Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

October 24, 1997  1865 - 1898                                                           le 24 octobre 1997

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Adolph Betker

Martin Kerbel, Q.C.

v. (26026)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Ian R. Smith

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE 29.9.1997

Paul Macciocchi

Paul Macciocchi

v. (26128)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE 29.9.1997

M.S.

Christopher S. Flerlage

v. (26229)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

J.D. Bissel, Q.C.

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 26.9.1997

Syndicat des travailleurs(euses) des épiciers unis Métro-Richelieu (CSN)

François Lamoureux

Sauvé et Roy

c. (26230)

E. Chevrefils Inc. et al. (Qué.)

J. Stéphane Lacroix

Lacroix, Gascon

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.9.1997

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Ontario

Angie Codina

Codina & Pukitis

v. (26231)

Shin Yee Sheng (Ont.)

D. Thomas Bell

Min. of the A.G.

FILING DATE 29.9.1997

Le procureur général du Québec

Normand Lavoie

Saint-Laurent, Gagnon

c. (26232)

Yolande Dupont (Qué.)

Pierre Bolduc

Grondin, Poudrier

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.9.1997

Service Employees Union, Local 210

Howard Goldblatt

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell

v. (26233)

The Sisters of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London in Ontario, operating St. Joseph’s Hospital, Chatham et al. (Ont.)

James Hassell

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt

FILING DATE 29.9.1997

John Edward Dixon

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C.

Arvay Finlay

v. (26234)

The Governor in Council (F.C.A.)

Robert Frater

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 29.9.1997

Frederick Sengmueller

Frederick Sengmueller

v. (26235)

Holden Day Wilson et al. (Ont.)

William S. O’Hara

Gardiner, Roberts

FILING DATE 29.9.1997

Sharmin Spiram et al.

Samuel I. Stochinsky

Mostyn & Mostyn

v. (26236)

Hermann Michaelis et al. (Ont.)

T.H. Rachlin, Q.C.

Rachlin & Wolfson

FILING DATE 29.9.1997

Standard Life Compagnie d’assurance

Pierre D. Leroux

Lafleur Brown

c. (26237)

Nicole Cyr (Qué.)

Richard Larouche

Provost & Larouche

DATE DE PRODUCTION 29.9.1997

Le procureur général du Québec

Anne-Marie Brunet

Min. de la Justice

c. (26238)

Michel Raby et al. (Qué.)

 André J. Noreau

DATE DE PRODUCTION   29.9.1997

Paul Kelly

Nathalie Fafard

Mondor & Fafard

c. (26240)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)

Ginette Maillet

Subs. du procureur général

DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.9.1997

London Salvage & Trading Co. Ltd.

Edward Richmond

Richmond and Richmond

v. (26241)

Sunoco Inc. et al. (Ont.)

Ian Rogers

Jones, Rogers

FILING DATE 30.9.1997

Robert J. McMynn

Lorne A. Green

Thorsteinssons

v. (26242)

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

Elizabeth Junkin

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 2.10.1997

Joanne J. McMynn

Lorne A. Green

Thorsteinssons

v. (26243)

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

Elizabeth Junkin

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 2.10.1997

Gurdev Singh Multani

Gurdev Singh Multani

v. (26245)

Gurman Singh Multani (Ont.)

Richard Parker

Beard & Winter

FILING DATE 14.10.1997

Nicholas Yvon Bonamy

Nicholas Yvon Bonamy

v. (26247)

Her Majesty The Queen (Alta.)

Gregory B. Lepp

Alberta Justice

FILING DATE 9.10.1997

Glen Sebastian Burns et al.

Michael Klein

Bolton & Muldoon

v. (26211)

The United States of America (B.C.)

S. David Frankel, Q.C.

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 20.10.1997

Mary Lawlor

Neil Finkelstein

Blake, Cassels & Graydon

v. (26212)

M.J. Oppenheim, C.A. (Nfld.)

Philip J. Buckingham

McInnes, Cooper & Robertson

FILING DATE 20.10.1997

M & D Farm Ltd. et al.

Alain J. Hogue

Alain Hogue & Associates

v. (26215)

The Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation (Man.)

B. Patrick Metcalfe

D’Arcy & Deacon

FILING DATE 21.10.1997

Anna Maria Sicilia

Brigitte B. Garceau

Robinson, Sheppard, Shapiro

c. (26228)

Walter Di Ciccio et al. (Qué.)

Leo Di Battista

Sergio Tucci & Associates

DATE DE PRODUCTION 21.10.1997

Reva Schafer et al.

Christopher D. Bredt

Borden & Elliot

v. (26246)

Attorney General of Canada et al. (Ont.)

Gail Sinclair

Dept. of Justice

FILING DATE 6.10.1997

Myra M. D. Simanek

Myra M. D. Simanek

v. (26248)

Dr.’s Jack Train et al. (Ont.)

Michael C. Birley

Miller Thomson

FILING DATE 10.10.1997

100242 Canada Inc. (Uniprix Inc.)

Jean-Yves Fortin

Brouillette Charpentier Fournier Dozois Fortin

c. (26249)

Serge Proulx et al. (Qué.)

Gérard Dugré

Byers Casgrain

DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.10.1997

Yoke Wah Jonasson aka Eva Jonasson

Yoke Wah Jonasson aka Eva Jonasson

v. (26250)

William Brian Jonasson (B.C.)

Donald B. Phelps

Flader and Phelps

FILING DATE 3.10.1997

Jacques A. Lemieux

Michel Bélanger

c. (26251)

Gestion Segi Ltée et al. (Qué.)

Robert Caron

Spiegel, Sohmer

DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.10.1997

Jean Dubois

Alain Dumas

Turgeon, Lavoie

c. (26252)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)

Georges Letendre

Subs. du procureur général

DATE DE PRODUCTION 7.10.1997

Laurin Cloutier

Stéphane Forest

Forest Guilmain Arpin

c. (26253)

Les Automobiles Gloginor Inc. (Qué.)

Gérald Lafrenière

DATE DE PRODUCTION 7.10.1997

Her Majesty The Queen

Wayne Gorman

Dept. of Justice

v. (26254)

Jody Keith Druken (Nfld.)

Barry Learmonth

Learmonth, Dunne, Clarke

FILING DATE 8.10.1997

Mark Anthony Gauthier

Alison Wheeler

Greenspan and Associates

v. (26255)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Jamie Klukach

Min. of the A.G.

FILING DATE 9.10.1997

2903113 Canada Inc.

André Morisset

Jolin Fournier Morisset

c. (26256)

La Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec et al. (Qué.)

DATE DE PRODUCTION 9.10.1997

Serge Montplaisir

Michel Le Brun

c. (26257)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Qué.)

Ginette Kirouac

Bureau des substituts du procureur général

DATE DE PRODUCTION 7.10.1997

Ellipse Fiction / Ellipse programme

Daniel Payette

Payette & Carbonneau

c. (26258)

Cinévidéo Plus Inc. et al. (Qué.)

Jean Leclerc

Guy & Gilbert

DATE DE PRODUCTION 16.10.1997

Eli Lilly and Company et al.

Anthony G. Greber

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson

v. (26259)

Apotex Inc. et al. (F.C.A.)

H.B. Radomski

Goodman, Phillips & Vineberg

FILING DATE 16.10.1997

The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada

Brian J. Wallace, Q.C.

Lawson Lundell Lawson & McIntosh

v. (26260)

The Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.)

Harvey M. Groberman

Min. of the A.G.

FILING DATE 17.10.1997

Mary Sauve

Paul A. Mann

v. (26262)

Ivan J. Pokorny (Ont.)

McCarthy, Tetrault

FILING DATE 20.10.1997

Halifax Insurance Co.

Timothy S.B. Danson

Danson, Recht & Freedman

v. (26263)

Kyra McMahon et al. (Ont.)

Ernest H. Toomah

FILING DATE 21.10.1997

Steven Allen Turner

Margaret Gallagher

v. (26264)

Her Majesty The Queen (N.B.)

Fred Ferguson

A.G. of N.B.

FILING DATE 21.10.1997

City of Surrey

J. Dale Stewart

Alexander, Holburn, Beaudin & Lang

v. (26266)

McIntosh Estates Ltd. et al. (B.C.)

John Kaminsky

Kaminsky & Co.

FILING DATE 21.10.1997

OCTOBER 17, 1997 / LE 17 OCTOBRE 1997

                                                  CORAM:  Chief Justice Lamer and Cory andMcLachlin JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin

                                                                                     Lorne Allan Maddeaux

                                                                                                v. (26097)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Offences - Mischief - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the term “enjoyment” in s. 430(1) (c) of the Criminal Code  must be interpreted as meaning normal everyday use of the property rather than quiet possession of legal title.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                             W. Lee Huck

                                                                                                v. (26076)

                                                                              Komol Plastics Co. Ltd. (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Arbitration - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in determining that the Applicant did not have the right to a new arbitration hearing, on grounds of breach of rules of natural justice, bias, and fundamental denial to be heard.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                        Touche Ross & Co.

                                                                                                v. (26118)

                                                Stephen Kripps, Agnes Kripps, Edward Thorpe, Bonnie Thorpe,

                                                                          David Plunz and Gayle Plunz (B.C.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Accounting - Torts - Negligence - Standard of care - Shifting of the burden of proof - Whether auditors who are mandated by statute and contract to opine on the fairness of financial reporting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles have a legal duty to go beyond GAAP and opine generally on fairness of financial reporting without reference to a standard - Whether a defendant must disprove reliance, on proof by a plaintiff of a material negligent misrepresentation - Scope of appellate court review.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                                                       Sa Majesté la Reine

                                                                                                c. (25858)

                                                                               Edmon Kabbabe (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Preuve - Procédure préalable au procès - Droit au silence - L’honorable juge Joseph Nuss, de la majorité, a-t-il erré en droit en déterminant que les dispositions de l’article 4  de la Loi sur la preuve au Canada , L.R.C. 1985 ch. C.5  s’appliquent à une enquête tenue par le commissaire aux incendies et ce, par l’effet de l’article 25 de la Loi concernant les enquêtes sur les incendies S.R.Q. ch. E-8? - Le fait pour un commissaire aux incendies de contraindre à témoigner une personne soupçonnée d’incendie criminel contrevient-il aux droits fondamentaux de cette personne, tels que prévus à l’article 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  et spécialement à son droit au silence, tel que défini par cette Cour dans l’arrêt R. c. Hebert [1990] 2 R.C.S. 151.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                                           Cynthia Dobson

                                                                                                v. (26152)

                                  Ryan Leigh MacLean Dobson by his litigation guardian, Gerald M. Price (N.B.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Negligence - Whether the New Brunswick Court of Appeal erred in finding that the infant Respondent has the legal capacity to commence or continue an action in negligence against the Applicant, his mother, for injuries suffered due to the Applicant’s negligence while the infant Respondent was en ventre sa mere - Whether the New Brunswick Court of Appeal erred in distinguishing between alleged negligent acts committed by pregnant women in the course of making “lifestyle choices” and negligent acts committed in the course of operating motor vehicles.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                     Thomas William Zegil

                                                                                                v. (26153)

                                                                                    Diane Carol Opie (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real property - Remedies - Gift of one-half interest in real property held as joint tenants - Change in donor’s intention - Subsequent enhancement of real property by donor - What is the effect of the change of intention on completion of a gift - What is the effect of the change of intention on the availability of equitable relief in relation to real property transferred by way of gift - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the donor’s lack of intent to enhance the gift or the incomplete nature of the gift - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in characterizing the Respondent’s interest in the real property - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply or improperly applied principles of equitable relief or unjust enrichment in refusing the Applicant a remedy against the claim to a one-half interest in the real property.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

CORAM: Sopinka, Iacobucci and Major JJ. /

Les juges Sopinka, Iacobucci et Major

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                v. (26146)

                                                                       Anthony Dexter Browne (Crim.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Offences - Criminal negligence - What is the correct approach to finding duties of care in criminal negligence cases and did the Court of Appeal err in adopting a restrictive approach to this question - What is the correct interpretation of s. 217  of the Criminal Code  as it relates to duties arising from undertakings and did the Court of Appeal err in adopting a restrictive approach to this question - How should evidence of causation in criminal matters be evaluated and did the Court of Appeal err in not adopting the same standard as civil cases - What level of appellate deference is owed to inferences drawn by triers of fact in negligence cases and did the Court of Appeal err in describing findings below as speculative.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                           Eddie McDowall

                                                                                                v. (26127)

                                                      Tamara Terry-Anne Showdra and Sylvia Kiessling (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Motor vehicles - Damages - Loss of income - Respondent admitting liability for motor vehicle accident - Applicant representing self at jury trial and consenting to abandon action against Respondent, Kiessling, and to limit claim for damages to Applicant’s alleged financial loss flowing from two year delay in marketing of compact disk as a result of injuries sustained in accident - Jury concluding that Respondent suffered no financial loss as a result of the marketing delay -Procedural law - Trial - Applicant appealing dismissal of action on grounds that trial judge failed to adequately protect his interests by not advising jury of offer to settle,  Respondent’s liability and loss of income - Whether trial judge erred in advising jury of monetary amount of the Applicant’s claim - Whether Applicant abandoned his right to argue other heads of damage - Whether Court of Appeal properly considered discussion concerning acceptance or rejection of offer to settle.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

February 28, 1995

                                                                                       Dr. Felix Ravikovich

                                                                                                v. (26096)

                                                     The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Physicians and surgeons - Professional misconduct - Whether the Divisional Court applied the proper standard for judicial review - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in refusing to grant leave to appeal when it upheld the decision of the Discipline Committee that an error of judgment was equivalent to professional misconduct.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

July 22, 1996

Ontario Court of Justice (Divisional Court)

(O’Brien, Then, Winkler JJ.)

Applicant’s appeal from the Discipline Committee’s decision and penalty dismissed

November 4, 1996

Ontario Court of Appeal (Moldaver J.A.)

Applicant’s motion dismissed

January 28, 1997

Ontario Court of Appeal (Goudge J.A.)

Applicant’s motion dismissed

March 4, 1997

Ontario Court of Appeal

(Robins, Labrosse, Doherty JJ.A.)

Applicant’s motions dismissed

April 22, 1997

Ontario Court of Appeal

(Rosenberg, Southey JJ.A., McMurtry C.J.)

Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal dismissed

June 20, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

OCTOBER 23, 1997 / LE 23 OCTOBRE 1997

26137                    B.M.-.L. - c. - SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE (Crim.)(Qué.)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges Cory et McLachlin

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Procédure - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en refusant la demande d’autorisation d’appel? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en rejetant l’appel fondé sur le dépôt d’avis d’appel avant que ne soit produit le mémoire du demandeur? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en rejetant l’appel sur la base qu’il n’avait aucune chance de succès? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en refusant d’intervenir alors que les garanties constitutionnelles de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  ont été violées?- La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit en accueillant la requête pour rejet appel de l’intimée?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26138                    F.L. - c. - SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE - et - B.M.-L. (Crim.)(Qué.)

CORAM:               Le Juge en chef et les juges Cory et McLachlin

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel -  Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Procédure - Appel - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en considérant que la requête de l’intimée demandant le rejet de l’appel devait être accueillie? - La Cour d’appel est-t-elle en droit de rejeter l’appel? - La Cour d’appel avait-elle la compétence pour statuer sur l’appel? - Si oui, la Cour d’appel peut-elle statuer sur l’ensemble de l’appel avant même que soit présenté le mémoire de la demanderesse? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit et a-t-elle utilisé un critère valide pour décider de son intervention pour accueillir la requête en rejet d’appel de l’intimée, refusant ainsi d’intervenir alors que, selon la demanderesse, les garanties constitutionnelles contenues à la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  relativement à la protection de sa vie privée ainsi que relativement à ses droits à la protection contre les fouilles, perquisitions ou saisies abusives n’ont pas été respectées?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

25976                    DAVID PICKEN - c. - RICHARD GRENIER - et - PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC (Qué.)

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Saisie - Saisie-arrêt avant jugement - Crainte objective de mise en péril de la créance au sens de l’article 733 du Code de procédure civile - Contrat de délation entre l’intimé et le ministère de la Sécurité publique selon lequel l’intimé se verra attribuer une nouvelle identité à sa sortie de prison - Action en dommages du demandeur contre l’intimé - Saisie-arrêt avant jugement - Requête de l’intimé en annulation de la saisie-arrêt avant jugement rejetée en Cour supérieure - Appel accueilli - L’octroi d’une nouvelle identité constitue-t-elle une crainte objective de mise en péril de la créance au sens de l’article 733 du Code de procédure civile?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

25945                    HENRIETTE VARIN-ALMEIDA, LOUISE VARIN, MICHEL VARIN, CAROLE VARIN, ANDRÉ VARIN, DENISE VARIN ET GILLES VARIN - c. - ROLANDE BLACKBURN-MOREAULT, PIERRE MOREAULT, PATRICK MOREAULT, MICHEL MOREAULT ET HENRI MOREAULT (Qué.)

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

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

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Code civil - Successions - Testaments - Legs à titre universel - Usufruit viager - Caducité - Accroissement - Libéralités - Substitution - Ouverture - Interprétation de l’article 961 du Code civil du Bas-Canada - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur dans l’interprétation de l’article 961 du C.c.B.-C. puisqu’elle ajoute arbitrairement le mot “dernier” au texte de cette disposition créant ainsi, sans aucun fondement, un accroissement automatique entre cogrevés dans toute substitution?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26101                    THE GOLDEN GRIDDLE CORPORATION - v. - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO (Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

 Property law - Landlord and tenant - Relief from forfeiture - Whether judge’s discretion under s. 21 of  the Landlord and Tenant Act (relief from forfeiture) is fettered by a requirement that, in granting relief from forfeiture to a sub-tenant, the Court must be satisfied that the granting of the relief would not unfairly prejudice or adversely affect the head lessor - Whether relief from forfeiture should only be granted to a sub-tenant on terms whereby the sub-tenant is required to

assume all the terms, conditions and obligations contained in the head lease - Whether s. 21 of  the Landlord and Tenant Act permits a judge to grant relief from forfeiture to a sub-tenant without requiring the sub-tenant to pay all arrears owing under the head lease and assume all of the head tenant’s obligations under the head lease - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in substituting its own discretion with respect to the terms upon which the Applicant would be granted relief from forfeiture.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26150                    DAVID KEVIN LINDSAY - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Man.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The applications for extension of time are granted and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Les demandes de prorogation de délai sont accordées et la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering merit to be a factor in determining whether the Applicant’s legal costs should be paid by the Attorney General.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26108                    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v. - DEAN JAMES BAUDER (Crim.)(Man.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Conditional sentencing - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying a two-stage approach to conditional sentences in R. v. Arsiuta - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in continuing to follow R. v. Arsiuta subsequent to the amendments to s. 742.1  of the Criminal Code .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26053                    EDWARD DEL GRANDE - v. - THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK (Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Banks/banking operations - Contracts - Creditor and debtor - General security agreements - Sole Proprietors - Whether use of the words “carrying on business as” followed by a trade name, in a general security agreement, is misleading or limiting - Whether a general security agreement should be signed by an individual sole proprietor in his or her personal name, without the words “carrying on business as” followed by a trade name, in order to be effective against the sole proprietor’s personal assets.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 6, 1977

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

September 19, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada (The Registrar)

Extension of time to file Response granted

26141                    THOMAS A. GOODMAN AND DEBORAH GOODMAN - v. - ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (Man.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Cory and McLachlin JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Insurance - Exclusion clauses - Meaning of the words “flood” and “surface water” in an exclusion of liaiblity clause within an all-risks policy of insurance - Whether the Court of Appeal improperly overturned findings by the trial judge - Onus to prove applicability of exclusion clauses - Application of the doctrine of contra proferentem.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25978                    PIERRE BERGEVIN c. BRASSERIE LABATT INC. (Qué.)

CORAM:               Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka et Iacobucci

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Arbitrage - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en concluant qu’il n’y avait pas absence totale de motifs et qu’on comprenait aisément les fondements de la décision de l’arbitre et en refusant de considérer adéquatement la jurisprudence sur le contenu de l’obligation légale de motiver du tribunal administratif? - Le salarié a-t-il l’intérêt requis pour attaquer une décision arbitrale par voie d’action directe en nullité selon l’art. 33 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. C-25?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

26090                    SAHAR ELGUINDI v. CANADA (MINISTER OF HEALTH) AND DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF DRUG SURVEILLANCE  (Ont.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Whether rules of procedural fairness breached by receiving, considering or failing to disclose ex parte evidence and submissions - Whether reasonable apprehension of bias arose - Application of the “inevitability” doctrine.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

September 10, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada (The Registrar)

Extension of time to file reply granted

26110                    AZAM MIAN v. CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for extension of time and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.

La demande de prorogation de délai et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural Law - Civil Procedure - Extension of Time - Whether application for extension of time to apply for judicial review properly refused.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25921                    WAYNE B. CARTER v. PATRICIA J. BOARDMAN (NEE McCUE) AND ASSOCIATES LEASING INC.  (N.B.)

CORAM:               L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Major JJ.

The motion for extension of time and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

La demande de prorogation de délai et la demande d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Motor vehicles - Negligence - Canadian Charter  - Civil Procedural law - Trial - Whether the Applicant’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , ss.14 , 19(1)  and 19(2)  were breached at trial or on appeal - Whether the findings at trial or on appeal are supported on the facts found by the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench - Whether the Applicant was denied the right to have a fair and impartial hearing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26062                    MIROSLAV ZBOROVSKY v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Ont.)

CORAM:               Sopinka, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Criminal law - Search and seizure - Exclusion of evidence - Should evidence obtained pursuant to a section of the Income Tax Act subsequently struck down be excluded from evidence - Does the fact that the officers of Revenue Canada knew after the seizure that the mandating section of the Income Tax Act had been ruled unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Appeal indicate that they were not acting in good faith, and that therefore, the evidence obtained ought not to be admitted - Whether the trial judge should have excluded the evidence regardless of any constitutional issues if the warrant did not specifically authorize its seizure.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26103                    THE MARITIME LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY v. HAROLD SCHWARTZ (Nfld.)

CORAM:               Sopinka, Gonthier and Bastarache JJ.

The application 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

Commercial law - Agency-mandate - Where an independent broker acts in a dual agency role who should suffer the loss where the agent commits a fraud by embezzling the funds given to him or her.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

December 15, 1992

Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Trial Division)

(Soper J.)

Respondent’s action dismissed

April 10, 1997

Supreme Court of Newfoundland (Court of Appeal) (Gushue C.J.N., O’Neill, J.A., Marshall  J.A.[dissenting])

Respondent’s appeal allowed

June 27, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal and for an extension of time filed

26125                    WILLIAM D. THOMAS - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA (Man.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Bastarache 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

Statutes - Interpretation - Manitoba Health Services Insurance Act, C.C.S.M., c.H35 - Canada Health Act , R.S.C.1985, c.C-6  - Was the Applicant entitled to reimbursement from the Manitoba Health Services Commission for medical and hospital services incurred outside Manitoba in the circumstances of this case?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

26066                    EDMUND R. SAUNDERS and RETA W. SAUNDERS  - v. -OCEANUS MARINE INCORPORATED (N.S.)

CORAM:               Gonthier, Major and Bastarache JJ.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Mortgages - Interest - Is mortgage charging criminal rate of interest void and unenforceable?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

25169                    WILLIAM VANDERHEYDEN - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Crim.)(Ont.)

CORAM:               The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.

The application for reconsideration of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

La requête visant à obtenir le réexamen de la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.

17.10.1997

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

Motion for acceptance of factum on appeal over 40 pages

Stéphane Ménard

   v. (25707)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Requête en acceptation d'un mémoire d'appel de plus de 40 pages

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE  

17.10.1997

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

David Kevin Lindsay

    v. (26150)

Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer la réponse de l’intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to September 17, 1997.

17.10.1997

Before / Devant: THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional question

Batchewana Indian Band et al.

    v. (25708)

John Corbiere et al. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

John B. Edmond, for the motion.

B.A. Crane, Q.C., for the appellant Batchewana Indian Band.

Gary E. Corbiere, for the respondents.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.  Do the words “and is ordinarily resident on the reserve” contained in s.   77(1)  of the Indian Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5 , contravene s.   15(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  with respect only to members of the Batchewana Indian Band?

1. Les mots «et réside ordinairement sur la réserve» figurant au par. 77(1)  de la Loi sur les Indiens , L.R.C. (1985), ch. I-5 , contreviennent-ils au par. 15(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libert é s , mais uniquement en ce qui concerne les membres de la bande indienne de Batchewana?

2.  If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is s.   77(1)  of the Indian Act  a reasonable limit on the rights of members of the Batchewana Indian Band, and so not inconsistent with the Constitution Act, 1982 ?

2.  Si la réponse à la question 1 est affirmative, le par. 77(1)  de la Loi sur les Indiens  restreint-il dans des limites raisonnables les droits des membres de la bande indienne de Batchewana, de tel façon qu’il n’est pas incompatible avec la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ?

17.10.1997

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Terence Lawrence Caslake

    v. (25023)

Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 16, 1997.

17.10.1997

Before / Devant: CORY J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:           Attorney General of Saskatchewan

IN/DANS:          Consortium Developments (Clearwater) Ltd.

v. (25604)

Corp. of the City of Sarnia et al. (Ont.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Factum not to exceed 20 pages and oral argument is limited to 15 minutes.

17.10.1997

Before / Devant: LE JUGE EN CHEF LAMER

Requête pour obtenir des directives

Edwin Pearson

   c. (24107)

Procureur général du Canada (Qué.)

Motion for directions

Gérald Danis, pour la requête.

Bernard Laprade, pour l’intimé.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

SUR REQUÊTE de l’appelant pour que soient données des directives quant aux questions en litige que soulève le présent appel;

APRÈS LECTURE des documents et audition des parties;

CONSIDÉRANT que la décision de cette Cour rendue le 24 octobre 1996 accueillant la demande de réexamen soumise par l’appelant et lui accordant l’autorisation de pourvoi ne restreint pas la portée de l’appel;

J’ORDONNE:

Que le présent appel portera sur toute question de droit pouvant être légalement soulevée à l’encontre du jugement frappé d’appel, en regard de la loi applicable à l’espèce, et nos décisions en la matière.

20.10.1997

Before / Devant: IACOBUCCI J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada

IN/DANS:              Deltonia R. Cook

v. (25852)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Factum is not to exceed 30 pages and oral argument is limited to 20 minutes.

20.10.1997

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Melville Neuman

   v. (25565)

Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’intimée

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to December 4, 1997.

21.10.1997

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellants’ factum

Consolidated Mayburn Mines Ltd. et al.

    v. (25326)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire des appelants

With the consent of the parties.

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 14, 1997.

21.10.1997

Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR

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

Her Majesty The Queen

   v. (25705)

N.G.H. (B.C.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l’appelante

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to October 8, 1997.

16.10.1997

Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion to state a constitutional question

Travis Orlowski

    v. (25751)

Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)

Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.  Does s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 , infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 15(1)  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  on the ground that it discrimates against people with a mental disorder, including people with a mental disability, who have been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder?

1.  L’art. 672.54  du Code criminel , L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46 , porte-t-il atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par le par. 15(1)  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  pour le motif qu’il crée de la discrimination à l’endroit des personnes souffrant de troubles mentaux -- y compris celles atteintes de déficiences mentales -- qui,

pour cette cause, font l’objet d’un verdict de non-responsabilité criminelle?

2.  Does s. 672.53 of the  Criminal Code , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 , infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by s. 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  on the ground that it deprives persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of their right to liberty and security of the person contrary to the principles of fundamental justice?

2.  L’art. 672.54  du Code criminel , L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46 , porte-t-il atteinte aux droits et libertés garantis par l’art. 7  de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  pour le motif que, d’une manière incompatible avec les principes de justice fondamentale, il prive de leur droit à la liberté et à la sécurité de leur personne les personnes faisant l’objet d’un verdict de non-responsabilité criminelle pour cause de troubles mentaux?

3.  If so, can these infringements be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?

3.  Si oui, s’agit-il d’atteintes dont la justification peut se démontrer dans le cadre d’une société libre et démocratique en vertu de l’article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ?

22.10.1997

Before / Devant:   CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion for additional time to present oral argument

Reference Re: Secession of Québec (Ont.)(25506)

Requête en prorogation du temps accordé pour la plaidoirie

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    The order to extend time for oral argument from 20 to 40 minutes is granted.

22.10.1997

Before / Devant:   IACOBUCCI J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto Inc.; The Native Women’s Association of Canada;  Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council

IN/DANS:              Batchewana Indian Band et al.

    v. (25708)

John Corbiere et al. (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

17.10.1997

Marcel Lalonde

   v. (26261)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

AS OF RIGHT

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Ontario                             

IN/DANS:              Joseph Ronald Winko

v. (25856)

The Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Ontario

IN/DANS:              Gordon Wayne Bese

v. (25855)

The Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute et al. (B.C.)

17.10.1997

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

Chieu Ly

   v. (25746)

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

Sid M. Tarrabain and Walter Raponi, for the appellant.

Don R. Beardall and Larry R.A. Ackerl, for the respondent.

McLACHLIN J (orally from the Bench)

This is an appeal as of right.  The only point on appeal is the admissibility of a telephone conversation between an unidentified person and a police officer, in which an unidentified person made arrangements to deliver drugs to a police officer at a certain time and place.

LE JUGE McLACHLIN: (oralement pour la Cour)

Il s’agit d’un appel de plein droit. La seule question en litige dans le présent pourvoi est l’admissibilité d’une conversation téléphonique entre un policier et une personne non identifiée, conversation au cours de laquelle cette personne a pris des dispositions pour livrer des stupéfiants au policier à une heure et à un lieu déterminés.

The appellant argues that the telephone conversation was properly rejected by the Trial Judge because it is hearsay and does not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

L’appelant prétend que le juge du procès a eu raison de rejeter la conversation téléphonique pour le motif que celle-ci constituait du ouï-dire et ne relevait d’aucune des exceptions à la règle du ouï-dire.

We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s order for a new trial confirmed.  The telephone conversation was admissible.  It was a statement of intention, or a statement tendered to establish the alleged drug transaction, and hence not tendered for the truth of its contents.  Accordingly, it was not hearsay.  The telephone conversation is merely one of the circumstances which, combined with others, may suffice to establish that the accused, when he appeared at the designated time and place, in possession of the drugs, did so for the purpose of trafficking.  Any frailties in relation to the connection between the accused and the telephone conversation go to weight and not admissibility.

Nous sommes tous d’avis que le pourvoi doit être rejeté et que l’ordonnance de la Cour d’appel intimant la tenue d’un nouveau procès doit être confirmée. La conversation téléphonique était admissible. Il s’agissait d’une déclaration d’intention ou d’une déclaration produite non pas pour la véracité de son contenu mais pour établir le fait de la transaction de stupéfiant alléguée. Par conséquent, elle ne constituait pas du ouï-dire. La conversation téléphonique est simplement une des circonstances qui, conjuguées à d’autres, pourraient suffire pour établir que, lorsqu’il s’est présenté, en possession des stupéfiants, à l’endroit et à l’heure fixés,  l’appelant l’a fait en vue de faire le trafic de ces substances. Si le lien entre l’appelant et la conversation téléphonique est fragile à quelque égard, c’est du point de  vue du poids qui doit être accordé à l’élément de preuve et non de son admissibilité.

The appeal is dismissed and the order for a new trial confirmed.

Le pourvoi est rejeté et l’ordonnance intimant la tenue d’un nouveau procès est confirmée.

17.10.1997

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

Hopeton Allen

   v. (25549)

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

Charles C. Roach and Peter Rosenthal, for the appellant.

David Butt, for the respondent.

SOPINKA J. (orally for the Court):

We agree with the reasons of Doherty J.A. in the Court of Appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

LE JUGE SOPINKA (oralement pour la Cour):

Nous sommes d’accord avec les motifs exposés par le juge Doherty de la Cour d’appel. En conséquence, le pourvoi est rejeté.

AGENDA for the week beginning October 27, 1997.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 27 octobre 1997.

Date of Hearing/                           Case Number and Name/    

Date d'audition                             Numéro et nom de la cause

The Court is not sitting this week

La Cour ne siège pas cette semaine

NOTE: 

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

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