Ont.), 28245, *A                                                                           2163(00)

R. c. Kébreau (Crim.)(Qué.), 27114, *01 27.1.00                                             667(99)                    148(00)

R. c. Lamy (Qué.), 28158, *A                                                                        1808(00)

R. v. Lavallee (Alta.), 27852, *03 7.12.00                                                       2117(00)                   2236(00)

R. v. Llorenz (Ont.), 28002, *05 29.11.00                                                       2246(00)                   2246(00)

R. v. Mafi (Crim.)(B.C.), 27856, *01 5.10.00                                                    1351(00)                   1609(00)

R. c. Maxwell (Crim.)(Qué.), 27759, *01 29.6.00                                              1071(00)                   1269(00)

R. v. McIntosh (Ont.), 27768, *01 10.8.00                                                      1010(00)                   1386(00)

R. v. Mentuck (Crim.)(Man.), 27738, *03 25.5.00                                            439(00)                    958(00)

R. c. Parent (Crim.)(Qué.), 27652, *02 20.4.00                                                542(00)                    747(00)

R. c. Peters (Crim.)(Qué.), 27581, *03 11.5.00                                                449(00)                    877(00)

R. v. Peters (Crim.)(Qué.), 27581, *B                                                             2070(00)

R. v. Rulli (Crim.)(Ont.), 27338, *01 27.1.00                                                    2015(99)                   166(00)

R. v. Sheppard (Nfld.), 27439, *03 17.8.00                                                      1011(00)                   1404(00)

R. v. Singleton (F.C.A.), 27477, *03 20.4.00                                                   488(00)                    735(00)

R. v. Walls (F.C.A.), 27724, *03 14.9.00                                                        1332(00)                   1490(00)

R. v. Ward (Nfld.), 27717, *03 29.6.00                                                            1123(00)                   1274(00)

R. v. Williamson (Ont.), 27921, *01 28.9.00                                                    1264(00)                   1531(00)

R. v. Wren (Crim.)(Ont.), 27912, *01 12.10.00                                                1348(00)                   1766(00)

R. in right of Alberta v. Alberta Provincial Judges Association (Alta.), 27516, *02

   8.6.00                                                                                                      791(00)                    1089(00)

R. in right of Alberta v. Ell (Alta.), 28261, *A                                                  2226(00)

R. in right of the Province of British Columbia v. Beadle (B.C.), 27318, *01 11.5.00                          494(00) 878(00)

R. in right of the Province of British Columbia v. Davies (B.C.), 27318, *01 11.5.00                          494(00) 878(00)

R. in right of the Province of British Columbia v. Rumley (B.C.), 27721,

   *03 28.9.00                                                                                              1258(00)                   1529(00)

R. in right of the Province of New Brunswick v. Mackin (N.B.), 27722, *04 22.6.00                            1001(00)           1176(00)

Rahall v. Superintendent of Financial Institutions (Ont.), 27648, *02 10.8.00     1011(00)                   1387(00)

Ramlall v. Ontario International Medical Graduate Program (Ont.), 27444,

   *02 23.3.00                                                                                              145(00)                    555(00)

Rauw v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27688, *02 22.6.00                                            1005(00)                   1179(00)

Razac v. Lehrer (Qué.), 27552, *01 1.6.00                                                      864(00)                    1022(00)


Reardon v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27708, *01 25.5.00                                 854(00)                    964(00)

Reeves v. Arsenault (P.E.I.), 27086, *02 20.4.00                                            588(00)                    751(00)

Representative Counsel for the Charitable Ohjects of the Christian Brothers of

   Ireland in Canada v. Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada (Ont.), 27958, *01

   16.11.00                                                                                                  1865(00)                   2075(00)

Resman Holdings Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 28080, *A                                 1447(00)

Rhee v. The Queen (B.C.), 27863, *01 21.9.00                                               1251(00)                   1499(00)

Rhys-Jones v. Rhys-Jones (Ont.), 28017, *02 1.11.00                                     1605(00)                   1935(00)

Richelieu Métal Inc. v. Éditions Le Canada Français Ltée (Qué.), 27409,

   *02 13.4.00                                                                                              288(00)                    671(00)

Rideout v. The Queen (Nfld.), 27675, *01 3.8.00                                             997(00)                    1378(00)

Rioux c. La Reine (Qué.), 28167, *A                                                              1860(00)

Ritchie v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (B.C.), 27944, *02  9.11.00         1822(00)                   2004(00)

Roberts v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27641, *03 12.10.00                                      1070(00)                   1749(00)

Robertson v. Orrin Hart executor for Maurice Rupert King (Alta.), 28044, *A      1440(00)

Robertson v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.), 27514, *02 11.5.00     596(00)                    886(00)

Robitaille c. La Reine (Qué.), 28061, *01 16.11.00                                          1868(00)                   2078(00)

Rodrigue c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 26884, *A                             1657(98)

Roles v. 306972 Saskatchewan Ltd. (Sask.), 27864, *02 21.12.00                   2165(00)                   2349(00)

Romkey v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27777, *02 5.10.00                                        1354(00)                   1611(00)

Rosati v.Liakus (Ont.), 27719, *02  21.9.00                                                    1451(00)                   1509(00)

Rosen v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27903, *02 9.11.00                                          1476(00)                   2009(00)

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Spasic (Ont.), 28174, *A                        2161(00)

Roy v. The Queen (Ont.), 27650, *05 21.12.99                                                87(00)                      113(00)

Royal Shirt Co. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board (Ont.), 27412, *02 11.5.00    497(00)                    882(00)

Royal Trust Corporation of Canada v. 502759 Ontario Limited (Ont.), 28137,

   *A                                                                                                           1745(00)

Ruby v. The Solicitor General (F.C.A.), 28029, *A                                           1328(00)

Ruggeberg v. Bancomer, S.A. (Ont.), 27344, *02 16.3.00                                347(00)                    499(00)

Ruman v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Yellowknife (N.W.T.), 27974, *02

   21.12.00                                                                                                  2167(00)                   2351(00)

Russell v. The Queen (Ont.), 27732, *03 25.5.00                                            663(00)                    969(00)

Ruttan v. The Queen (Ont.), 27736, *01 3.8.00                                               996(00)                    1377(00)

Ryan v. T. Eaton Co. (F.C.A.), 27884, *A                                                       901(00)

S. (B.) v. Director of Child, Family and Community Service (B.C.), 27048, *A    779(99)

Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. v. 671122 Ontarion Ltd. (Ont.), 27820, *04 7.12.00                             1932(00)           2237(00)

Salmon v. The Queen (B.C.), 28193, *B                                                         2343(00)

Sam Lévy & Associés Inc. c. 2858-4665 Québec Inc. (Qué.), 27327, *02 20.1.00                             2011(99)           102(00)

Sandhu v. College of Physicians & Surgeons of Manitoba (Man.), 27904,

   *02 26.10.00                                                                                             1599(00)                   1878(00)

Sandover-Sly v. The Queen (B.C.), 28132, *A                                                 1860(00)

Sarvanis v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.), 27796, *04 5.10.00             1372(00)                   1629(00)

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27346, *02 13.4.00            450(00)                    674(00)

Saskferco Products Inc. v. Wellington Insurance Co. (Sask.), 27218, *02 17.2.00                            133(00) 301(00)

Satellite Transmissions Systems Inc. v. Spar Aerospace Ltd. (Que.), 28070, *A                              1446(00)

Sauve v. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada (F.C.A.), 27677, *03 10.8.00    1079(00)                   1392(00)

Sawyer c. La Reine (Qué.), 27115, *A                                                            329(99)

Scanie v. The Queen (Alta.), 28109 *01 21.12.00                                            2166(00)                   2350(00)

Scarborough Muslim Association v. Hussain (Ont.), 28123, *05 9.11.00           1596(00)                   2097(00)

Schepanow v. The Queen in right of Ontario (F.C.A.), 27733, *02 28.9.00         1238(00)                   1525(00)


Schiavone v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Canada (Ont.), 27915, *01 9.11.00     1824(00)                   2015(00)

Schwartz (Succession) c. Zerbisias (Qué.), 27855, *02 5.10.00                       1350(00)                   1622(00)

Schweneke v. The queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27848, *B                          1603(00)

Scott (Douglas) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27587, *01 30.3.00                       440(00)                    599(00)

Scott (Yvette) v. Continental Insurance Co. of Canada (Ont.), 27573, *02 22.6.00                             1008(00)           1183(00)

Scottish & York Insurance Co. v. Somersall (Ont.), 27851, *A                         722(00)

Sekhon v. The Queen (B.C.), 27647, *02 22.6.00                                           1006(00)                   1182(00)

Selman v. Samos Investmens Inc. (B.C.), 28012, *02 21.12.00                       2229(00)                   2353(00)

Serin Holdings Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27499, *02 18.5.00                        786(00)                    907(00)

Serré c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 27470, *01 27.1.00                                        1964(99)                   154(00)

Seven-up Canada Inc. v. Fasken Campbell Godfrey (Ont.), 27825, *02  21.9.00                               1451(00)           1508(00)

Seward v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27298, *01 9.3.00                                    297(00)                    453(00)

Shalala v. The Queen (N.B.), 27810,*01 28.9.00                                             1338(00)                   1532(00)

Shearing v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27782, *03 12.10.00                              1066(00)                   1748(00)

Shell Oil Company v. Furlan (B.C.), 28154, *A                                                1597(00)

Sheppard v. Bank of Montreal (Sask.), 27407, *A                                           1200(99)

Sherriah v. The Queen in right of Canada (Y.T.), 27762, *03 10.8.00                 1165(00)                   1381(00)

Shuman v. Ontario New Home Warranty Program (Ont.), 27256, *01 23.3.00     1262(00)                   559(00)

Sicotte c. Zurich du Canada Compagnie dassurance-vie (Qué.), 28279, *A      2339(00)

Sidbec-Dosco (ISPAT) Inc. c. Commission dappel en matière de lésions profes-

   sionnelles (Qué.), 27716, *02 31.8.00                                                         1255(00)                   1481(00)

Sidbec-Dosco (ISPAT) Inc. c. Commission dappel en matière de lésions profes-

   sionnelles (Qué.), 27718, *02 31.8.00                                                         1255(00)                   1482(00)

Silbernagel v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27952, *01 5.10.00                             1360(00)                   1623(00)

Simmons v. United States of America (Ont.), 27979, *01 14.9.00                     1344(00)                   1495(00)

Simon (Christopher) v. Simon (Ont.), 27723, *02 13.4.00                                 389(00)                    671(00)

Simon (Llewelyn) v. The Queen (Ont.), 27345, *02 16.3.00                               348(00)                    503(00)

Singh (Davinder) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27747, *02

   1.5.00                                                                                                      760(00)                    793(00)

Singh (Davinder) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27491, *02

   1.5.00                                                                                                      546(00)                    793(00)

Sloan v. Johnson (Ont.), 27892, *02 12.10.00                                                 1475(00)                   1761(00)

Sloan v. The York Region District School Board (Ont.), 28150, *A                   1746(00)

Smith v. New Brunswick Human Rights Commission (N.B.), 27596, *02 29.6.00                               991(99) 1266(00)

Smith (Bernadette) v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (Ont.), 27875, *04

   9.11.00                                                                                                                                   1477(00)           2018(00)

Smith (Deborah) v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 27844, *03 17.8.00    1232(00)                   1402(00)

Smith (Godwin) v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27878, *02 5.10.00                              1353(00)                   1611(00)

Smith (Wilton Anthony) v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27802, *01 9.11.00            1125(00)                   2016(00)

Smithkline Beecham Animal Health Inc. v. The Queen (F.C.A), 27850,

   *02 12.10.00                                                                                             1474(00)                   1760(00)

Snider v. Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses (Man.), 27783, *01 21.9.00                             1358(00)           1516(00)

Société de lassurance automobile du Québec c. Viger (Qué.), 28221, *A         2113(00)

Société en commandite 2858-9893 Québec c. 2420-3242 Québec Inc.  (Qué.),

   27673, *02 28.9.00                                                                                    1339(00)                   1533(00)

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian

   Association of Broadcasters (F.C.A.), 27304, *02 6.4.00                              349(00)                    615(00)

Sokolov v. Minister of Immigration and Citizenship (F.C.A.)(Que.), 27328, *01

   27.1.00                                                                                                                                   14(00)  167(00)

Sokolovav. Ministry of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27546, *01 8.6.00                              792(00) 1089(00)


Solis v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A.), 27947, *02 23.11.00 1926(00)                   2120(00)

Solomon v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (Ont.), 28025, *B              2274(00)                  

Solunac c. Ordre des médecins vétérinaires du Québec (Qué.), 27636, *01 25.5.00                           727(00) 959(00)

Sound Contracting Ltd. v. City of Nanaimo (B.C.), 28073, *A                           1445(00)

Spencer v. Mansours Ltd. (N.S.), 28046, *A                                                  1442(00)

Spire Freezers Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27415, *03 20.4.00                        587(00)                    749(00)

Spiterie v. Update Management Ltd. (Ont.), 27521, *02 30.11.00                      2063(00)                   2173(00)

St-Amand c. Villeneuve (Qué.), 28229, *A                                                      2163(00)

St-Jean v. Mercier (Qué.), 27515, *04 8.6.00                                                  863(00)                    1084(00)

St. Thomas More Collegiate Ltd v. Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada (Ont.),

    27958, *01 16.11.00                                                                                 1158(00)                   2075(00)

Stanwick v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 27366, *05 10.3.00                              20(00)                      567(00)

Stark v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27975, *01 2.11.00                                     1812(00)                   1937(00)

Starkman v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ont.), 27551, *02 22.6.00                      953(00)                    1187(00)

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Vijeyekumar (Ont.), 27484, *02

   3.5.00                                                                                                      659(00)                    796(00)

Steckmar National Realty & Investment Corp. c. Galerie Mirabelle Inc. (Qué.),

   27760, *02 5.10.00                                                                                    1362(00)                   1626(00)

Stefanovic v. Sanseverino (Ont.), 27978, *02 30.11.001                                  2063(00)                   2172(00)

Stenset v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 27465, *01 27.1.00                                 17(00)                      152(00)

Stevenson v. The Queen (Sask.), 27620, *01  21.9.00                                    1459(00)                   1510(00)

Stewart v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 27860, *04 14.9.00                                         1331(00)                   1489(00)

Stojanovic v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.A), 27929, *B          2272(00)

Stone v. Wellington County Board of Education (Ont.), 27389, *02 30.3.00       443(00)                    602(00)

Stromberg v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 27183, *01 27.1.00                              10(00)                      150(00)

Strong v. Kisbee (Ont.), 28170, *A                                                                1993(00)

Susin v. Harper Haney and White (Ont.), 27221, *02 20.1.00                           1970(99)                   106(00)

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. McIsaac (B.C.), 27373, *02 23.12.99                             1909(99)           22(00)

Suresh v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (F.C.A.), 27790, *04 25.5.00    904(00)                    971(00)

Sutherland v. Forget (Ont.), 28169, *A                                                           1993(00)

Sylvan Lake Gold & Tennis Club Ltd. v. Performance Industries Ltd. (Alta.), 27934

   **04 6.7.00                                                                                               1171(00)                   1278(00)

Syndicat canadien de la Fonction publique, section locale 302 c. Ville de Verdun

   (Qué.), 27461 , *B                                                                                     660(00)

Syndicat des employé(es) du C.E.V. d’Aylmer c. Pavillon du Parc (Qué.), 27680,

   *02 10.8.00                                                                                                                                 1127(00)                           1395(00)

Syndicat des employés de S.P.B. (CSN) c. Labelle (Qué.), 28219, *A              2161(00)

Syndicat des fonctionnaires municipaux de Montréal SCFP Section locale 429

   c. Communauté urbaine de Montréal (Qué.), 27600, *02 15.6.00                    1961(99)                   1132(00)

Syndicat des professeurs et des professeures de lUniversité du Québec à Trois-

    Rivières c. Durand (Qué.), 28176, *A                                                          1861(00)

Syndicat des travailleurs des pavillons jeunesse v. Boivert (Qué.), 27548,

   *02 1.6.00                                                                                                863(00)                    1022(00)

Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des postes c. Société canadienne des

   postes (Qué.), 27539, *02 12.10.00                                                            1073(00)                   1755(00)

Syndicat national des employés municipaux de Pointe-Claire (CSN)  c. Boivert

   (Qué.), 27987, *A                                                                                      1226(00)

Syndicat national des employés de laluminium dAlma Inc. c. Fédération des

   syndicats du secteur de laluminium Inc. (Qué.), 27272, *A                          776(99)

Szabo v. United States of America (Ont.), 27787, *B                                      1167(00)


Szasz v. Standard Trust Co. (Ont.), 27558, *02 Application for leave to appeal

   dismissed with costs to Standard Trust Co./Demande dautorisation dappel rejetée

   avec dépens en faveur de Standard Trust Co. 15.6.00                                   866(00)                    1135(00)

T.V. v. The Queen (Ont.), 27556, *01 23.3.00                                                 375(00)                    550(00)

Tait v. Royal Insurance Company of Canada (N.S.), 27422, *02 20.4.00            587(00)                    750(00)

Tamimi v. Toronto Hospital (Western Division) (Ont.), 27509, *02 3.5.00           660(00)                    796(00)

Tanner v. McDonald (Alta.), 28183, *A                                                           1810(00)

Tawich Development Corp. v. Deputy Minister of Revenue (Que), 28033, *A      1328(00)

Taylor v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A)(Ont.), 27889, *01 12.10.00          1161(00)                   1750(00)

Teahan v. The Queen (Ont.), 27999, *A                                                         1743(00)

Teamsters du Québec, chauffeurs et ouvriers de diverses industries, local 69 c.

   Syndicat des salariés de distribution de produits pharmaceutiques (FISA)

   (Qué.), 28112, *A                                                                                      1744(00)

Tejani v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27459, *01 23.3.00                                    142(00)                    553(00)

Tembec Inc. c. American Home Assurance Co. (Qué.), 28214, *A                   2161(00)

Terra Energy Ltd. v. Kilborn Engineering Alberta Ltd. (Alta), 27341, *02 27.1.00                               1970(99)           165(00)

Tews v. The Queen (Man.), 27734, *01 31.8.00                                              1253(00)                   1480(00)

Thangarajan v. Minister of Citizenship & Immigration (F.C.A.), 27713,

   *01 12.10.00                                                                                             1127(00)                   1764(00)

The Gazette c. Conseil du référendum (Qué.), 27961, *A                                 1158(00)

The Gazette c. Syndicat canadien des communications, de l’énergie et du papier,

   section locale 145 (Qué.), 27753, *02 5.10.00                                              1336(00)                   1613(00)

Thériault c. Commission dappel en matière de lésions professionnelles (Qué.),

   27624, *02 15.6.00                                                                                    995(00)                    1133(00)

Thiffault c. Caisse populaire St-Frédéric La Poudrière (Qué.), 27544, *02 1.6.00 861(00)                    1020(00)

Thomas v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd. (B.C.), 27583, *02 3.8.00                              1119(00)                   1374(00)

Thomas-Robinson v. Song (Ont.), 27323, *02 27.1.00                                     9(00)                        161(00)

Thouin v. Miron (Qué.), 28197, *05 8.11.00                                                     2097(00)                   2097(00)

Thyssen Canada Ltd. v. Mariana Maritime S.A. (F.C.A.), 27928, *02 9.11.00     1606(00)                   2011(00)

Tombran v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 27969, *01 30.11.00                              1997(00)                   2173(00)

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. The Plessey Company (Ont.), 27570, *02 3.8.00      999(00)                    1379(00)

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Schumacher (Ont.), 27423, *02 20.1.00                  1967(99)                   100(00)

Total Leisure R.V. Manufacturing Ltd. v. Olympic Building Systems Ltd. (Man.),

   27357, *01 6.4.00                                                                                     487(00)                    610(00)

Tourigny c. La Reine (Qué.), 27646, *05 11.1.00                                             113(00)                    113(00)

Transamerica Life Insurance Company of Canada v. Oldfield (Ont.), 28163, *B 2118(00)

TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.), 27950,

   *02 19.10.00                                                                                             1469(00)                   1826(00)

Transport Belmire Inc. c. Société québécoise du développement de la main-

   doeuvre (Qué.), 28268, *A                                                                         2224(00)

Transport Robert (1973) Ltée c. Société québécoise du développement de la main-

   doeuvre (Qué.), 28270, *A                                                                         2224(00)

Transport scolaire Chauveau Ltée c. Procureur général duQuébec (Qué.), 28053,

   *A                                                                                                           2113(00)

Tremblay c. Syndicat des employ<