Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

February 6, 1998  179 - 200                                                                 le 6 février 1998

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Lucien Brouillette

Dominique Larose

Claude F. Archambault & Assoc.

c. (25791)

Société d’agriculture du Comté de Verchères (Qué.)

Frédéric Sylvestre

Sylvestre & Assoc.

DATE DE PRODUCTION 12.1.1998

Real Rodrigue

Real Rodrigue

c. (26438)

Ville de Québec et al. (Qué.)

Guy Bilodeau

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.1.1998

Sonia Tremblay

Sonia Tremblay

c. (26439)

Ville de Québec et al. (Qué.)

Guy Bilodeau

DATE DE PRODUCTION 26.1.1998

Seamus Leonard et al.

Lawrence Greenspon

Karam, Greenspon

v. (26440)

Stephane Houle et al. (Ont.)

FILING DATE 12.1.1998

Victor Brian Olson

Paul V. Walsh, Q.C.

Anhang, Walsh and Company

v. (26442)

The Law Society of Manitoba (Man.)

Garth H. Smorang

Deeley, Fabbri, Sellen

FILING DATE 12.1.1998

Robert McMichael et al.

Harry Underwood

McCarthy Tétrault

v. (26443)

Her Majesty The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.)

Leah Price

Beard, Winter

FILING DATE 19.1.1998

Co-Operators General Insurance Co.

Clarence A. Beckett, Q.C.

Patterson Palmer Hunt Murphy

v. (26445)

Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. (N.S.)

W. Dale Dunlop

Walker, Dunlop

FILING DATE 14.1.1998

Ellipse Fiction / Ellipse Programme

Daniel Payette

Payette & Carbonneau

c. (26446)

International Image Services Inc. et al. (Qué.)

Benoît Duguay

MacKenzie Gervais

DATE DE PRODUCTION 19.1.1998

Benny Abdenbi Barrouk

Benny Abdenbi Barrouk

c. (26447)

Brenda J. Crowther Syncrude Canada et al. (Alta.)

George Thomson

Sous-procureur général du Canada

DATE DE PRODUCTION 22.1.1998

Sheila Robertson

Timothy W. Pearkes

Timothy W. Pearkes Law Corporation

v. (26448)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. (B.C.)

Kathleen E. Geiger

Stewart, Aulinger and Company

FILING DATE 12.1.1998

Bharat Goel

Bharat Goel

v. (26449)

Minister of Human Resources Development (F.C.A.)

Michel Mathieu

Human Resources Development

FILING DATE 22.1.1998

Westbank First Nation

Jack Woodward

Woodward & Company

v. (26450)

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (B.C.)

Peter D. Feldberg

Lawson Lundell Lawson & McIntosh

FILING DATE 23.1.1998

Pierre Poliquin

Maurice Dussault

Brochet Dussault Larochelle

c. (26451)

Colette Perron-Malenfant et al. (Qué.)

Jean-Philippe Gervais

Gervais & Gervais

DATE DE PRODUCTION 23.1.1998

JANUARY 30, 1998 / LE 30 JANVIER 1998

                                                 CORAM:   Chief Justice Lamer and Cory and McLachlin JJ. /

Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Cory et McLachlin

                                                                                         Tuyen Minh Dang

                                                                                                v. (26285)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Conditional sentencing - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ruling that the conditional sentence imposed by the trial judge for cocaine trafficking was wrong in principle - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by allowing the principle of general deterrence to overrule an otherwise appropriate conditional sentence imposed by the trial judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                          New Investors Committee of Mater’s Mortgages Inc.

                                                                                                v. (26179)

                                                                            Peat Marwick Thorne Inc. (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Company law - Receivership - Duties of receiver - Court approval of a receiver’s proposal to sell the assets of a corporation - Importance of considering vote by investors rejecting proposal.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

October 15, 1996

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division)

Farley J.

Order granted: Respondent authorized and empowered to proceed with transaction; Applicant’s cross-motion dismissed

December 6, 1996

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Carthy, Laskin, Charron JJ.A.)

Appeal of October 15, 1996 order dismissed

April 1, 1997

Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Farley J.)

June 9, 1997

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Robins, Abella and Rosenberg JJ.A.)

Applicant’s motion to admit new evidence and to set aside the October 15, 1996 order, dismissed

Appeal of April 1, 1997 order dismissed

September 4, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

October 10, 1997

Supreme Court of Canada (Registrar)

Motion for an extension of time to file response to October 31, 1997, granted

                                                                Ontario Adult Entertainment Bar Association

                                                                                                v. (26325)

                                                              The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Divisions of powers - Canadian Charter  - Civil - Civil rights - Freedom of expression - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that By-Law 129-95 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was a colourable attempt to make criminal law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Koumoudouros v. Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) (1985), 52 O.R. (2d) 442 (C.A.), Sherwood Park Restaurant Inc. v. Markham (Municipality) (1984), 48 O.R. (2d) 449 (C.A.) and Nordee Investments Ltd. v. Burlington (City) (1984), 48 O.R. (2d) 123 (C.A.) were overruled in Rio Hotel Limited v. New Brunswick Liquor Licensing Board, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 59  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that Metropolitan Toronto By-Law 129-95 was void for overbreadth and uncertainty - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that Metropolitan Toronto By-Law 129-95 breached s.2(b)  of the Charter  and could not be saved by s.1  of Charter .

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, and The Northwest Territories

Business Credit Corporation

                                                                                                v. (26337)

                                                 The Municipal Corporation of the City of Yellowknife (N.W.T.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Municipal law - Assessment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering that the Applicants must pay outstanding property taxes to the Respondent notwithstanding that it is exempted from payment by the Northwest Territories Property Assessment and Taxation Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. P-10.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

August 29, 1996

Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories (Irving J.)

Order granted: Respondent allowed to proceed with the tax sale

M-Jay Farms Enterprises Ltd., suing on its own behalf and on behalf of all other holders of permit books for the crop year July 31, 1993 to August 1, 1994, who were issued certificates by The Canadian Wheat Board pursuant to Section 32(1)(d) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act for the purchase and delivery of Canadian feed wheat during the 1993/94 crop year

                                                                                                v. (26346)

                                                                          The Canadian Wheat Board (Man.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law - Civil procedure - Pre-trial procedure - Motion to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the Applicant’s statement of claim.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

Les juges L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et Bastarache

                                                                                           Robert Théroux

                                                                                                c. (26292)

                                                                           Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Fraude - La Cour d’appel a erré en omettant de faire les distinctions entre de simples déclarations inexactes faites par négligence, la pratique commerciale déloyale, et des actes frauduleux intentionnels - La Cour d’appel a erré en statuant qu’aucune erreur ne justifiait leur intervention - Le verdict du juge du procès est déraisonnable et non supporté par la preuve - Les tribunaux inférieurs ont omis d’appliquer les principes reconnus en ce qui a trait au doute raisonnable.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                     Ricken Leroux Inc., Christopher Ricken, Ginette Leroux,

Centre de planification financière C.F.P. Inc.

c. (26287)

Le Ministre du Revenu du Québec, le Sous-ministre du Revenu du Québec, Le Ministre du Revenu National,

Le sous-ministre du Revenu national, Jean Côté, Nathalie Bernier, Claude Bolduc, Luc Boulanger,

Francine Denis, Pierre  Durand, Claude Guérard, Serge Lamothe, Louise Langlois, Raynald Marquis,

Alain Plamondon, Colette Proulx, Michel Santerre et Éric Sergerie, Noël Tremblay et Antonin Belley

                                                                                                      -et-

L’honorable Claude Gagnon, Le procureur général du Canada,

Le procureur général du Québec, Le greffier de la cour du Québec (Crim.)(Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Droit constitutionnel - Saisie - Preuve - Partage des compétences - Mandats de perquisition - Délégation - Est-ce que le juge de paix pouvait émettre les mandats de perquisition dans le présent dossier, compte tenu des termes de l’entente, ainsi que de la dénonciation telle que libellée - Est-ce que tous les fonctionnaires du Québec ayant participé à la vérification et à la perquisition avaient l’autorité légale pour agir dans le présent dossier - Les mandats de perquisition étaient-ils nécessaires ou utiles, compte tenu que les intimés disposaient de toute l’information requise pour déposer des plaintes pénales - Est-ce que la Division des enquêtes spéciales a transformé l’objet réglementaire de la Loi en un objet quasi criminel en se servant intégralement des informations contenues dans le dossier d’Éric Sergerie pour faire une enquête dans le but d’émission des mandats de perquisition - Est-ce que les mandats auraient dû être assortis de conditions ou de restrictions à la résidence privée, vu les circonstances particulières de ce dossier-Est-ce que les demandeurs ont le droit d’obtenir une compensation sous forme de frais et de dépens, sur la base d’honoraires avocat-client, compte tenu de la complexité du dossier.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                                    2550-9613 Québec Inc.

                                                                                                c. (26176)

                                                      Ville de Val d’Or et Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Municipalités - Droit constitutionnel - Partage des compétences - Aménagement et urbanisme - Règlement de zonage - Bar avec spectacles de danseuses nues - Requête en jugement déclaratoire portant qu’une partie du règlement de zonage de la municipalité de Val d’Or est discriminatoire et ultra vires et que la demanderesse pouvait présenter des spectacles de danseuses nues accueillie en Cour supérieure - Appel des intimés accueilli - Le règlement de zonage interdisant les spectacles de danseuses nues dans la zone où se trouve l’établissement de la demanderesse est-il discriminatoire, invalide sur le plan constitutionnel, nul en raison de son caractère vague et imprécis et nul en raison de son caractère prohibitif?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                             Dans l’affaire de la faillite de:  Les Entreprises Michel Lepage Inc.

ENTRE:

                                                         La Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail

                                                                                                c. (26192)

                                                                  Caron, Bélanger, Ernst & Young Inc. (Qué.)

ET

                             Dans l’affaire de la faillite de:  Raymond Malenfant, Colette Perron, Alain Malenfant,

                                                      France Malenfant, Eustelle Malenfant et Lynn Malenfant

ENTRE:

                                                         La Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail

                                                                                                c. (26192)

                                                                            Pierre Poliquin, F.C.G.A. (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Faillite - Droit des biens - Législation - Interprétation - Privilèges - La demanderesse est-elle un “créancier garanti” au sens de l’art. 2  de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , L.R.C. 1985, ch. B-3 , compte tenu des modifications apportées à cette loi en 1992 et en particulier à l’art. 136(1)h)? - La créance privilégiée dont bénéficie la demanderesse sur les biens meubles et immeubles de l’employeur, en vertu de l’art. 324 de la Loi sur les accidents du travail et les maladies professionnelles, L.R.Q. 1977, ch. A-3.001, constitue-t-elle un véritable privilège au sens du droit civil? - Existe-t-il une différence, au sens de la définition du “créancier garanti” de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité , entre les privilèges ou “liens” d’origine statutaire accordés aux autres Commission d’accidents du travail du Canada et le privilège accordé à la demanderesse par l’art. 324 L.A.T.M.P.?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

                                                                                          Ville de Chambly

                                                                                                c. (26195)

                                                                                          Fernand Gagnon

                                                                                                        et

                                                                   L’honorable Jean-Pierre Bourduas J.C.Q.,

                                                                      l’honorable Jacques Désormeau J.C.Q.,

                                                                    l’honorable Micheline Laliberté J.C.Q. et

                                                                    le Ministre de la Sécurité publique (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Droit municipal - Législation - Interprétation - Contrat - Directeur de police - Non-renouvellement d’un contrat à durée déterminée de cinq ans du directeur de police de la municipalité demanderesse - Résolution de la municipalité demanderesse constatant l’expiration du terme de cinq ans et prévoyant le non-renouvellement du contrat de l’intimé - Y a-t-il “destitution” du directeur de police au sens de l’article 79 de la Loi de police, L.R.Q., chap. P-13? - Interprétation de l’expression “quelles que soient les modalités de son engagement”? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle commis une erreur en assimilant à une destitution, au sens de l’article 79 de la Loi de police, précitée, une résolution de la municipalité demanderesse constatant l’arrivée du terme du contrat d’engagement de l’intimé et l’intention de la municipalité de ne pas renouveler ce contrat?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Le 19 mai 1995

Cour du Québec

(Bourduas, Désormeau, Laliberté JJ.C.Q.)

Requête de l’intimé fondée sur l’art. 79 de la Loi de police, L.R.Q., chap. P-13, pour annuler la résolution du conseil municipal accueillie

Le 13 décembre 1995

Cour supérieure (Bishop J.C.S.)

Requête de la demanderesse en révision judiciaire accueillie

Le 26 juin 1997

Cour d’appel du Québec

(Vallerand, Fish et Robert JJ.C.A.)

Appel de l’intimé accueilli

Le 17 septembre 1997

Cour suprême du Canada

Demande d’autorisation d’appel déposée

CORAM:   Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ. /

Les juges Iacobucci, Major et Bastarache

                                                                                    Her Majesty the Queen

                                                                                                v. (26201)

                                                                            Cory Colin Drake (Crim.)(P.E.I.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Sentencing - Major sexual assault - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of R. v. McDonnell, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948 regarding reference to starting points in sentencing - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s. 718.2  of the Criminal Code  regarding its interaction with the use of starting points as a guide in sentencing.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                             Pablo Mendez

                                                                                                v. (26323)

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Abduction in contravention of a custody order - Whether the trial judge erred in his analysis of the defence provided in s. 285  of the Criminal Code  - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s. 285 requires that in order for a parent to avail himself of the defence that there must be a connection between the parent’s escape from danger of imminent harm and the taking of the child - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was no connection in this case - Whether the trial judge’s determination that the Applicant’s actions were not proportional to the circumstances was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                William F. Kubicek III, Executor for the Estate

of the late William F. Kubicek Jr.

                                                                                                v. (26334)

                                                                        Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Assessment - Treaties and conventions - Interpretation - Taxation of capital gains on disposition of property owned by U.S. resident under the 1980 Canada‐United States Income Tax Convention - Interpretation of 1980 Canada‐United States Income Tax Convention to select starting date in calculation of capital gain - Whether gain should be calculated from the date of the original acquisition of asset or from date capital gains first became liable to taxation in Canada.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                                            Terry Coombe

                                                                                                v. (26348)

                                                                      Constitution Company of Canada (Ont.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial Law - Insurance - Procedural Law - Evidence - Burden of Proof -  Cessation of payment of motor vehicle accident benefits - Onus of proving cessation of disability if insurer ceases payments of benefits due under judicial order to make payments in accordance with contract of insurance.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29.1.1998

Before / Devant:   CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Status League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada

IN/DANS:              Reference re: Secession of Québec (Ont.)(25506)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

David Matas, for the motion.

Jean-Marc Aubry, Q.C., and Warren Newman, for the Attorney General of Canada.

Pierre Landry, pour l’Amicus Curiae.

DISMISSED / REJETÉE

UPON APPLICATION by counsel on behalf of the Applicant Status League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada for an order extending the time to serve and file an application for leave to intervene and an application for leave to intervene;

AND HAVING read and heard the submissions of the Applicant, the Attorney General of Canada and the Amicus Curiae;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.             Even though the Applicant has submitted its factum as an annex to its Notice of Motion, there would have to be a delay in the hearing of the Reference if this motion were to be granted.  The parties would be entitled to have four weeks to respond to the Applicant’s factum and then the Applicant would be entitled to two weeks to reply.  From this date, this would mean a delay in hearing the Reference of at least a month and would no doubt inconvenience all of the other parties.  For this reason, and for the reason that all of the other interveners were granted leave to intervene more than a year ago and I am not satisfied that the Applicant could not have made its application on a more timely basis, I hereby dismiss the motion for an extension of time and the motion for leave to intervene.

2.             The Amicus Curiae is instructed to deal in an objective way with the substantive position raised by the Applicant in an Addendum to be filed by February 6, 1998.

30.1.1998

Before / Devant:   GONTHIER J.

Motion to appoint counsel

William Milas Aikens

    v. (26398)

Her Majesty The Queen (Sask.)

Requête en nomination d’un procureur

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

1.  It is ordered that Robert Hrycan, be and the same is hereby so appointed;

2.  It is further ordered that the legal fees and disbursements of counsel, shall be paid by the respondent, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan, at the same rates as the Saskatchewan Legal Aid Tariff and as per the memorandum herein of Jan. 23, 1998, of counsel for the Minister of Justice of Saskatchewan;

3.  It is further ordered that the delay to file an application for leave to appeal is extended to expire 60 days from this date.

2.2.1998

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

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

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

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti de dépôt par un intervenant d'un mémoire en réplique

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE   Time extended to January 27, 1998.

2.2.1998

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal

Jeffrey Aaron Beyer

    v. (26437)

Her Majesty The Queen (Man.)

Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l’autorisation d’appel

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 7, 1998.

3.2.1998

Before / Devant:   LE JUGE CORY

Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l’autorisation d’appel

Giuseppe Sansaloni et al.

    c. (26361)

Ville de Montréal (Qué.)

Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal

Avec le consentement des parties.

ACCORDÉE / GRANTED    Délai prorogé au 16 février 1998.

3.2.1998

Before / Devant:   CORY J.

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada

IN/DANS:              Vincent Godoy

v. (26078)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

Requête en autorisation d’intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

4.2.1998

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis

Arthur Robert Winters

    v. (26180)

Legal Services Society  (B.C.)

Requête en autorisation d'appel in forma pauperis

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

14.1.1998

John Lauda

   v. (26444)

Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.)

AS OF RIGHT

29.1.1998

Lee Edward Campbell

     v. (26454)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

AS OF RIGHT

BY/PAR:                Attorney General of Canada

Attorney General of Ontario

Attorney General of Manitoba

Procureur général du Québec

IN/DANS:              W.  (D.D.)

   v. (25970)

Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.)

BY/PAR:                Procureur général du Québec

IN/DANS:              Gaétan Delisle

   c. (25926)

Le procureur général du Canada (Qué)

30.1.1998

CORAM:               Le juge en chef Lamer et les juges Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major et Bastarache

Yves Bisson

    c. (25821)

Sa Majesté La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

Pierre Poupart et Ronald Prégent, pour l’appelant.

Stéphane Lamarche et Michel Denis, pour l’intimée.

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

Nature de la cause:

Droit criminel - Preuve - Directives au jury - Le juge du procès a-t-il erré dans sa définition du doute raisonnable en affirmant que la certitude hors de tout doute raisonnable était le même degré de certitude que celui que nous utilisions dans les activités importantes de notre vie et en illustrant cette définition par un exemple tiré de la vie quotidienne, à savoir la certitude que le niveau d’huile est suffisant dans le moteur d’un automobile? - Le juge du procès a-t-il erré en affirmant que le doute raisonnable basé sur une preuve circonstancielle devait reposer sur des faits “prouvés” et en affirmant qu’on ne pouvait déduire l’innocence à partir d’hypothèses, de supposition ou de conjecture, mais seulement à partir de faits “prouvés”? - La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que les directives du juge du procès relativement à la conscience coupable n’étaient pas erronées?  La Cour d’appel du Québec a-t-elle erré en droit en concluant que le comportement du juge envers les avocats lors du procès ne constituait pas une atteinte aux droits constitutionnels de l’appelant justifiant la tenue d’un nouveau procès?

Nature of the case:

Criminal law - Evidence - Charge to the jury - Whether trial judge erred in his definition of reasonable doubt in stating that certainty beyond a reasonable doubt is the same degree of certainty as that employed in significant activities in daily life and in illustrating that definition by using an example taken from every day life: eg, to know with certainty that the level of oil in a motor vehicle is sufficient - Whether trial judge erred in affirming that reasaonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence must rest on the “proven” facts and in stating that innocence could not be based in hypotheses, speculation or conjecture, but only from “proven” facts - Did the Court of Appeal err in law in holding that the charge to the jury respecting the evidence of consciousness of guilt were not erroneous? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that the conduct of the trial judge respecting trial counsel did not constitute a breach of the appellant’s rights justifying a new trial.

30.1.1998

CORAM:               Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.

Doris Bekoe

   v. (25615)

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

Michael Lomer, for the appellant.

Beverly A. Brown, for the respondent.

CORY J. (orally for the Court):

We are all of the view that there was no error in the reasons and conclusion of the majority of the Court of Appeal. 

This appeal as of right is therefore dismissed.

LE JUGE CORY (oralement au nom de la Cour):

Nous sommes tous d’avis qu’il n’y a aucune erreur dans les motifs et la conclusion de la Cour d’appel à la majorité. 

Le présent pourvoi de plein droit est donc rejeté.

AGENDA for the week beginning February 9, 1998.

ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 9 février 1998.

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.

                                                   SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE

                                                       CALENDRIER DE LA COUR SUPREME

REVISED

- 1997 -

- 1998 -