Bulletins

OF CANADA                                            DU CANADA   

             BULLETIN  OF                                          BULLETIN DES

             PROCEEDINGS                                          PROCÉDURES

May 16, 2003 765 - 826                                                                        le 16 mai 2003

CONTENTS                                                   TABLE DES MATIÈRES

J.E. Fortin Inc.

Karl Jessop

Flynn, Rivard

c. (29725)

La Commission de la santé et de la s.écurité du travail, et autres (Qué.)

Jocelyne Bolduc

Panneton, Lessard

DATE DE PRODUCTION 22.4.2003

Her Majesty the Queen

Jennifer M. Woollcombe

A.G. for Ontario

v. (29722)

Douglas Deschamplain (Ont.)

Michael W. Lacy

Kelly, Jennings & Lacy

FILING DATE 24.4.2003

Richard Condo

Diane Magas

Magas Law Office

v. (29723)

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

Sébastien Gagné

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 24.4.2003

Laurette Larose

Laurette Larose

c. (29724)

Ghislaine Larose-Blondeau, et autres (Qué.)

Luc Ouellette

Ouellette, Grondin, Larouche

DATE DE PRODUCTION 24.4.2003

Les Immeubles Henry Ho Inc.

Henri Richard

Bélanger Sauvé

c. (29726)

Nour-Eddine Benakezouh (Qué.)

Aline Quach

Goulet, Désy & Lafortune

DATE DE PRODUCTION 25.4.2003

Sherecee Francis, Sherkira Holder Thompson and Shermar Holder-Nicholson, minors, by their litigation guardian Eleanor Holder

Beth Symes

Eberts Symes Street & Corbett

v. (29727)

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

Paul J. Evraire, Q.C.

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 25.4.2003

Incorporated Broadcasters Limited, Mae Management Corporation, Seymour Epstein and Paul Morton

Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C.

Sutts, Strosberg

v. (29742)

Canwest Global Communications Corp., Global Television Network Inc., Canvideo Television Sales (1983) Limited, Global Communications Limited, Canwest Global Broadcasting Inc., and Israel Asper (Ont.)

Thomas G. Heintzman, Q.C.

McCarthy Tétrault

FILING DATE 25.4.2003

Wyndham Street Investments Inc.

Rodney L.K. Smith, Q.C.

Blaney McMurtry

v. (29728)

The Corporation of the City of Guelph (Ont.)

Barnet H. Kussner

WeirFoulds

FILING DATE 28.4.2003

Charlotte Oliver, et al.

Garett A. Eisenbraun

Field Atkinson Perraton

v. (29729)

Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

John O’Callahan

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 28.4.2003

Weimin Wu

Weimin Wu

v. (29730)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Edward Burnet

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 28.4.2003

Freddy Giammattei, et al.

Garett A. Eisenbraun

Field Atkinson Perraton

v. (29731)

The Attorney General of Canada (F.C.)

John O’Callahan

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 28.4.2003

Board of Governors of Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology

Christopher G. Riggs, Q.C.

Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart, Storie

v. (29732)

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Ont.)

Timothy G.M. Hadwen

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

FILING DATE 28.4.2003

Edward Tanner

Karl Arvai

v. (29733)

Steven Clark and Wilf Morrison Trucking (Ont.)

Mark L.J. Edwards

Beard, Winter

FILING DATE 28.4.2003

Alliance Pipeline Ltd.

Gerald F. Scott, Q.C.

Fraser Milner Casgrain

v. (29734)

Terry Balisky, Marcia Balisky, Bev Collin Holdings Ltd., Byron Bue, Raymond Bue, Peter Eggers, Levke Eggers, Bryan Ellingson, Charles Evaskevich, Nora Evaskevich, Brian Fast, Teresa Fast, Doug Gabert, Raymond Gilkyson, Vicki Gilkyson, et al.  (F.C.)

J. Darryl Carter

Carter, Lock & Horrigan

FILING DATE 28.4.2003

Société Radio-Canada

Nicolas Di Iorio

Heenan Blaikie

c. (29736)

Association des réalisateurs (C.F.)

Jean-Pierre Belhumeur

Stikeman Elliott

DATE DE PRODUCTION 28.4.2003

Workers’ Compensation Board and Randy Wolfert

William P. Ostapek

Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta

v. (29737)

Thomas Shuchuk (Alta.)

J.R. Nickerson

Nickerson Roberts

FILING DATE 28.4.2003

Communauté urbaine de Montréal et Raoul Lacombe

Pierre Yves Boisvert

Jalbert, Séguin, Caron

c. (29739)

Alain André et Lorraine Drouin (Qué.)

Jacques Richard

Richard, Trottier, Gagné, Dubuc

DATE DE PRODUCTION 28.4.2003

Generex Pharmaceuticals Inc. and E. Mark Perri

Richard E. Anka, Q.C.

Brans, Lehun, Bladwin

v. (29735)

Lorne Spark (Ont.)

Ted R. Laan

FILING DATE 29.4.2003

Harold Westendorp, Harold’s Demolition Inc., Inner Harbour Developments Inc., 548394 Ontario Limited, and Investments Development Corporation

Leonard Levencrown

MacKinnon & Phillips

v. (29740)

National Trust Company (Ont.)

Wilfred Menninga

Templeman, Menninga

FILING DATE 30.4.2003

Rory Eldon Foreman

Brian H. Greenspan

Greenspan Humphrey Lavine

v. (29741)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Alexander V. Hrybinsky

A.G. for Ontario

FILING DATE 30.4.2003

Aahd Atouani

Nellie Benoit

c. (29743)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Qué.)

Anne-Marie Omann

DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.4.2003

Novopharm Limited

Peter K. Guselle

Fogler, Rubinoff

v. (29745)

Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Luther P. Chambers, Q.C.   

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 1.5.2003

B.L.

April C. Kellett

A.C.K. @ Law

v. (29625)

The Regional Director of Child Welfare (Alta.)

Tanya Kuehn

A.G. of Alberta

FILING DATE 30.4.2003

Thérèse Bourgeois

Thérèse Bourgeois

c. (29744)

Ville de Saint-Jérôme (Qué.)

Francis Gervais

Deveau, Bissonnette, Monfette, Fortin & Associés

DATE DE PRODUCTION 30.4.2003

 Dutch Industries Ltd.

Robert A. Kallio

Furman & Kallio

v. (29738)

Barton No-Till Disk Inc. and Flexi-Coil Ltd., et al. (F.C.)

Marcus T. Gallie

Ridout & Maybee

FILING DATE 5.5.2003

Sameer Mapara

Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C.

A.G. of British Columbia

v. (29750)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Galvin C. Deedman

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE 5.5.2003

Corazon Macatula

E. William Olson, Q.C.

Thompson, Dorfman, Sweatman

v. (29757)

Jean Tessier, et al.  (Man.)

Robert L. Tapper

Tapper Cuddy

FILING DATE 1.5.2003

Yaw Sarfo Mensah

P. Andras Schreck

Schrek & Greene

v. (29746)

Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Hugh O’Connell

A.G. of Canada

FILING DATE 2.5.2003

Equifax Canada Inc.

John J. Chapman

Miller Thomson

v. (29752)

Glenn Haskett (Ont.)

Peter R. Jervis

Lerner & Associates

FILING DATE 2.5.2003

- and between -

Trans Union of Canada Inc.

Lawrence E. Ritchie

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt

v. (29752)

Glenn Haskett (Ont.)

Peter R. Jarvis

Lerner & Associates

FILING DATE 2.5.2003

DFS Ventures Ltd.

Paul E. Kammerloch

Pullan Kammerloch Frohlinger

v. (29753)

The Manitoba Liquor Control Commission, et al.  (Man.)

Holly D. Penner

A.G. of Manitoba

FILING DATE 5.5.2003

Mark Arthur Antonius

Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C.

A.G. of British Columbia

v. (29760)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Ursula Botz

A.G. of British Columbia

FILING DATE 5.5.2003

MAY 12, 2003 / LE 12 MAI 2003

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

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Bastarache et Deschamps

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Province of British Columbia

v. (29626)

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, The Applicant, Dr. Doe and

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

AND BETWEEN:

The Applicant

v.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, Dr. Doe, Attorney General of British

 Columbia and The Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Province of British Columbia

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Access to information - Solicitor client privilege - Standard of review - In-house counsel for College of Physicians and Surgeons obtaining expert opinions and providing advice on complaint made against member - Whether College is required to disclose disputed documents - Whether interpretation of  “advice or recommendations” should be expansive or narrow - Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165, s. 13(1)  Standard of review - Whether the appropriate standard of review was applied to the Commissioner’s interpretation and application of provisions providing exceptions to the right of access.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

March 30, 2000

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

(Loukidelis)

Respondent College ordered to disclose all but a portion of five documents; personal information concerning third party experts required to be withheld

May 17, 2001

Supreme Court of British Columbia

(Owen-Flood J.)

Respondent College’s application for judicial review of Commissioner’s order dismissed

December 12, 2002

Court of Appeal of British Columbia

(Hall, Low and Levine JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed;  judgment set aside; order of the  Commissioner quashed; College entitled to withhold all documents

February 10, 2003

Supreme Court of Canada

First Application for leave to appeal filed

February 10, 2003

Supreme Court of Canada

Second Application for leave to appeal filed

Francine Lessard

c. (29611)

Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, Procureur général du Canada,

 Trudel, Nadeau, avocats (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Appel - Preuve - Requête pour cesser d’occuper - Les intimés ont-ils  respecté l’acticle 61 (e) du Code de procédure civile - La preuve n’a pas été faite sur les paragraphes 3 et 4 de la requête pour cesser d’occuper - La Cour supérieure a-t-elle accepté une preuve par ouï-dire sur les paragraphes 3 et 4 de la requête pour cesser d’occuper.

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Société Radio‐Canada

c. (29519)

Gilles E. Néron Communication Marketing Inc. et Gilles E. Néron (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Responsabilité civile - Droit commercial -  Libelle et diffamation - Dommages-intérêts - Charte québécoise - Liberté de presse - Liberté d’expression - Relation contractuelle - Relation extra contractuelle -  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de principe en décrétant que le média était fautif de diffuser une information, par ailleurs vraie, sur un organisme public vu l’absence de consentement du représentant de l’organisme, qualifiant ainsi l’information de « privée » bien qu’elle ne relève pas de la vie privée ? -  La  Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans son analyse de la notion d’intérêt public, portant ainsi atteinte au droit du public à l’information et à la liberté de la presse ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de principe en déterminant l’intérêt public de la diffusion en fonction de la volonté d’un tiers, plutôt qu’en fonction des propos diffusés par le média ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de principe en restreignant la notion d’intérêt public en raison des choix éditoriaux du média ? -  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en concluant à l’existence d’un lien causal et quant à son interprétation de la règle « in solidum » et du partage des responsabilités entre la demanderesse et la CNQ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

CORAM:  Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ. /

Les juges Gonthier, Major et Arbour

David J. Carter

v. (29587)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Government of Alberta (Alta.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Division of powers - Parliamentary privilege - Parliamentary independence -Whether the decisions of the Director of the Risk Management and Insurance Division of Alberta Treasury on whether an  MLA had been acting within the scope of his duties and whether to pay the expenses of a defamation lawsuit brought against the MLA were ultra vires the Executive Branch, being a matter of parliamentary privilege and within the exclusive sphere of the Legislative Assembly - New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (House of Assembly), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                                                                  CORAM:  Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ. /

Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

Christian Vincent

c. (29634)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.) (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit criminel - Preuve - Procès - Directives au jury - Le juge de première instance a‐t‐il erré en droit en n’interrompant pas l’accusé systématiquement lorsqu’il plaidait hors la preuve? - Le juge de première instance a‐t‐il erré en droit en n’énumérant pas, lors de ses directives au jury, tous les faits que l’accusé avait plaidé hors la preuve, et en omettant d’instruire le jury de ces faits non prouvés? - Si le juge de première instance n’a pas ou a erré, quel sont les sources de compréhension ou de latitude qui doivent être appliquées dans le cas ou un accusé doit se défendre seul, n’ayant aucune expérience juridique et qui n’a pas les moyens d’avoir un avocat pour le représenter?  Comment devant la Justice peut‐il être certain d’avoir eu un procès ou des motifs équitables? - Que dit la Charte des droits et libertés?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Richard Raîche

c. (29467)

Georges Hudak, Constant Gauthier, André Leblanc, CNCP Télécom Inc.,

 Me Pierre Grenier et Me John Roderick Philpot (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Jugements & ordonnances - Requête en autorisation de produire une déclaration introductive d’instance rejetée - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rejetant la requête du demandeur pour permission d’appel?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Chambre des notaires du Québec

c. (29575)

Yves Dugas (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Faillite - Législation - Interprétation - Les amendes imposées par un comité de discipline d’un ordre professionnel ou par le Tribunal des professions sont-elles éteintes par la libération du failli ? - Qu’est-ce qu’une amende au sens de l’al. 178(1) a) Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité  ? - Cette disposition inclut-elle une amende de nature pénale ou criminelle payable à un gouvernement ? - Les comités de discipline et le Tribunal des professions sont-ils des tribunaux au sens de l’al. 178(1) a) Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité  ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

Michel Bibaud et sa famille (Mireille Boisvert et ses 2 enfants)

c. (29544)

La Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec et La Société de

 l'assurance-automobile du Québec (Qué.)

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile - Intervention - Est-ce que l’art. 208 du Code de procédure civile, L.R.Q., ch. C-25, permet à une personne d’intervenir dans une action intentée par son conjoint qui est dans l’incapacité de se représenter seul et qui ne peut avoir d’avocat, afin de faire valoir leurs droits et d’obtenir justice?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

MAY 15, 2003 / LE 15 MAI 2003

29500                    Glenn Alexander Ross v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐238‐02, dated October 3, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐238‐02, daté du 3 octobre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Statutes ‐ Interpretation ‐ Taxation ‐ Assessment ‐ Collection of unpaid income tax ‐ Collection of income tax debt owing the Crown for 1989 and 1990 taxation years - Reassessment confirmed January 3, 1995 and no appeal filed - Collection could be undertaken April 3, 1995 - Certificate of indebtedness registered in the Federal Court on September 30, 1999 - Whether limitation periods in the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act or the Limitation Act apply to the collection of federal and provincial income tax debts - If s. 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act imposes or incorporates a limitation for the collection of federal tax debts, when does the six-year limitation period begin to run - If the Limitation Act imposes a limitation for the collection of provincial tax debts, when does the six-year limitation period begin to run - Does the filing of a Certificate pursuant to s. 223(3) of the Income Tax Act within the six-year period for the collection of tax debts preserve the debt.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29572                    Holly Big Canoe, Inquiry Officer v. Attorney General of Ontario, James Doe, Requester (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C37981, dated November 29, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C37981, daté du 29 novembre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Administrative law - Judicial review - Freedom of information - Standard of review - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that section 19 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act established a permanent exemption for lawyers’ litigation work product - Whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in holding that the standard of review for the Commissioner’s interpretation of section 19 was correctness, rather than reasonableness simpliciter - Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, ss. 19, 21

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29559                    Her Majesty the Queen v. Penner International Inc. AND BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen v. Bison Diversified Inc. (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐552‐01, dated November 20, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐522‐01, daté du 20 novembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Taxation - Statutes - Custom and Excise - Assessment - Interpretation - Interpretation of subsection 68.1(1)  of the Excise Tax Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15  - Whether the Federal Court of Appeal, without express justification, erred in its conclusion to overturn a rule of law that has been held and acted on by American and Canadian courts for two centuries - Whether it’s less contextual interpretation can be applied in a large number of statutes having varying purposes, with uncertain consequences - Whether properly administering the new interpretation will be possible, with the immediate and future fiscal impact - Whether attempting to address, through new legislation, the broader potential problems in a wide variety of statutes is highly impractical - Whether  the established contextual approach to statute interpretation will be weakened by the decision of the Court of Appeal -- Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal leads to absurd specific results - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, for the purposes of entitlement under the Excise Tax Act   to a refund of excise tax paid on goods subsequently exported from Canada (ie. Diesel fuel purchased in Canada for use by commercial trucks transporting goods from Canada to the U.S. and consumed in the U.S. in the operation of the trucks) constitutes a good exported from Canada - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, to be considered an exported good, a commodity need not be intended to be merged with the commerce of a foreign country, but need merely to be consumed in the foreign country.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29601                    Saul Markman v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for an extension of time is granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C30510, dated October 28, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation de délai est accordée et la demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C30510, daté du 28 octobre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal law - Evidence - Historical sexual assault - Delayed complaint - Whether this case raises issues of importance with broad implications for criminal law, and specifically with respect to the proper evidentiary significance of delayed complaint in historical sexual assault cases - Whether the verdict is unreasonable

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29457                    Maurice Jean Sala v. The Government of Manitoba (Man.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, Number Al 01‐30‐05068, dated September 18, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, numéro Al 01‐30‐05068, daté du 18 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Damages - Conversion - Property law - Real property - Fixtures - Leases - Remedies - Whether the buildings on land leased from the Crown were fixtures - Whether the buildings on lands leased from the Crown were properly possessed by the Crown without compensation upon the termination of the lease for default - Whether Applicant entitled to damages for conversion.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29561                    Dupont Canada Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen (FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐527‐99, dated November 22, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐527‐99, daté du 22 novembre 2002, est rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Procedural law ‐ Costs ‐ Appeals ‐ Taxation ‐ Assessment ‐ Tax litigation ‐ Judgments and orders ‐ Federal Court Rules ‐ Interpretation of Rules 397 and 399 ‐ The meaning of an Order made on appeal where the appeal is allowed "with costs" ‐ Whether the Court of Appeal decision creates uncertainty in the context of tax litigation, which, by its nature, is an appeal from commencement to conclusion ‐ Whether the Court of Appeal is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in Spire Freezers v. The Queen (24 September 2001)(S.C.C.).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29555                    R.F. v. Registered Nurses Association of Nova Scotia (N.S.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Number CA 179201, dated November 13, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Nouvelle‐Écosse, numéro CA 179201, daté du 13 novembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Labour law - Nurses - Professional misconduct - Applicant’s licence to practice nursing revoked - Whether the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal erred in failing to find a reasonable apprehension of bias or lack of procedural fairness as a consequence of the involvement of the Respondent’s senior prosecuting officer in the adjudicative process - Whether the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal erred in failing to find improper influence or improper delegation of authority by the adjudicative panel to its legal counsel - Whether the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal erred in failing to articulate and apply reasonableness simpliciter as the standard of review

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

June 24, 1999

Professional Conduct Committee of the Registered Nurses Association of Nova Scotia

(Bradley, Chair)

Applicant found guilty of professional misconduct

November 4, 1999

Professional Conduct Committee of the Registered Nurses Association of Nova Scotia

(Bradley, Chair)

Applicant’s  licence to practice nursing revoked

January 7, 2002

Appeal Committee of the Registered Nurses Association of Nova Scotia

(Power, Chair)

Applicant’s appeal dismissed with two exceptions

November 13, 2002

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

(Roscoe, Chipman and Bateman JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

January 13, 2003

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

29451                    The Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Henry Thiessen, Edna Thiessen (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA28985, dated September 12, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA28985, daté du 12 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Torts - Vicarious Liability - Master and Servant - Negligence - Damages - Assessment - Commercial Law - Agency - Mandate - Whether vicarious liability should  be imposed on a traditional agency basis - Whether factors considered when imposing vicarious liability for sexual abuse should  apply to economic torts.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29549                    Karen Campbell‐High, Daniel Dean High v. Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36215, dated March 14, 2002, is dismissed with costs.   In any event, had such application been granted, the application for leave to appeal from the said judgment would have been dismissed.

 La demande de prorogation du délai pour solliciter l'autorisation d'appeler de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario numéro C36215, daté du 14 mars 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.  Quoiqu'il en soit, même si la demande de prorogation avait été accueillie, la demande d'autorisation d'appel aurait été rejetée.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property Law - Real Property - Land Titles - Remedies - Commercial Law - Contracts - Damages - Restrictive covenants - Newly elected government cancels predecessor’s Niagara Tender Fruit Lands Program - Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario refuses to close purchase of a restrictive covenant over applicants’ tender fruit lands - Liability admitted - Assessment of damages - When Governments commit to funding programs and to achieving policy goals but later change their minds, who should absorb the cost? - What principles apply to determine the loss of the value of the bargain where there is only one purchaser in the market? - When the Government or its agent reneges on its obligation to purchase a restrictive covenant, how does one determine the appropriate measure of damages?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

April 16, 1998

Ontario Court

(Lofchik J.)

Summary judgment granted; Crown declared in breach of contract; Referred to arbitration to determine damages

February 2, 2001

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

(Gravely J.)

Appeal dismissed from arbitrator’s award

March 14, 2002

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Abella, Charron and Cronk JJ.A.)

Appeal allowed

January 8, 2003

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal filed

29629                    Paul David Reashore v. Her Majesty the Queen (N.S.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Number CAC No. 160167, dated December 30, 2002, is dismissed.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Nouvelle‐Écosse, numéro CAC No. 160167, daté du 30 décembre 2002, est rejetée. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Criminal Law (Non Charter) - Procedural Law - Jury discharged - Trial continued before second jury - After first jury dismissed accused arraigned before jury panel, accused entered plea, jury selected,  accused  placed in jurors’ charge, indictment amended, two voir dire into admissibility of evidence held, judge and counsel make opening remarks - Whether trial before second panel was a new trial - Whether right to be tried by a legally constituted jury infringed - Whether Criminal Code allows for discharge and replacement of 12 jurors and continuation of trial - Whether a jury can be constructively terminated - Whether mistrial should have been declared when all jurors dismissed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29595                    Irena Najdowski v. University of Montreal (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐012713‐020, dated November 25, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐012713‐020, daté du 25 novembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  ‐ Administrative law - Principle of fundamental justice ‐ Was there bias, and/or reasonable apprehension of bias, and/or invidious discrimination, on the part of the judge in the first instance such as to render the Applicant's hearing, and judgement rendered, incompatible with the principles of natural or fundamental justice and sections 7and/or 15.(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ? ‐ Was the Applicant deprived of her fundamental right, as guaranteed under section 7  of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , to cross‐examine and to make full answer and defence of evidence produced by the defense?

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29524                    Marlene Ethel Rowatt v. CIBC Mortgage Corporation (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Gonthier, Major and Arbour JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C35658, dated October 31, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Ontario, numéro C35658, daté du 31 octobre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens. 

NATURE OF THE CASE

Commercial law - Creditor and debtor - Wife obtained mortgage on her home as security for her husband’s loans - Undue influence - Whether a creditor should be required to disclose all information known to the creditor to the surety wife or her independent lawyer respecting the husband’s current application - Whether a statement made innocently by the bank to induce the surety wife to borrow funds to pay down the bank’s loans and to give to her husband, and which statement is wrong at the time that it was made, should be classified as a misrepresentation - Whether there should be an objective test to determine if the presumption of undue influence is rebutted - Whether the same standard of care should be applied to banks as to any other business - Whether the Appellate Court below erred in granting only a set off of damages against the current mortgage amount and not the amount at an earlier period - What are the considerations regarding risk and what is the role of the I.L.A. lawyer regarding this risk

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29525                    Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, The Lieutenant Governor in Council v. Chereda Bodner, Robert Philp, Timothy Stonehouse, William Martin, Waldo B. Ranson, Glenn Morrison, Q.C., Johnathan H.B. Moss, David M. Duggan, Mark W. Gruman, Partrick McIlhargy, John R. Shaw and Gregory Francis (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 01‐00464, dated November 22, 2002, is granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary), numéro 01‐00464, daté du 22 novembre 2002, est accordée avec dépens en faveur des demandeurs quelle que soit l'issue de l'appel.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Constitutional law - Judicial independence - Justices of the Peace - Judicial review - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in imposing a more stringent standard of justification, including requiring the government to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to reject all or any portion of the report of the commission - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting government budgetary considerations as a rational reason for rejecting all or a portion of the report of the commission - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adopting a standard of review which required a thorough and searching analysis of the reasons of the government - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to refer the matter back to the government for review notwithstanding the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Compensation Commission Regulation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing payment of costs on a solicitor client basis to the Respondents, contrary to the decision of this Honourable court in Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 13

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29454                    Yvon Houle c. Comité des requêtes du Barreau du Québec, Barreau du Québec (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et Deschamps

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‐09‐003502‐017, daté du 10 septembre 2002, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐09‐003502‐017, dated September 10, 2002, is dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - Droit des professions - Avocats et procureurs - Disposition statutaire prévoyant la radiation ou la suspension suite à une déclaration de culpabilité d’une infraction criminelle ayant un lien avec l’exercice de la profession - Effet d’une absolution conditionnelle - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur de droit en déclarant que la compétence du Comité des requêtes découlant de l’art. 55.1 du Code des professions, L.R.Q., ch. C-26, n’est pas anéantie par une déclaration d’absolution en vertu de l’art. 730 du Code criminel, L.R.C., ch. C-46?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29486                    Guillaume Kibale c. Sa Majesté la Reine (CF) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel fédérale, numéro A‐150‐01, daté du 4 octobre 2002, est rejetée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐150‐01, dated October 4, 2002, is  dismissed.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés  - Procédure - Procédure civile -Est-il exact de dire qu’en permettant à la protonotaire de violer la Règle 50(1)g) des Règles de la Cour fédérale, celle-ci a violé la Charte  canadienne  (article 15 ) et la Loi sur l’emploi dans la fonction publique (article 10), au même titre que la Couronne? -  Depuis quand la common law ou la jurisprudence canadienne permet-elle à un(e) protonotaire de renverser la décision d’un juge constitutionnellement nommé? - Est-il exact de dire qu’en l’espèce la Cour fédérale (les deux divisions confondues) a violé la règle audi alteram partem attendu qu’en permettant à la protonotaire (“Me Aronovitch”) de rejeter l’action du requérant avant le procès, elle a empêché celui-ci de présenter des moyens ou des preuves d’après lesquelles la Couronne avait bel et bien violé la Charte (article 15).

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29435                    Zellers Inc. c. Syndicat des employés(es) des magasins Zellers d'Alma et de Chicoutimi (CSN) et autres (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Québec), numéro 200‐09‐002836‐994, daté du 4 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number 200‐09‐002836‐994, dated September 4, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Grève - Pour être légal, une grève doit-elle avoir comme finalité la négociation ou la conclusion d’une convention collective ? - Est-ce que tout arrêt de travail concerté, alors que le droit de grève est acquis, constitue une grève légale au sens de la loi ? - Était-il manifestement déraisonnable pour l’arbitre de conclure que le syndicat ne cherchait pas à négocier le renouvellement de la convention collective et, qu’en conséquence, l’arrêt de travail des salariés ne constituait pas l’exercice l’égal de leur droit de grève conformément aux dispositions du Code ? - L’exercice du recours juridique prévu aux art. 39 ou 45 du Code peuvent-ils être assimilés à la négociation d’une convention collective ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29603                    East Broadway Residents Association v. City of Vancouver, 2725312 Canada Inc. (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA027459, dated December 10, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA027459, daté du 10 décembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Property law - Real Property - Applicant’s petition to set aside two by-laws dismissed by trial judge  - Procedural law - Judgments and orders - Registrar placed  matter on the inactive appeals list pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Court of Appeal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 77 - Motion to reinstate appeal dismissed - Motion to vary order dismissed - Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to reinstate the appeal - Whether the lower court’s decision conflicts with Applicant’s rights under the Court of Appeal Act - Whether the Applicant’s rights under the Charter or Canadian Bill of Rights have been infringed - Whether the lower courts erred.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29496                    Corporation d'Hébergement du Québec c. Construction Ondel Inc., St‐Georges, Hébert Inc., La Maison Blanche Construction Inc. (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐006560‐981, daté du 8 octobre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l'intimée Construction Ondel Inc.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐006560‐981, dated October 8, 2002, is dismissed with costs to the Respondent Construction Ondel Inc.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Mandat - La Cour d’appel pouvait-elle conclure à l’existence d’un mandat entre deux personnes morales distinctes du fait que chacune était régie, en partie, par une même loi et qu’elles relevaient d’un même ministre?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29456                    Travailleurs et travailleuses unis de l'alimentation et du commerce, section 501 c. Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des Épiciers Unis Métro‐Richelieu (CSN), Métro‐Richelieu 2000 Inc. (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐011502‐010, daté du 16 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de  l'intimé Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des Épiciers Unis Métro‐Richelieu (CSN).

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐011502‐010, dated September 16, 2002, is dismissed with costs to the Respondent Syndicat des travailleurs et travailleuses des Épiciers Unis Métro‐Richelieu (CSN).

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit du travail - Relations de travail - Accréditation - Droit administratif - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - La notion de l’entreprise pour les fins de l’art. 39 du Code du travail, L.R.Q., ch. C-27, est-elle différente de la notion d’entreprise utilisée pour les fins de l’art. 45? - L’erreur sur la notion d’entreprise doit-elle être manifestement déraisonnable ou est-elle une question juridictionnelle?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29442                    Alexis Nihon Developments Ltd., Place Alexis Nihon Inc. c. Ville de Montréal, Commerce & Industry Insurance Company of Canada, American Home Assurance Company, Chubb du Canada Compagnie d'Assurance, Allendale Insurance Company, CIGNA du Canada Compagnie d'Assurance, Air Canada, Affiliated FM Insurance Company et Imasco Ltée, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et Dylex Limitée (Tip Top Tailors) (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐008292‐997, daté du 4 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimées Commerce & Industry Insurance Company of Canada, American Home Assurance Company, Chubb du Canada Compagnie d'Assurance, Allendale Insurance Company, CIGNA du Canada Compagnie d'Assurance, Air Canada, Affiliated FM Insurance Company et Imasco Ltée.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐008292‐997, dated September 4, 2002, is dismissed with costs to the Respondents Commerce & Industry Insurance Company of Canada, American Home Assurance Company, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, Allendale Insurance Company, CIGNA Insurance Company of Canada, Air Canada, Affiliated FM Insurance Company and Imasco Ltd.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Dommages-intérêts - Indemnité additionnelle - Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant la modification des conclusions de la Cour supérieure prononçant, à l’égard d’Alexis Nihon (Québec) Inc. et de la Ville de Montréal, une condamnation solidaire ? -  La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en omettant de décider du point de départ du calcul des intérêts légaux et de l’indemnité additionnelle de l’article 1056c C.c.B.-C. ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29443                    Alexis Nihon Developments Ltd., Place Alexis Nihon Inc. c. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company of Canada, American Home Assurance Company, Chubb du Canada Compagnie d'Assurance, Allendale Insurance Company, CIGNA du Canada Compagnie d'Assurance, Air Canada, Affiliated FM Insurance Company et Imasco Ltée, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Dylex Limitée (Tip Top Tailors) (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐008293‐995, daté du 4 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐008293‐995, dated September 4, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Dommages-intérêts - Indemnité additionnelle - Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en refusant la modification des conclusions de la Cour supérieure qui prononçait, à l’égard d’Alexis Nihon (Québec) Inc. et de la Ville de Montréal, une condamnation solidaire ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en omettant de décider du point de départ du calcul des intérêts légaux et de l’indemnité additionnelle de l’article 1056c C.c.B.-C. ?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29637                    Ville de Montréal c. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company of Canada, American Home Assurance Company, Chubb du Canada Compagnie d'Assurance, Allendale Insurance Company, CIGNA du Canada Compagnie d'Assurance, Air Canada, Affiliated FM Insurance Company, Imasco Ltée, Alexis Nihon (Québec) Inc., Alexis Nihon Developments Ltd. et Place Alexis Nihon Inc. (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐008292‐997, daté du 7 janvier 2003, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur des intimées Alexis Nihon (Québec) Inc., Alexis Nihon Developments Ltd. et Place Alexis Nihon Inc.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐008292‐997, dated January 7, 2003, is dismissed with costs to the Respondents Alexis Nihon (Québec) Inc., Alexis Nihon Developments Ltd. and Place Alexis Nihon Inc.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit commercial - Dommages-intérêts - Indemnité additionnelle - Obligation in solidum -  Jugement rectificatif - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en rendant son arrêt rectificatif lequel a pour effet de modifier substantiellement son jugement et de causer préjudice à la demanderesse Ville de Montréal, allant à l’encontre de l’esprit de l’article 520 C.p.c. ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en appliquant le concept d’obligation in solidum à des codébiteurs dont la source d’obligation ou de responsabilité est la même, résultant de fautes délictuelles ou extracontractuelles dites contributoires ayant causé au créancier un préjudice unique ? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré dans l’appréciation des règles régissant les rapports entre codébiteurs tenus in solidum, en concluant que l’un d’eux, dont la part de responsabilité est établie à 25 % des dommages,  puissent être condamné à assumer seul la totalité des intérêts et de l’indemnité additionnelle sur 100 % des dommages?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29505                    Georges Guay c. Jacques Ghanimé, Bernard Synnott, La Ville de Verdun, Procureur général du Québec (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐012326‐021, daté du 30 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l'intimée Ville de Verdun.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐012326‐021, dated September 30, 2002, is dismissed with costs to Respondent City of Verdun.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Procédure - Procédure civile  - Prescription - Preuve  - Les instances inférieures ont-elles erré en concluant que le demandeur n’a pas établi sa cause d’action et en rejetant cette dernière?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

29508                    The Attorney General of British Columbia, The Medical Services Commission of British Columbia v. Connor Auton, an Infant, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Michelle Auton, and the said Michelle Auton in her personal capacity, Michelle Tamir, an Infant, by her Guardian Ad Litem, Sabrina Freeman, and the said Sabrina Freeman in her personal capacity, Jordan Lefaivre, an Infant, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Leighton Lefaivre, and the said Leighton Lefaivre in his personal capacity, Russell Gordon Pearce, an Infant, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Janet Gordon Pearce and the said Janet Gordon Pearce in her personal capacity (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram: Iacobucci, Binnie and LeBel JJ.

 The application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross‐appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA027600, dated October 9, 2002, are granted.

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel et la demande d'autorisation d'appel incident de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‐Britannique (Vancouver), numéro CA027600, daté du 9 octobre 2002, sont accordées.

NATURE OF THE CASE

Canadian Charter  - Civil - Crown liability - Remedies - Whether Crown breached Charter rights of autistic children by failing to provide funding for early intensive behavioural treatment - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s .15(1) of the Charter requires the Crown to fund services which are directed at the amelioration of a disadvantage not created by law - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the failure of the Crown to fund behavioural therapies constituted a unjustifiable infringement of the equality rights of the petitioners - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in  directing the Crown to fund behavioural treatments for autism rather than issuing a general declaration of right.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

29492                    91633 Canada Inc. c. Ville de Châteauguay, Procureur général du Québec, Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux (Qué.) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram: Les juges Iacobucci, Binnie et LeBel

 La demande d'autorisation d'appel de l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Québec (Montréal), numéro 500‐09‐009600‐008, daté du 26 septembre 2002, est rejetée avec dépens.

 The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500‐09‐009600‐008, dated September 26, 2002, is dismissed with costs.

NATURE DE LA CAUSE

Droit municipal - Municipalités - Règlement - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en faits et en droit en concluant que le par. 3 de l’art. 460 de la Loi sur les cités et villes, L.R.Q. ch. C-19, habilite la municipalité intimée à fixer un droit de permis pour chacun des appareils d’amusement et tables de billard exploités sur son territoire? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle erré en droit dans son approche sur le fardeau de la preuve en faisant porter le poids de cette obligation sur les épaules de la demanderesse?

HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL

6.5.2003

Before / Devant:   ARBOUR J.

Motions for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Commission canadienne des droits de la personne

Tribunal des droits de la personne

Confédération des syndicats nationaux

Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec

Commission ontarienne des droits de la personne

IN/DANS:              Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse en faveur de Normand Morin, et al.

c. (29188)

Le procureur général du Québec, et al. (Qué.)

Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

GRANTED / ACCORDÉES

À LA SUITE DES DEMANDES de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne, du Tribunal des droits de la personne, de la Confédération des syndicats nationaux, de la Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec et de la Commission ontarienne des droits de la personne visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE;

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par le Tribunal des droits de la personne est accordée; le requérant aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Confédération des syndicats nationaux est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus.

La demande de prorogation de délai pour déposer la demande d’autorisation d’intervenir et la demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec sont accordées; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus.

La demande de prorogation de délai pour déposer la demande d’autorisation d’intervenir et la demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par Commission ontarienne des droits de la personne sont accordées; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus.

Les demandes visant à présenter une plaidoirie seront examinées après la réception et l’examen de l’argumentation écrite des parties et des intervenants.

Les intervenants n’auront pas le droit de produire d’autres éléments de preuve ni d’ajouter quoi que ce soit au dossier des parties.

Conformément au par. 59(1)(a) des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les intervenants paieront aux appelants et aux intimés tous débours supplémentaires résultant de leur intervention.

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Tribunal des droits de la personne, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec and the Ontario Human Rights Commission 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, the Canadian Human Rights Commission,  is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Tribunal des droits de la personne,  is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux,  is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The motion to extend the time for leave to intervene and the motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, are granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length.

The motion to extend the time for leave to intervene and the motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, are 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 59(1)(a) the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the intervention. 

7.5.2003

Before / Devant:   THE REGISTRAR

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

Colleen Pritchard

v. (29677)

Ontario Human Rights Commission (Ont.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la réponse de l'intimée

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE    Time extended to April 29, 2003.

8.5.2003

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motion for extension of time and leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Charter Committee on Poverty Issues

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen

v. (29053)

Yu Wu (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requête visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai et l’autorisation d'intervenir

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues 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:

The motion for an extension of time and for leave to intervene of the applicant Charter Committee on Poverty Issues are 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 intervener.

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

Pursuant to Rule 59(1)(a) the intervener shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the intervention. 

9.5.2003

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

Motions for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies

Canadian Teachers’ Federation

Focus on the Family (Canada) Association, Canada Family Action Coalition, Home School Legal Defence Association of Canada and REAL Woman of Canada, together forming the Coalition for Family Autonomy

Child Welfare League of Canada / La Ligue pour le bien-être de l’enfance du Canada

Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse

Saskatchewan Coalition for Children

IN/DANS:              Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law

v. (29113)

Attorney General in Right of Canada (Crim.)(Ont.)

Requêtes en autorisation d'intervention

UPON APPLICATIONS by the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, the Canadian Teachers’ Federation, the Focus on the Family (Canada) Association, Canada Family Action Coalition, the Home School Legal Defence Association of Canada and REAL Woman of Canada, together forming the Coalition for Family Autonomy, the Child Welfare League of Canada / La Ligue pour le bien-être de l’enfance du Canada,  la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse and the Saskatchewan Coalition for Children 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, the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length, on or before May 26, 2003.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Canadian Teachers’ Federation, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length, on or before May 26, 2003.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Focus on the Family (Canada) Association, Canada Family Action Coalition, the Home School Legal Defence Association of Canada and REAL Woman of Canada, together forming the Coalition for Family Autonomy,  is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length, on or before May 26, 2003.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Child Welfare League of Canada / La Ligue pour le bien-être de l’enfance du Canada, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length, on or before May 26, 2003.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, is granted and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length, on or before May 26, 2003.

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, the Saskatchewan Coalition for Children, is denied.

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 59(1)(a) the interveners shall pay to the appellants and respondents any additional disbursements occasioned to the appellants and respondents by the intervention. 

À LA SUITE DES DEMANDES de l’Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, la Fédération canadienne des enseignantes et enseignants, la Focus on the Family (Canada) Association, Canada Family Action Coalition, la Home School Legal Defence Association of Canada et REAL Woman of Canada, ensemble formant la Coalition for Family Autonomy, La Ligue pour le bien-être de l’enfance du Canada / the Child Welfare League of Canada,  la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse et la Saskatchewan Coalition for Children visant à obtenir l’autorisation d’intervenir dans l’appel susmentionné;

ET APRÈS AVOIR LU la documentation déposée;

L’ORDONNANCE SUIVANTE EST RENDUE;

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par l’Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus, le ou avant le 26 mai 2003.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Fédération canadienne des enseignantes et enseignants est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus, le ou avant le 26 mai 2003.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Focus on the Family (Canada) Association, Canada Family Action Coalition, la Home School Legal Defence Association of Canada et REAL Woman of Canada, ensemble formant la Coalition for Family Autonomy est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus, le ou avant le 26 mai 2003.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par La Ligue pour le bien-être de l’enfance du Canada / the Child Welfare League of Canada est accordée; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus, le ou avant le 26 mai 2003.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse sont accordées; la requérante aura le droit de signifier et déposer un mémoire de 20 pages tout au plus, le ou avant le 26 mai 2003.

La demande d’autorisation d’intervenir présentée par la Saskatchewan Coalition for Children  est rejetée.

Les demandes visant à présenter une plaidoirie seront examinées après la réception et l’examen de l’argumentation écrite des parties et des intervenants.

Les intervenants n’auront pas le droit de produire d’autres éléments de preuve ni d’ajouter quoi que ce soit au dossier des parties.

Conformément au par. 59(1)(a) des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les intervenants paieront aux appelants et aux intimés tous débours supplémentaires résultant de leur intervention.

9.5.2003

Before / Devant:   MAJOR J.

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

Peter Craig

c. (29636)

Sa Majesté la Reine (Crim.)(Qué.)

Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour signifier et déposer la demande d'autorisation

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

À LA SUITE D’UNE DEMANDE du demandeur visant à obtenir une prorogation de délai pour signifier et déposer une demande d’autorisation d’appel au 1^er août 2003;

ET APRÈS AVOIR PRIS CONNAISSANCE de la documentation déposée et du consentement de l’intimée;

IL EST PAR LA PRÉSENTE ORDONNÉ CE QUI SUIT:

La demande de prorogation de délai pour signifier et déposer une demande d’autorisation d’appel au 1^er août 2003 est accordée.

9.5.2003

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion for an order expediting the hearing of this appeal

The Regional Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region, et al.

v. (29292)

Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhquot’in Nation, et al. (B.C.)

Requête visant à accélérer l'audition de l'appel

DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS / REJETÉE SANS DÉPENS

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant, Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation, for an order that this appeal be set for hearing on June 9 and 10, 2003, together with the appeals of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Minister of Forests v. Chief Ronnie Jules, et al. (28981) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Minister of Forests v. Chief Dan Wilson, et al. (28988) and for an order abridging the time for serving and filing of factums, records and books of authorities;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion is dismissed without costs.

9.5.2003

Before / Devant:   THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion for leave to intervene

BY/PAR:                Roger William

IN/DANS:              Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Forests

v. (28981)

Chief Ronnie Jules, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Adams Lake Band, et al. (B.C.)

Requête en autorisation d'intervention

and

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Forests

v. (28988)

Chief Dan Wilson, in his personal capacity and as representative of the Okanagan Indian Band, et al. (B.C.)

GRANTED / ACCORDÉE

UPON APPLICATION by the applicant, Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation, for leave to intervene in these appeals;

AND HAVING READ the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to intervene of the applicant, Roger William, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation is granted, and the applicant shall be entitled to serve and file a factum not to exceed 20 pages in length. The factum shall be served and filed no later than May 21, 2003.

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

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

17.4.2003

Jason Richard Kerr

v. (29714)

Her Majesty the Queen

(As of right)

8.5.2003

The League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada

v.  (29252)

Syndicat Northcrest (Que.)

9.5.2003

Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine, et autre

c. (29507)

Municipalit/ du village de Lafontaine, et autres (Qué.)

12.5.2203

CORAM:               La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel et Deschamps

Léo‐René Maranda

c. (28964)

Caporal Normand Leblanc (Qué.) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Giuseppe Battista pour l’appelant.

Bernard Laprade et Bernard Mandeville pour l’intimé.

Louis Belleau pour l’intervenant Barreau du Québec.

Denis Jacques pour l’intervenante Association du Barreau canadien.

Jean-Claude Hébert pour l’intervenante Fédération des ordres professionnels de juristes du Canada.

Benoit Lauzon et Gilles Laporte pour l’intervenant Procureur général du

EN DÉLIBÉRÉ / RESERVED

Nature de la cause:

Droit Criminel - Preuve - Privilège des communications entre avocat et client - Procédure - Saisie - Perquisition et saisie dans un cabinet d’avocat - Le montant des honoraires versés à un avocat par un client pour assurer sa défense à une accusation criminelle est-il un renseignement protégé par le privilège du secret professionnel de l’avocat? - Le fait qu’une personne a payé des honoraires professionnels à un avocat pour se défendre d’une accusation criminelle peut-il être utilisé en preuve par la poursuite pour établir une accusation de recel des produits de la criminalité sans violer la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ? - Le juge de paix excède-t-il sa compétence s’il émet un mandat visant un cabinet d’avocat en l’absence d’une preuve qu’il n’existe pas d’alternative à la perquisition? - Le juge de paix excède-t-il sa compétence s’il ne fixe pas comme condition de l’exécution du mandat qu’une occasion raisonnable soit offerte à l’avocat d’être présent lors de l’exécution du mandat? - La Cour d’appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en décidant que l’exception de crime s’appliquait?

Nature of the case:

Criminal Law - Evidence - Solicitor-client privilege - Procedure - Seizure - Search and seizure in a law office - Whether the amount of the fees paid to a lawyer by a client to handle the latter’s defence to a criminal charge is information protected by solicitor-client privilege - Whether the fact that a person paid professional fees to a lawyer to defend him on a criminal charge can be used by the prosecution as evidence to establish a charge of possession of the proceeds of crime without violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  - Whether the justice of the peace exceeds his jurisdiction if he issues a warrant to search a law office absent evidence that there is no alternative to the search - Whether the justice of the peace exceeds his jurisdiction if he does not make the execution of the warrant conditional upon a reasonable opportunity being given to the lawyer to be present during the execution of the warrant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the crime exception applied.

MAY 16, 2003 / LE 16 MAI 2003

28826                    Canadian Cable Television Association - v. - Barrie Public Utilities, Essex Public Utilities Commission, Guelph Hydro, Innisfil Hydro, Leamington Public Utilities Commission, Markham Hydro Electric Commission, Mississauga Hydro Electric Commission, Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake Hydro Electric Commission, The Hydro Electric Commission of North Bay, Oakville Hydro, Orillia Water, Light and Power, Perth Public Utilities Commission, Richmond Hill Hydro Electric Commission, Shelburne Hydro, Stoney Creek Hydro‐Electric Commission, Stratford Public Utility Commission, Toronto Hydro‐Electric Commission (formerly Hydro Electric Commission of the City of North York and the Public Utilities Commission of the City of Scarborough), Waterloo North Hydro and Kitchener‐Wilmot Hydro - and - Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta, Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, GT Group Telecom Services Corp., Aliant Telecom Inc., AT & T Canada, Bell Canada, Bell West Inc., MTS Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc. (F.C.) 2003 SCC 28 / 2003 CSC 28

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

The appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A‐117‐00, dated July 13, 2001, heard on February 19, 2003 is dismissed with costs, Bastarache J. dissenting.

The constitutional question is answered as follows:

Is s. 43(5)  of the Telecommunications Act , S.C. 1993, c. 38 , intra vires Parliament pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867 ?

Answer:                 It is unnecessary to answer this question.  Bastarache J. would answer yes.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel fédérale, numéro A‐117‐00, en date du 13 juillet 2001, entendu le 19 février 2003 est rejeté avec dépens.   Le juge Bastarache est dissident.

La question constitutionnelle reçoit la réponse suivante:

Le paragraphe 43(5)  de la Loi sur les télécommunications , L.C. 1993, ch. 38 ,  relève-t-il de la compétence que la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867  confère au Parlement?

Réponse :              Il n’est pas nécessaire de répondre à cette question.  Le juge Bastarache répondrait oui.

28396                    Minister of Labour for Ontario - v. - Canadian Union of Public Employees and Service Employees International Union - and - Canadian Bar Association and National Academy of Arbitrators (Canadian Region) (Ont.) 2003 SCC 29 / 2003 CSC 29

Coram:                    McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major,

Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C32230, dated November 21, 2000, heard on October 8, 2002, is dismissed with costs, McLachlin C.J. and Major and Bastarache JJ. dissenting, but paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the order of the Court of Appeal are varied to read:

1.  The Court declares that the Minister is required, in the exercise of his power of appointment under s. 6(5) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.14, to be satisfied that prospective chairpersons are not only independent and impartial but possess appropriate labour relations expertise and are recognized in the labour relations community as generally acceptable to both management and labour.

2.  This order speaks from the date hereof and does not invalidate completed arbitration awards.

3.  Any challenges to continuing arbitrations, including those chaired by retired judges appointed by the Minister under s. 6(5) of HLDAA, are subject to judicial review on a case-by-case basis.

L’appel interjeté contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, numéro C32230, en date du 21 novembre 2000, entendu le 8 octobre 2002, est rejeté avec dépens.  La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major et Bastarache sont dissidents.  Cependant, les paragraphes 1, 2 et 3 de l’ordonnance de la Cour d’appel sont modifiés de la façon suivante :

1.  La Cour déclare que, dans l’exercice de son pouvoir de désignation conféré par le par. 6(5) de la Loi sur l’arbitrage des conflits de travail dans les hôpitaux, L.R.O. 1990, ch. H.14, le ministre doit être convaincu que les candidats à la présidence sont non seulement indépendants et impartiaux, mais également qu’ils ont une expertise appropriée en matière de relations du travail et sont reconnus, dans le milieu des relations du travail, comme étant généralement acceptables à la fois par le patronat et par les syndicats.

2.  La présente ordonnance prend effet à compter de la date des présentes et n’invalide pas les sentences arbitrales déjà rendues.

3.  Toute contestation des arbitrages en cours, y compris ceux présidés par des juges retraités désignés par le ministre conformément au par. 6(5) LACTH, pourra faire l’objet d’un contrôle judiciaire sur une base individuelle.

Canadian Cable Television Association - v. - Barrie Public Utilities, Essex Public Utilities Commission, Guelph Hydro, Innisfil Hydro, Leamington Public Utilities Commission, Markham Hydro Electric Commission, Mississauga Hydro Electric Commission, Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake Hydro Electric Commission, The Hydro Electric Commission of North Bay, Oakville Hydro, Orillia Water, Light and Power, Perth Public Utilities Commission, Richmond Hill Hydro Electric Commission, Shelburne Hydro, Stoney Creek Hydro‐Electric Commission, Stratford Public Utility Commission, Toronto Hydro‐Electric Commission (formerly Hydro Electric Commission of the City of North York and the Public Utilities Commission of the City of Scarborough), Waterloo North Hydro and Kitchener‐Wilmot Hydro - and - Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of New Brunswick, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta, Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, GT Group Telecom Services Corp., Aliant Telecom Inc., AT & T Canada, Bell Canada, Bell West Inc., MTS Communications Inc. and TELUS Communications Inc. (F.C.) (28826)

Indexed as:  Barrie Public Utilities v. Canadian Cable Television Assn. /

Répertorié : Barrie Public Utilities c. Assoc. canadienne de télévision par câble

Neutral citation:  2003 SCC 28. / Référence neutre : 2003 CSC 28.

Judgment rendered May 16, 2003 / Jugement rendu le 16 mai 2003

Present:  McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.

Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review – Canadian Radio‐television and Telecommunications Commission – Commission ordering provincially regulated electric power companies to grant cable television companies access to their power poles – Whether Court of Appeal properly reviewed Commission’s decision on correctness standard – Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, s. 43(5) .

Broadcasting – Telecommunications – Access to power poles – Canadian Radio‐television and Telecommunications Commission ordering provincially regulated electric power companies to grant cable television companies access to their power poles – Whether phrase “the supporting structure of a transmission line” in s. 43(5)  of Telecommunications Act  includes power poles of provincially regulated electric power companies – Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38, s. 43(5) .

The appellant CCTA seeks access to the power poles of the respondent power utilities for the purpose of supporting cable television transmission lines.  In the past, the CCTA’s members have rented space from the utilities under private contract. Since 1996, the parties have been unable to reach agreement.  The CCTA obtained an order from the CRTC requiring the utilities to grant it access to their power poles on terms stipulated by the CRTC.  The CRTC found that the phrase “the supporting structure of a transmission line” in s. 43(5)  of the Telecommunications Act , read in context and in the light of telecommunications and broadcasting policy objectives, was broad enough to grant it authority over the utilities’ power poles.  The CRTC found that this interpretation was intra vires Parliament under s. 91of the Constitution Act, 1867 .  The utilities successfully appealed this order to the Federal Court of Appeal, which  reviewed the decision on a correctness standard and held that s. 43(5) , properly interpreted, does not give the CRTC jurisdiction over the power poles of provincially regulated electric power companies.

Held (Bastarache J. dissenting):  The appeal should be dismissed.

Per McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Major, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.:  The standard of review applicable to the CRTC’s decision is correctness.  All four factors of the pragmatic and functional approach point to that conclusion.  Section 64(1)  of the Telecommunications Act  grants a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal with leave of that court on any question of law or of jurisdiction.  While the presence of a statutory right of appeal is not decisive of a correctness standard, it is a factor suggesting a more searching standard of review.  With respect to relative expertise, deference to the decision maker is called for only when it is in some way more expert than the court and the question under consideration is one that falls within the scope of its greater expertise.  The proper interpretation of the phrase “the supporting structure of a transmission line” in s. 43(5) is not a question that engages the CRTC’s special expertise in the regulation and supervision of Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications.  Rather, it is a purely legal question and is therefore ultimately within the province of the judiciary.  The court’s expertise in matters of pure statutory interpretation is superior to that of the CRTC, which suggests a less deferential approach.  The purposes of the legislation and the provision in particular also point to a less deferential standard of review.  While much of the CRTC’s work involves the elaboration and implementation of telecommunications policy, s. 43(5) accords the CRTC the essentially adjudicative role of considering applications from, and providing redress to, public service providers who cannot gain access to the supporting structure of a transmission line on terms acceptable to them.  Finally, regarding the nature of the problem, even pure questions of law may be granted a wide degree of deference where other factors suggest the legislature so intended.  But that is not the case here.

Section 43(5) cannot bear the broad meaning given to it by the CRTC and advanced by the CCTA.  Looking for the moment at the subsection alone, three points arise.  First, the phrase “a person who provides services to the public” in s. 43(5) includes but is broader than the phrase “Canadian carrier or distribution undertaking” found elsewhere in the section.  Second, the phrase “constructed on a highway or other public place” qualifies the phrase “transmission line” and therefore, the CRTC may not grant access to transmission lines situated on private land.  The utilities’ power poles sometimes stand on private land pursuant to public utility rights‐of‐way.  Third, the subsection speaks of “transmission lines” rather than “distribution lines”.  The utilities’ power poles support distribution lines, not transmission lines.  Parliament should be taken to know this distinction.  Had Parliament intended to submit the utilities’ power poles to the jurisdiction of the CRTC, it would have referred to distributions lines.  Looking next to s. 43 as a whole, the CRTC’s interpretation of subs. (5) is at odds with the rest of the section.  The phrase “transmission lines” may not be given a broader meaning in subs. (5) than occurs in the rest of the section.  The absence of the phrase “Canadian carrier or distribution undertaking” in subs. (5) does not justify such a broader interpretation.  The definition of “transmission facility” in s. 2 must also be taken into account.  A transmission facility is defined as a facility for the transmission of “intelligence”.  The utilities’ power poles do not serve to transmit intelligence.  They serve to transmit electricity.  One must conclude that the “transmission lines” referred to in s. 43(5) are the same as those constructed, maintained and operated pursuant to ss. 43(2)‐(4).  They do not include the utilities’ power poles.

The CRTC’s heavy reliance on the policy objectives of the Telecommunications Act  and the Broadcasting Act was in error.  The consideration of legislative objectives is one aspect of the modern approach to statutory interpretation. Yet the CRTC relied on policy objectives to set aside Parliament’s discernible intent as revealed by the plain meaning of s. 43(5), s. 43 generally and the Act as a whole.

Per Bastarache J. (dissenting):  The constitutional question whether s. 43(5), as construed by the CRTC, is ultra vires Parliament has been important at every level of this case.  The CRTC canvassed the issue thoroughly in its reasons.  The Federal Court of Appeal referred to the constitutional issue.  The Chief Justice of this Court certified a constitutional question.  The Federal Court of Appeal erred by failing to separate the constitutional question from the statutory interpretation question.  Judicial review of the CRTC’s order requires a separation of that decision into two main questions.  One is the constitutional question, which is whether any interpretation argued for s. 43(5) of the Act would make that provision ultra vires Parliament.  The other is the more general question of the CRTC’s interpretation of s. 43(5) and exercise of its power in issuing its decision.  Combining a constitutional question and a statutory interpretation question may skew the standard of review for an agency’s decision.  In addition, where a constitutional question is raised, reviewing the agency’s ordinary statutory interpretation without isolating the constitutional question can limit the agency’s ability to give the legislation at issue the full import intended by the legislature.  The Federal Court of Appeal did not rule on the constitutionality of the CRTC’s interpretation of s. 43(5), but was clearly concerned by the possibility that it might be ultra vires.  This concern was erroneous.  According to the doctrine of the presumption of constitutionality, a statute should be presumed constitutional unless proven unconstitutional.  Where a statute is ambiguous and more than one construction is possible, the presumption of constitutionality does not empower a decision maker to reject a plausible construction on the basis that it may be unconstitutional or that its unconstitutionality has been merely alleged.  Before rejecting the CRTC’s interpretation of s. 43(5), the Federal Court of Appeal should have ruled on the constitutional question.

It is settled law that application of the pragmatic and functional approach to a question of constitutional law will yield a correctness standard and therefore the CRTC’s constitutional determination is reviewable on that standard.  However,  in the present appeal, the main question was the appropriateness of the CRTC’s access order issued under s. 43(5).  The constitutional question was raised only as an attack on the CRTC’s order.  If the allegation the provision is unconstitutional is meritless, the constitutional question should not serve nevertheless to dictate the level of scrutiny by the court reviewing the administrative decision.

Review of the administrative decision itself consists of two questions.  The first is the CRTC’s interpretation of s. 43(5).  This is a question of law. The second is the appropriateness of the specific terms of the decision, which is a question of mixed law and fact.  It is uncontroversial that the reviewing court owes the CRTC deference on the specific terms of an order and therefore the standard of review of the specific terms of the decision in question is reasonableness simpliciter.

The standard of review for the CRTC’s interpretation of s. 43(5) is also reasonableness simpliciter.  While a statutory right of appeal suggests a more searching standard of review and militates against deference, it is necessary to consider the other factors before making the final determination of the degree of deference.  Expertise  is  the most important of the factors that a court must consider in settling on a standard of review.  Expertise is to be understood as a relative, not an absolute concept.  The court is perhaps better positioned than the CRTC to interpret general legal terms of wide usage; however, the CRTC will have greater expertise vis‐à‐vis the reviewing court for technical and policy‐related matters, including determination of legal questions associated with the specialized statutes enabling the CRTC.  The meaning of “the supporting structure of a transmission line” is a technical question best answered by the specialized agency in whose enabling legislation it arises.  When its enabling legislation is in issue, a specialized agency will be better equipped than a court to interpret words in their entire context in harmony with the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.  On even a purely legal question within its expertise, the CRTC is owed deference.  The CRTC would have been significantly better positioned than the court to assess the alternatives and the consequences for the broader scheme of each possible interpretation of s. 43(5).  If knowledge of all the technical meanings of terms such as “transmission” and the factual situation of poles are relevant, the issue appears no longer to be a pure question of statutory interpretation.  Instead, it is one deeply enmeshed in the context and the domain of the CRTC’s expertise.  Therefore, determining the definition of “the supporting structure of a transmission line” falls squarely within the CRTC’s expertise.  The purpose of the Act as a whole and the provision in particular also  suggest substantial deference.  The purpose of s. 43(5), as evident from its inclusion with the other subsections of s. 43, is clearly to provide an alternative to the construction of new structures on public land.  This suggests deference to the extent that the question is one best answered by the expert tribunal in appreciation of the real‐life consequences for other provisions in the statute.  The nature of the problem suggests, at first blush, less deference.  It is established, however, that even pure questions of law may be granted deference where other factors of the pragmatic and functional approach suggest that the legislature intends such deference.

Construing s. 43(5) so as to allow the CRTC to permit access to the poles of provincially regulated utilities would not render the provision ultra vires Parliament.  The CRTC therefore decided correctly that this construction of s. 43(5) is constitutionally valid.

The CRTC’s interpretation of s. 43(5) stands up to scrutiny and is therefore  reasonable.  It is unnecessary to determine whether the CRTC’s contextual approach to “public place” is correct, but it is at least reasonable.  Furthermore, the CRTC’s decision was supported by reasons that could stand up to a somewhat probing examination.  Since the CRTC’s order was reasonable, the Federal Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, [2001] 4 F.C. 237, 202 D.L.R. (4th) 272, 273 N.R. 291, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1150 (QL), 2001 FCA 236, setting aside the Telecom Decision CRTC 99‐13.  Appeal dismissed, Bastarache J. dissenting.

Neil Finkelstein and Catherine Beagan Flood, for the appellant.

Alan Mark and Peter Ruby, for the respondents.

Brian J. Saunders and Peter Southey, for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.

Michel Y. Hélie, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.

Alain Gingras, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.

Gaétan Migneault, for the intervener the Attorney General of New Brunswick.

Cynthia Devine, for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba.

Nancy E. Brown, for the intervener the Attorney General of British Columbia.

Robert G. Richards, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.

Roderick S. Wiltshire, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta.

Written submissions only by Robert G. Richards, Q.C., for the intervener Saskatchewan Power Corporation.