CONTENTS TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Applications for leave to appeal 290 - 291 Demandes d'autorisation d'appel
filed déposées
Applications for leave submitted 292 - 303 Demandes soumises à la Cour depuis la
to Court since last issue dernière parution
Oral hearing ordered - Audience ordonnée
Oral hearing on applications for - Audience sur les demandes d'autorisation
leave
Judgments on applications for 304 Jugements rendus sur les demandes
leave d'autorisation
Motions 305 - 311 Requêtes
Notices of appeal filed since last 312 Avis d'appel déposés depuis la dernière
issue parution
Notices of intervention filed since 313 Avis d'intervention déposés depuis la
last issue dernière parution
Notices of discontinuance filed since - Avis de désistement déposés depuis la
last issue dernière parution
Appeals heard since last issue and 314 Appels entendus depuis la dernière
disposition parution et résultat
Pronouncements of appeals reserved - Jugements rendus sur les appels en
délibéré
Headnotes of recent judgments - Sommaires des arrêts récents
Weekly agenda 315 Ordre du jour de la semaine
Summaries of the cases - Résumés des affaires
Cumulative Index ‑ Leave 316 - 323 Index cumulatif ‑ Autorisations
Cumulative Index ‑ Appeals 324 - 325 Index cumulatif ‑ Appels
Appeals inscribed ‑ Session - Appels inscrits ‑ Session
beginning commençant le
Notices to the Profession and - Avis aux avocats et communiqué
Press Release de presse
Deadlines: Motions before the Court 326 Délais: Requêtes devant la Cour
Deadlines: Appeals 327 Délais: Appels
Judgments reported in S.C.R. - Jugements publiés au R.C.S.
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FILED |
DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL DÉPOSÉES |
Les Marchés Bonanza (Lachine) Inc. et al.
Denis Caron
c. (24548)
Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
François Drolet
Subs. procureur général
DATE DE PRODUCTION 19.1.1995
Les Marchés Bonanza (Lachine) Inc. et al.
Denis Caron
c. (24547)
Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
François Drolet
Subs. procureur général
DATE DE PRODUCTION 19.1.1995
Sa Majesté La Reine
Michel F. Denis
c. (24551)
Denis Laporte (Crim.)(Qué.)
Chantal Thériault
DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.2.1995
Bouvillons Canada Ltée et al.
Jean-Philippe Gervais
Gervais et Robert
c. (24550)
Bertrand Labbé et al. (Qué.)
Pierre Cimon
Ogilvy Renault
DATE DE PRODUCTION 3.2.1995
Christopher Woldrich
R. Ian Histed
Savino & Company
v. (24553)
The Mental Health Review Board (Man.)
Heather Leonoff
Wolch, Pinx, Tapper, Scurfield
FILING DATE 6.2.1995
Kenneth James Hunter
Shaun Nakatsuru
Nakatsuru & Doucette
v. (24552)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
Carol Brewer
Min. of A.G.
FILING DATE 6.2.1995
Michel Gendron
Robert Bélanger
c. (24555)
2968-1467 Québec Inc. (Qué.)
André Gingras
DATE DE PRODUCTION 6.2.1995
Society for Manitobans with Disabilities Inc.
Sandra Phillips
McCandless and Associates
v. (24556)
Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba (Man.)
Ross Nugent, Q.C.
Thompson Dorfman Sweatman
FILING DATE 7.2.1995
Ernst & Young Inc., in the capacity as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Singer Lighting Inc.
Symon Zucker
Danson, Zucker and Connelly
v. (24557)
Dylex Limited (Ont.)
Harold Margules
Baker & McKenzie
FILING DATE 8.2.1995
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE SUBMITTED TO COURT SINCE LAST ISSUE |
REQUÊTES SOUMISES À LA COUR DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
FEBRUARY 7, 1995 / LE 7 FÉVRIER 1995
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER AND GONTHIER AND IACOBUCCI JJ. /
LE JUGE EN CHEF LAMER ET LES JUGES GONTHIER ET IACOBUCCI
Her Majesty the Queen
v. (24484)
Marwin G. (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Evidence - Credibility - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the trial judge erred by failing to expressly refer to all relevant considerations in coming to a decision to accept the evidence of the complainant and reject the evidence of the Respondent, in accordance with the principles laid down in Regina v. Burns, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656 - Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the trial judge erred in his approach respecting the credibility of the complainant, in accordance with the principles laid down in Regina v. François, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 827.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 28, 1992 Ontario Court (Provincial Division) (Caney J.) |
Conviction: one count of sexual assault and one count of gross indecency |
September 8, 1994 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Grange [dissenting], Galligan and Arbour JJ.A) |
Appeal allowed: convictions quashed and new trial ordered |
December 22, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Harold Chalmers Funk, Kimberly Ann Sopinka and Cynthia Suzanne Funk
v. (24443)
Royal Bank of Canada (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Banks and banking operations - Loans - Interest - Appeals - Procedure - Calculation of interest - Did Respondent Bank calculate interest on loans in such a way as to contravene s. 4 of the Interest Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑15 - Did Court of Appeal err in its procedure on the appeal - Did Court of Appeal err in dismissing appeal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 31, 1993 Ontario Court (General Division) (McDonald J.) |
Summary judgment for Respondent; Motion to set aside certificate of pending litigation dismissed; Transfer of land declared void |
January 11, 1994 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Brooke, Finlayson and Catzman JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed; Matter remitted to Ontario Court (General Division) |
February 24, 1994 Ontario Court (General Division) (Chadwick J.) |
Summary judgment for Respondent; Transfer of land declared void |
September 22, 1994 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Houlden, Catzman and Carthy JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
November 16, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Kartar Basra
v. (24450)
Jaswant Singh Gill (B.C.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Torts - Negligence - Defence of "inevitable accident" - Motor vehicle out of control on black ice, skidding and going into the ditch - Whether in an action for negligence, Canadian juries should no longer be charged with the so-called defence of "inevitable accident" as such a charge is confusing, unnecessary and unfair and could lead to error - Whether, if such a charge is permissible, it ought not to have succeeded in the circumstances of this case.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
January 15, 1993 Supreme Court of British Columbia (Houghton J.) |
Action in negligence for injuries in motor vehicle accident dismissed |
September 12, 1994 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Cumming, Hollinrake and Goldie JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
December 1, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Reddy Rajagopal Chavali, Reddy Rajagopal Chavali, in trust,
Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali, Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali, in trust
Venkata Subbarami Reddy Chavali, Sadana Corporation Ltd., in trust
Sadana Corporation Ltd., Vahini Holdings Ltd., 715048 Ontario Ltd in trust
715048 Ontario Ltd., Kshama Corporation in trust, Kshama Corporation,
Lyon Laurier Development Corporation, Lyon Laurier Place Development
in trust and Lyon Laurier Development
v. (24461)
Kanny NG, 862883 Ontario Ltd., in trust, 862883 Ontario Ltd.,
Majestic Key Management Ltd., Majestic Key Management Ltd., in trust,
Roy Nandrum, 862908 Ontario Ltd., Majestic Key Construction Ltd.
Majestic key Holding Corporation, Pump Restaurants Ltd.,
Majestic Key Development Inc, 230 Gloucester St. ltd., Joanne Walker,
Growling Strathy and Henderson, Arthur Ault, Alicia Natividad,
Andridge Capital Co., George Gaty, Andrew Gaty, Richard Rose,
Château Royal Professional Building Inc., Cobit Co., First City Trust Co.,
Scott Aylen, Royal Trust Co. of Canada, Robert Gammon, Nelligan/Power,
David Chick, Ottawa-Carleton Brick Laying and Masonry Ltd Oliver Masonry Ltd.,
Peat, Marwick, Throne Inc., Samuel Talbert, Collette Talbert and
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Actions - Costs - Judicial discretion - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adopting the rule set out in Landa v. Travellers Insurance Company 1937, 2 W.W.R 72 that a court will stay an action where the costs of a previous action between the same parties remain unpaid - Whether the trial judge had the authority under section 106 of the Court of Justice Act of Ontario R.S.O. 1990 c. C 43 and Rule 21.01 (3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to grant a permanent stay of the action - Whether the Applicants' rights under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter were breached.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 26, 1993 Ontario Court (General Division) (Cunningham J.) |
Respondents' cross-motion to have action stayed allowed; no further motions to be made by Applicants without leave until all cost orders payed |
May 2, 1994 Ontario Court (General Division) (Cosgrove J.) |
Action permanently stayed |
October 17, 1994 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Griffiths, Carthy and Arbour JJ.A.) |
Appeal dismissed |
December 15, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: LA FOREST, CORY AND MAJOR JJ. /
LES JUGES LA FOREST, CORY ET MAJOR
Dean Sebastian
v. (24457)
The Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Administrative law - Statutes - Interpretation - Jurisdiction - Judicial review - Workers' compensation - Respondent Workers' Compensation Board suspending the payment of compensation benefits to the Applicant during the period of time when he was incarcerated in a penitentiary - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the Respondent had not fettered its discretion in dealing with the Applicant's claim - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the Respondent acted within its jurisdiction to incorporate considerations of incarcerations of a worker into calculating loss of earning capacity, notwithstanding the express wording of ss. 68 and 69 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1979, S.S. 1979, c. W-17.1 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in asserting that the privative clause contained at s. 22(2) of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1979, was the only clause that was necessary to be considered in determining the issue of jurisdiction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the "patently unreasonable test" to the issue of the Respondent's interpretation and application of its legislation.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 4 Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Noble J.) |
Application for judicial review allowed |
October 18, 1994 Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (Tallis, Cameron and Wakeling JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed |
December 16, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
James Karpiel
v. (24490)
Othelia R. Pelican (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Family law - Division of property - Unjust enrichment - Rental property purchased by common law spouses with title in the name of the Respondent - Both parties contributed to the purchase price in unequal amounts - Both parties expended time and effort in improving premises - Respondent managed the rental business and operated the coin laundry - Court of Appeal found Applicant had 25 per cent and Respondent had 75 per cent interest in the equity and ordered judicial sale - Whether Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to apply the Applicant's proportionate share in the equity of the property to the income received by the Respondent from the date of separation to the date of the judicial sale.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 3, 1993 Ontario Court (General Division) (McNeely J.) |
$95,000 Judgment, Pre-judgment interest of $41,406 awarded to Applicant and charge on the property |
November 9, 1994 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Finlayson, Doherty and Austin JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed |
January 6, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
The Gerber Scientific Instrument Company
v. (24449)
Bell-Northern Research Ltd. (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Commercial law - Contract - Sale - Ontario Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.1, s. 15 - Whether party could repudiate contract in circumstances.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
December 2, 1991 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Desmarais J.) |
Judgment for Gerber Scientific Instrument Co.; counterclaim dismissed
|
October 5, 1994 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Morden A.C.J.O., Arbour and Weiler JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed; claim by Gerber Scientific Instrument Co. dismissed and counterclaim by Bell-Northern Research allowed
|
December 2, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick,
a body corporate
v. (24488)
Dr. Francis W. Kenney (N.B.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Labour law - Physicians and surgeons - Interpretation - Appeal - Applicant suspending Respondent's licence to practice medicine - Authority of a self-governing professional to monitor and investigate the professional activities of its members - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there had been no complaint in relation to the Respondent's fitness to practice - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant did not have the authority to perform a chart audit.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 26, 1994 Court of Appeal for New Brunswick (Ayles, Ryan and Turnbull JJ.A.) |
Appeal allowed |
December 22, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA AND McLACHLIN JJ. /
LES JUGES L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA ET McLACHLIN
Lee Michael Whitley
v. (24438)
The United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Extradition - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 6(1), 7 - Procedural law - Administrative law - Judicial review - Narcotics - Sentencing - Parole - Evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that surrender of the Applicant, given the mandatory minimum sentences applicable in the Requesting State, did not violate the Applicant's rights under s. 7 of the Charter - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the legal memoranda that went before the Minister of Justice was privileged - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Applicant had received a copy or was told the substance of all of the government's material that went to the Minister - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the duty of fairness owed to the Applicant was not breached by the judgments of the extradition judge and the Minister of Justice - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the decision to extradite instead of prosecute domestically was neither unreasonable nor a violation of the Applicant's rights under s. 6(1) of the Charter.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
June 28, 1993 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (MacDonald J.) |
Judgment committing the Applicant for extradition |
November 2, 1994 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Arbour, Weiler and Laskin JJ.A.) |
Appeal and application for judicial review dismissed |
January 3, 1995 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Morgan Francis Hinchey
v. (24430)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Offences - Interpretation - Criminal Code, s. 121(1)(c) - Accepting "a commission, reward, advantage or benefit" - Nature of offence - What must be proved - Conduct of trial
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 13, 1992 Supreme Court of Newfoundland Trial Division
|
Convictions: fraud and accepting "a commission, reward, advantage or benefit,"
|
September 26, 1994 Supreme Court of Newfoundland Court of Appeal (Gushue, Marshall and Steele JJ.A.) |
Appeal against fraud convictions allowed and new trial ordered; appeal against Criminal Code s. 121(1)(c) conviction dismissed
|
November 25, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
Eddie Rohan McDowall
v. (24390)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Criminal law - Appeal - Highway Traffic Act - Plea of guilty to multiple counts of Driving While Licence Suspended, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act and other offences - Applicant sentenced to one year imprisonment and fined $6,450.00 - Applicant's appeals dismissed - Applicant alleging that counsel appearing before Court of Appeal did not place pertinent matters before the Court.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
September 24, 1993 Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) (Chang-Alloy J.P.) |
Conviction: Seven counts of driving while licence suspended, two counts of unauthorized plates, and three counts of driving without insurance |
October 22, 1993 Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) |
Provincial Offences Act appeals against sentence dismissed |
November 26, 1993 Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) |
Provincial Offences Act appeals against conviction dismissed
|
December 24, 1993 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Houlden J.A.) |
Application for extension of time dismissed |
October 31, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada |
Applications for leave to appeal and for an extension of time filed |
Ian Blue, Q.C.
v. (24393)
Ontario Hydro, Ontario Energy Board Technical Staff, and
Independent Power Producers' Society of Ontario (Ont.)
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Law of professions - Barristers and solicitors - Energy - Judicial review -Interpretation - Ontario Energy Board rate hearings - Proper test for determining whether lawyer should be disqualified from acting by reason of conflict of interest - MacDonald Estate v. Martin, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1235.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
March 14, 1994 Ontario Energy Board (C.L. Cottle, Presiding Member; C.A. Wolf Jr., Member) |
Motion to have the Applicant declared ineligible to act as counsel for Technical Staff denied |
April 25, 1994 Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) (Montgomery J.) |
Reasons for decision (April 18, 1994, order) allowing application for judicial review and precluding the Applicant from acting |
September 13, 1994 Court of Appeal for Ontario (Grange, McKinlay and Austin JJ.A.) |
Order dismissing motion for leave to appeal |
December 23, 1994 Supreme Court of Canada |
Application for leave to appeal filed |
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER AND L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ AND GONTHIER JJ. /
LE JUGE EN CHEF LAMER ET LES JUGES L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ ET GONTHIER
La Fraternité des policiers de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal et Jacques Lavigne
c. (24445)
Communauté urbaine de Montréal et Me André Rousseau (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Arbitrage - Contrôle judiciaire - Compétence - Congédiement - La décision de l'arbitre est-elle à ce point déraisonnable et absurde qu'elle constitue un déni de justice justifiant et obligeant même la Cour supérieure à intervenir? - Dans l'affirmative, la Cour d'appel devait-elle maintenir le jugement de première instance? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle erré en déclarant que le juge de première instance avait simplement substitué son appréciation de la preuve à celle de l'arbitre?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 15 avril 1991 Cour supérieure du Québec (Melançon j.c.s.) |
Requête en évocation de la décision de l'arbitre Rousseau, rejetant un grief à l'encontre d'un congédiement, accueillie |
Le 30 septembre 1994 Cour d'appel du Québec (Beauregard, Deschamps et Delisle jj.c.a.) |
Appel accueilli |
Le 30 novembre 1994 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
Le 30 décembre 1994 Cour suprême du Canada (Iacobucci j.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai pour le dépôt de la demande accordée |
Ali Gharavy
c. (24460)
Institut Philippe Pinel
et
Le Curateur public du Québec (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés de la personne - Code civil - Requête fondée sur l'article 19.4 du Code civil du Bas-Canada - Droit d'une personne atteinte de maladie mentale de refuser des traitements médicaux - Droit à l'inviolabilité de la personne - Droits à la liberté et à la sécurité prévus à l'article 7 de la Charte canadienne et à l'article 1 de la Charte des droits et libertés du Québec, L.R.Q., ch. C-12 - La décision de la Cour d'appel du Québec, à la majorité, remet-elle en cause l'exercice par les personnes atteintes de maladie mentale du droit à l'égalité prévu à l'article 15 de la Charte canadienne et du droit à l'inviolabilité de la personne, à la liberté et à la sécurité prévus à l'article 7 de la Charte canadienne et à l'article 1 de la Charte québécoise? - La Cour d'appel, à la majorité, a-t-elle bien apprécié la question du fardeau de preuve dans une requête en autorisation de traitement et de l'application de la présomption d'aptitude par les tribunaux? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle, après avoir conclu à l'inaptitude du demandeur, apprécié correctement les critères du Code civil du Bas-Canada en autorisant un traitement d'une durée de deux ans? - La Cour d'appel était-elle justifiée d'intervenir en substituant son opinion à celle du juge de première instance sur des questions de faits et d'appréciation de la preuve en l'absence d'erreur manifeste du juge de première instance et ce, contrairement à la jurisprudence constante de la Cour suprême du Canada sur ce sujet?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 27 mai 1993 Cour supérieure du Québec (Mercure, J.C.S.) |
Requête de l'intimé en autorisation de traitement (art. 19.4 du Code civil du Bas-Canada) rejetée |
Le 17 octobre 1994 Cour d'appel du Québec (Beauregard, Delisle et Steinberg [dissident], JJ.C.A.) |
Appel de l'intimé accueilli |
Le 15 décembre 1994 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
Gilles Patenaude
c. (24415)
Procureur général du Québec (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Procédure - Procédure civile - Exception déclinatoire - Action directe en nullité - Contestation de la validité des articles 73 et 105 du Code de la sécurité routière, L.R.Q., ch. C-24.2, permettant à la Société de l'assurance automobile d'exiger des titulaires de permis de conduire pour certaines classes de véhicules de subir un examen médical avant d'autoriser le renouvellement de leur permis - Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, L.R.Q., ch. C-12 -La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en accueillant la requête en irrecevabilité de l'intimé?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 19 novembre 1991 Cour supérieure (Chabot, J.C.S.) |
Requête de l'intimé en irrecevabilité de l'action directe en nullité intentée par le demandeur accueillie |
Le 26 octobre 1994 Cour d'appel du Québec (Proulx, Rousseau-Houle et Chamberland, JJ.C.A.) |
Appel du demandeur rejeté |
Le 18 novembre 1994 Cour suprême du Canada |
Demande d'autorisation d'appel déposée |
Jean-Claude Gaucher, George Woods, Denis Dubois, Léo Desfossés,
Claude Bergeron, Benoit Chaperon, Léo Boislard,
Gaston Bisson, Cécile Hamelin, Marcel Beaulieu
c. (24441)
J.M. Asbestos Inc. (Qué.)
NATURE DE LA CAUSE
Droit du travail - Droit administratif - Arbitrage - Convention collective - Compétence - Contrôle judiciaire - Calcul de l'ancienneté - Erreur manifestement déraisonnable - Droit de surveillance et de réforme de la Cour supérieure - Le juge de la Cour supérieure était-il juridiquement bien fondé de conclure que l'arbitre a excédé sa juridiction en appliquant une convention collective échue au moment des mises à pied ou au moment du dépôt des griefs présentés par les demandeurs et refusé d'appliquer la règle de droit reconnue dans l'affaire Hémond c. Syndicat des travailleurs (euses) de l'Abattoir de Princeville, [1989] 2 R.C.S. 962?
HISTORIQUE PROCÉDURAL
Le 12 octobre 1990 Cour Supérieure du Québec (Péloquin j.c.s.) |
Requête en révision judiciaire de la sentence de l'arbitre accueillie |
Le 3 octobre 1994 Cour d'Appel du Québec (Beauregard, Proulx et Delisle jj.c.a.) |
Appel rejeté |
Le 28 novembre 1994 Cour Suprême du Canada |
Demande d'autorisation d'appel |
JUDGMENTS ON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE |
JUGEMENTS RENDUS SUR LES DEMANDES D'AUTORISATION |
FEBRUARY 9, 1995 / LE 9 FÉVRIER 1995
24376RANDY REMINGTON - v. - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (F.C.A.)
CORAM: The Chief Justice and Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Taxation - Assessment - Inducement to enter into a lease of a office building - Whether the payment was a non-taxable receipt or income from a business - To what extent must a Court consider the economic substance on the transaction, generally accepted accounting principles and commonly accepted business and commercial practices in determining the taxation year in which the amount must be reported.
24294UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. TRI-SERVICE MACHINE LTD. and TRI-SERVICE OILFIELD MANUFACTURING LTD. (Alta.)
CORAM: La Forest, Sopinka and Major JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
La demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Procedural law - Statutes - Interpretation - Insurance - Limitation of actions - Respondents claiming indemnity against Applicant insurer - Statutory conditions of Part 5 of the Insurance Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I-5, printed in insurance policy - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the provisions of the Insurance Act relating to the applicability of statutory conditions - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its characterization of the insurance policy.
24044LAMY DOMINIQUE c. MARK ABRAMOWITZ (Qué.)
CORAM:Les juges L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier et McLachlin
La requête de réexamen de la demande d'autorisation d'appel est rejetée avec dépens.
The request for a rehearing of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
MOTIONS |
REQUÊTES |
3.2.1995
Before / Devant: THE REGISTRAR
Requête en prorogation du délai imparti pour déposer le mémoire de l'appelante
Compagnie Minière Québec Cartier
c. (23960)
Les Métallurgistes Unis d'Amérique, Local 6869 |
Motion to extend the time in which to file the appellant's factum
Avec le consentement des parties. |
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED Délai prorogé au 13 janvier 1995.
6.2.1995
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to state a constitutional question
Town of Lac La Biche
v. (24413)
Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta (Alta.) |
Requête pour énoncer une question constitutionnelle
With the consent of the parties. |
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Notices of intention to intervene are to be filed no later than March 10, 1995.
1.Do the boundaries of the electoral divisions established in Part 3 of the Electoral Divisions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993 infringe or deny rights or freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2.If so, in what particulars?
3.If so, is such infringement or denial justified by Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
1.Les limites des circonscriptions électorales fixées à la partie 3 de l'Electoral Divisions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, portent-elles atteintes aux droits ou libertés garantis par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
2.Dans l'affirmative, à quels égards?
3.Dans l'affirmative, cette atteinte est-elle justifiée par l'article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés?
7.2.1995
Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.
Motions to extend the time for leave to intervene and for leave to intervene
BY/PAR:Attorney General for Ontario
IN/DANS:Derik Christopher Lord
v. (23943)
Her Majesty The Queen (B.C.) |
Requêtes en prorogation du délai pour la demande d'autorisation et demande d'autorisation d'intervention
Robert Morrow for the motion.
Henry S. Brown, Q.C., for the appellant.
W.G. Burke-Robertson, Q.C., for the respondent. |
GRANTED / ACCORDÉES Oral argument is limited to 15 minutes.
6.2.1995
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER AND LA FOREST, L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA, GONTHIER, CORY, McLACHLIN, IACOBUCCI AND MAJOR JJ.
(VIDEO CONFERENCE - EDMONTON)
ORAL HEARING ON LEAVE TO APPEAL |
TENUE D'UNE AUDIENCE SUR LA DEMANDE D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL |
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (24252)
John Richard Adams (Crim.)(Alta.) |
Jack Watson, Q.C., for the applicant.
Philip G. Lister, Q.C., for the respondent (Edmonton). |
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
6.2.1995
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER AND LA FOREST, L'HEUREUX-DUBÉ, SOPINKA, GONTHIER, CORY, McLACHLIN, IACOBUCCI AND MAJOR JJ.
MOTION TO QUASH
MOTION TO AMEND THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL |
REQUÊTE EN ANNULATION
REQUÊTE POUR AMENDER LA DEMANDE D'AUTORISATION D'APPEL |
Her Majesty The Queen
v. (24296)
James Keegstra
- and between -
James Keegstra
v.
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.) |
Jack Watson, Q.C., for the motion to quash.
Douglas Christie, for the motion to amend the application for leave to appeal. |
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
7.2.1995
Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.
Requête en autorisation d'intervention
BY/PAR:94697 Canada Inc., et al.
IN/DANS:Richard Dubois
c. (23993)
Raymond, Chabot, Fafard, Gagnon Inc. (Qué.) |
Motion for leave to intervene
William Hesler, c.r., pour la requête.
Robert Tessier pour l'intimée.
Richard Wagner pour l'appelant. |
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED Plaidoiries devant être déterminées par la Cour lors de l'audition de l'appel.
7.2.1995
Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
Kenneth James Hunter
v. (24552)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l'autorisation d'appel
With the consent of the parties. |
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to February 6, 1995.
7.2.1995
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to extend the time in which to state constitutional questions
David John Cooper
v. (24135)
Canadian Human Rights Commission (F.C.A.)(B.C.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai pour énoncer des questions constitutionnelles
With the consent of the parties. |
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
7.2.1995
Before / Devant: CHIEF JUSTICE LAMER
Motion to extend the time in which to state constitutional questions
Noel Edwin Bell
v. (24134)
Canadian Human Rights Commission (F.C.A.)(B.C.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai pour énoncer des questions constitutionnelles
With the consent of the parties. |
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
6.2.1995
Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.
Motion for a stay of execution
Hagop Artinian
v. (24534)
Muriel Micaela Marie Louise De Toledo (Qué.) |
Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution
Julius Grey for the motion.
Muriel Micaela Marie Louise De Toledo in person. |
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE
SOPINKA J. ‑‑ This is an application under s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S‑26, for an order of interim release of the applicant who has applied for leave to appeal an order committing him to prison for a period of four months for failure to obey a judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec.
The applicant was found to have failed to pay a sum of $25,000.00 on account of arrears of support payments. Briefly, the history of the proceedings is as follows. On July 31, 1991, Bishop J. rendered judgment against the applicant ordering payment of, inter alia, support payments. On May 7, 1992, the applicant was found in contempt by Zerbisias J. of the Superior Court, District of Montreal, and sentenced to four months in prison provided that he was to be released on payment of the sum in arrears. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal and, pending appeal, was released on his own recognizance pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, apparently on the basis that this was a civil contempt. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal and affirmed the judgment of Zerbisias J.
Pending appeal and for a period of over one year, the applicant did not make any attempt to abscond nor did he pose a threat to the respondent. During the argument the respondent, who appeared in person, raised the question of criminal proceedings which she had brought against the applicant but no material was filed to support this allegation and I was advised that the charge was dismissed. There is nothing in any of the judgments to support the view that the applicant's continued incarceration is justified because he poses a risk to the respondent. In any event, this is in no way the purpose of the applicant's incarceration. In this regard, it is significant that the applicant's imprisonment can be terminated on payment of the sum in arrears.
I am satisfied that the criteria for an order under s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act have been met as recently reaffirmed in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. There is a serious question raised by the appeal, irreparable harm is manifest and the balance of convenience clearly favours the applicant. There is, however, no specific legislative provision for this Court to grant bail. In criminal cases, orders for interim release on appeal this Court are dealt with under s. 679 of the Criminal Code. This proceeding, however, in origin and character is a civil contempt, and arguably the Criminal Code provisions do not apply. Although disobedience of an order issued in a civil proceeding may in certain circumstances constitute a criminal contempt, I doubt that this is such a case. See United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901.
It would appear, therefore, that the only firm basis upon which interim release can be ordered by this Court in the circumstances is under s. 65.1. In this regard, I note that in Poje v. A.G., (B.C.) (16 October 1952) and Cotroni v. La Commission de Police du Québec (18 February 1975), this Court has in the past ordered interim release under s. 65 of the Act. In my view, in light of the reach of s. 65, as explained in MacDonald, supra, there is ample scope under s. 65.1 for this type of order.
Accordingly, the applicant is released until a decision is made on the application for leave to appeal and, if granted, until the appeal is disposed of. In the event that the application for leave to appeal or the appeal is dismissed, the applicant shall surrender to the warden of the prison in which he is presently confined. I am also persuaded by the respondent that as a further condition of this order, the applicant is not to exercise his right of access to the children of the marriage under the judgment of Bishop J. during the period of interim release. The application for leave is to be expedited. Costs of the application in the appeal. |
LE JUGE SOPINKA ‑‑ Il s'agit ici d'une demande d'ordonnance de mise en liberté provisoire faite, en vertu de l'art. 65.1 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, L.R.C. (1985), ch. S-26, par le requérant, qui a demandé une autorisation de pourvoi contre une ordonnance le condamnant à quatre mois d'emprisonnement pour refus de se conformer à un jugement de la Cour supérieure du Québec.
Le requérant a omis de payer une somme de 25 000 $ d'arriérés de pension alimentaire. En bref, l'historique des procédures est le suivant. Le 31 juillet 1991, le juge Bishop a rendu un jugement contre le requérant, lui ordonnant de payer, entre autres, une pension alimentaire. Le 7 mai 1992, une décision d'outrage au tribunal a été rendue contre le requérant par le juge Zerbisias de la Cour supérieure du district de Montréal, et il a été condamné à une peine de quatre mois d'emprisonnement prévoyant qu'il serait libéré s'il versait la somme due. Le requérant a interjeté appel à la Cour d'appel et, en attendant l'audition de l'appel, il a été libéré sur son propre engagement en conformité avec le Code de procédure civile, apparemment pour le motif qu'il s'agissait d'un outrage civil. Le requérant a interjeté appel à la Cour d'appel, qui a rejeté son appel et confirmé la décision du juge Zerbisias.
En attendant l'audition de l'appel et pendant plus d'un an, le requérant n'a pas tenté de s'enfuir et n'a pas constitué une menace pour l'intimée. Au cours des plaidoiries, l'intimée, qui a comparu personnellement, a mentionné la question des procédures criminelles qu'elle avait intentées contre le requérant, mais aucun document n'a été déposé pour confirmer cette affirmation et on me dit que l'accusation a été rejetée. Rien dans les jugements n'appuie l'opinion que l'incarcération du requérant est justifiée parce qu'il constitue une menace pour l'intimée. Quoi qu'il en soit, ce n'est pas du tout là la raison de son incarcération. À cet égard, il est significatif qu'il puisse être mis fin à l'incarcération du requérant s'il verse les arriérés.
Je suis convaincu qu'il a été satisfait aux critères justifiant une ordonnance aux termes de l'art. 65.1 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, qui ont été confirmés récemment dans l'arrêt RJR--MacDonald Inc. c. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 R.C.S. 311. Le pourvoi soulève une question grave, le préjudice irréparable est manifeste et la prépondérance des inconvénients favorise nettement le requérant. Cependant, il n'y a aucune disposition législative précise en vertu de laquelle notre Cour pourrait accorder une mise en liberté sous caution. Dans les instances criminelles, c'est l'art. 679 du Code criminel, L.R.C. (1985), ch. C-46, qui régit les ordonnances de mise en liberté provisoire qui sont portées en appel devant notre Cour. Toutefois, la procédure qui nous occupe est un outrage civil de par son origine et sa nature et on pourrait soutenir que les dispositions du Code criminel ne s'appliquent pas. Bien que la désobéissance à une ordonnance rendue dans des procédures civiles puissent, dans certains cas, constituer un outrage criminel, je doute que tel soit le cas en l'espèce. Voir United Nurses of Alberta c. Alberta (Procureur général), [1992] 1 R.C.S. 901.
Par conséquent, il semple que le seul fondement sur lequel notre Cour pourrait ordonner une mise en liberté provisoire dans les circonstances est l'art. 65.1. À cet égard, je remarque que dans Poje c. A.G., (C.-B.) (16 octobre 1952), et Cotroni c. Commission de police du Québec (18 février 1975), notre Cour a déjà ordonné des mises en liberté provisoires en vertu de l'art. 65 de la Loi. À mon avis, compte tenu de la portée de l'art. 65, telle qu'elle est expliquée dans l'arrêt MacDonald, précité, la portée de l'art. 65.1 est suffisamment large pour permettre ce genre d'ordonnance.
En conséquence, le requérant est mis en liberté jusqu'à ce qu'une décision soit rendue quant à la demande d'autorisation de pourvoi et, si elle est accordée, jusqu'à ce que le pourvoi soit tranché. Dans le cas où la demande d'autorisation de pourvoi ou le pourvoi serait rejeté, le requérant devra se rapporté au gardien de la prison où il est actuellement détenu. L'intimée m'a également convaincu de fixer comme condition additionnelle de la présente ordonnance que, pendant la période de sa mise en liberté provisoire, le requérant ne devra pas exercer le droit de visite des enfants du mariage que lui accordait la décision du juge Bishop. La demande d'autorisation de pourvoi devra être accélérée. Dépens de la demande à suivre. |
8.2.1995
Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.
Requête en vue de surseoir à l'exécution
Syndicat National des employés de l'Hôpital St‑Ferdinand et al.
c. (24511)
Le Curateur public et al. (Qué.) |
Motion for a stay of execution |
ACCORDÉE / GRANTED La requête en sursis telle que demandée est accordée sans frais.
8.2.1995
Before / Devant: SOPINKA J.
Motion to extend the time in which to apply for leave to appeal
Michael Charles Ambrose, et al.
v. (24530)
Her Majesty The Queen (Ont.) |
Requête en prorogation du délai pour obtenir l'autorisation d'appel
With the consent of the parties. |
GRANTED / ACCORDÉE Time extended to January 23, 1995.
NOTICES OF APPEAL FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
AVIS D'APPEL DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
3.2.1995
James Lee Brydon
v. (24554)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.)
AS OF RIGHT
6.2.1995
Susie Adler et al.
v. (24347)
Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario et al. (Ont.)
8.2.1995
Battlefords and District Co-Operative Ltd.
v. (24342)
Betty-Lu Clara Gibbs et al. (Sask.)
9.2.1995
Joseph Ronald Jacques et al.
v. (24558)
Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada (Crim.)(N.B.)
AS OF RIGHT
|
|
NOTICES OF INTERVENTION FILED SINCE LAST ISSUE |
AVIS D'INTERVENTION DÉPOSÉS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION |
BY/PAR:Attorney General of Canada
IN/DANS:Jonathan Pulker
v. (24171)
Macmillan Bloedel Limited (Crim.)(B.C.)
APPEALS HEARD SINCE LAST ISSUE AND DISPOSITION |
APPELS ENTENDUS DEPUIS LA DERNIÈRE PARUTION ET RÉSULTAT |
3.2.1995
CORAMThe Chief Justice Lamer and Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Deborah Simpson
v. (24099)
Her Majesty The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.) |
Derek J. Hogan for the appellant.
Wayne Gorman for the respondent. |
THE CHIEF JUSTICE (orally) ‑‑ With respect, we are all of the view that there was no reason for interfering with the exercise of discretion by the trial judge. The appeal is therefore allowed and the stay entered by the trial judge is restored. |
LE JUGE EN CHEF (oralement) ‑‑ En toute déférence, nous sommes tous d'avis qu'il n'y avait aucun motif de s'ingérer dans l'exercice du pouvoir discrétionnaire du juge du procès. Le pourvoi est donc accueilli et l'arrêt des procédures inscrit par le juge du procès est rétabli. |
3.2.1995
CORAMLa Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major JJ.
Chang-Jie Chen
v. (23984)
Minister of Employment and Immigration, et al. (F.C.A.)(Ont.) |
Cecil L. Rotenberg, Q.C., Andrew Z. Wlodika, Mary Lam, and C. Kurata for the appellant.
Urszula Kaczmarczyk and Donald A. MacIntosh for the respondents. |
RESERVED / EN DÉLIBÉRÉ
Nature of the case:
Administrative Law - Immigration - Appeal - Judicial Review - Discretion vested in a visa officer under subsection 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978. |
Nature de la cause:
Droit administratif - Immigration - Appel - Contrôle judiciaire - Pouvoir discrétionnaire conféré à un agent des visas au par. 11(3) du Règlement sur l'immigration de 1978. |
WEEKLY AGENDA |
ORDRE DU JOUR DE LA SEMAINE |
AGENDA for the week beginning February 13, 1995.
ORDRE DU JOUR pour la semaine commençant le 13 février 1995.
Date of Hearing/ No. 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.
This index includes applications for leave to appeal standing for judgment at the beginning of 1995 and all the applications for leave to appeal filed or heard in 1995 up to now.
Cet index comprend les requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi en délibéré au début de 1995 et toutes celles produites ou entendues en 1995 jusqu'à maintenant.
*01Refused/Refusée
*02Refused with costs/Refusée avec dépens
*03Granted/Accordée
*04Granted with costs/Accordée avec dépens
*05Discontinuance filed/Désistement produit
*AApplications for leave to appeal filed/Requêtes en autorisation de pourvoi produites
*BSubmitted to the Court/Soumises à la Cour
*COral Hearing/Audience
*DReserved/En délibéré
Status/ Disposition/
CASE/AFFAIRE Statut Résultat
Page
Accurpress Manufacturing Ltd. v. Stoddard (B.C.), 23882, *A 2282(93)
Adler (Ralph) v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24341, *01 26.1.95 1770(94) 133(95)
Adler (Susie) v. The Queen (Ont.), 24347, *03 2.2.95 1844(94) 248(95)
Affeldt v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24429, *B 122(95)
Allam c. Nessia Investments Ltd. (Qué.), 23168, *A 2048(92)
Allard c. Commission des valeurs mobilières (Qué.), 24483, *A 3(95)
Ambrose v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24530, *A 113(95)
Armada Lines Ltd. v. Chaleur Fertilizers Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24351, *B 29(95)
Associated Respiratory Services Inc. v. Purchasing Commission (B.C.),
24366, *B 25(95)
Atlantic Communication and Technical Workers' Union v. Maritime
Telegraph and Telephone Co. (N.S.), 24506, *A 112(95)
Atlific (Nfld.) Ltd. v. Hotel Buildings Ltd. (Nfld.), 24313, *02
26.1.95 1682(94) 132(95)
Attorney Genaeral of Canada v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Public Complaints Commission (F.C.A.)(N.B.), 24319, *02 2.2.95 1844(94) 247(95)
B.K. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 24357, *03 2.2.95 1959(94) 256(95)
Bachman v. Garden (Sask.), 24544, *A 230(95)
Baker Energy Resources Corporation v. Reading & Bates
Construction Co. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24458, *A 1(95)
Baroni v. The Queen (N.S.), 23439, *A 478(93)
Barsalou v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24498, *A 6(95)
Basra v. Gill (B.C.), 24450, *B 293(95)
Bate Equipment Ltd. v. Ellis-Don Ltd. (Alta.), 24396, *B 31(95)
Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Gibbs
(Sask.), 24342, *03 2.2.95 1775(94) 247(95)
Bennett v. Kynock (N.S.), 24299, *01 2.2.95 1627(94) 245(95)
Blue v. Ontario Hydro (Ont.), 24393, *B 299(95)
Bluebird Footwear Inc. c. General Motors Acceptance Corporation
of Canada (Qué.), 24386, *A 1764(94)
Bober v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24455, *B 118(95)
Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
(B.C.), 24520, *A 112(95)
Bouchard c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24512, *A 112(95)
Bourbonnière c. Bureau d'expertise des assureurs Ltée
(Qué.), 24452, *B 241(95)
Bouvillons Canada Ltée c. Labbé (Qué.), 24550, *A 290(95)
Brault c. Fontaine (Qué.), 23953, *A 196(94)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers c. Picher (Qué.), 24541, *A 229(95)
Brousseau c. Stewart-Wolf (Qué.), 24407, *02 26.1.95 19(95) 129(95)
Burden v. Scurry-Rainbow Oil Ltd. (Alta.), 24405, *B 18(95)
Camani v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24369, *B 9(95)
Canadian Association of Fire Bomber Pilots v. Government of
Saskatchewan (Sask.), 24214, *02 2.2.95 1313(94) 254(95)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Attorney General for New
Brunswick (N.B.), 24305, *B 1847(94)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Attorney General of the
province of Saskatchewan (Crim.)(Sask.), 23738, *02 12.1.95 1797(93) 34(95)
Canadian National Railway Co. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24340, *02
26.1.95 1771(94) 133(95)
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
Canadian Pacific System Federation (B.C.), 24317, *B 1683(94)
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 24315, *02 26.1.95 1771(94) 133(95)
Centre communautaire juridique de l'Estrie c. Ville de
Sherbrooke (Qué.), 24425, *B 243(95)
Chaba v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24380, *01 19.1.95 1849(94) 42(95)
Chan v. Cheung (Alta.), 24527, *A 113(95)
Charlebois v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 279 (F.C.A.),
24219, *02 12.1.95 1323(94) 37(95)
Chavali v. Ng (Ont.), 24461, *B 294(95)
City of Dartmouth v. Pay Equity Commissiion (N.S.), 24447, *B 234(95)
Cloutier c. Ferland (Qué.), 24349, *02 26.1.95 1846(94) 131(95)
College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick v. Kenney
(N.B.), 24488, *B 297(95)
Commission des droits de la personne du Québec c. Commission
scolaire régionale Chauveau (Qué.), 24291, *02 2.2.95 1561(94) 254(95)
Commission scolaire de la Jonquière c. Syndicat du personnel
de soutien de Jonquière (Qué.), 24338, *02 26.1.95 1767(94) 128(95)
Commission scolaire les Écores c. Syndicat de l'enseignement de
la région des Mille-Îles (Qué.), 24456, *A 1(95)
Commonwealth Investors Syndicate Ltd. v. Laxton (B.C.),
24353, *B 124(95)
Compagnie de la Baie d'Hudson c. Ferland (Qué.), 24482, *A 4(95)
Construction Amtron Inc. c. Corbeil (Qué.), 22562, *A 1783(91)
Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. v. Bruncor Leasing Inc. (N.S.),
24279, *02 19.1.95 1511(94) 40(95)
Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. v. The Queen in right of Canada (F.C.A.)(N.S.),
24329, *02 26.1.95 1955(94) 130(95)
Corporation municipale de la ville de Bécancour c. Enfoui-Bec Inc.
(Qué.), 24422, *B 127(95)
Country Music Television Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission and MH Radio/Rawlco Partnership
(F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24477, *02 26.1.95 32(95) 130(95)
Courtcliffe Parks Ltd. v. Hamilton Wentworth Credit Union (Ont.),
24106, *02 2.2.95 1857(94) 251(95)
Couture (Jacynthe) c. Gagnon (Qué.), 24491, *A 5(95)
Couture (Richard) c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24392, *01 26.1.95 1960(94) 135(95)
Crews v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24521, *A 113(95)
Cross v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24371, *B 11(95)
Crown Parking Co. v. City of Calgary (Alta.), 24377, *B 1850(94)
D & B Companies of Canada Ltd. v. Director of Investigation
and Research (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24423, *B 1957(94)
D.G.R. v. K.L.V. (B.C.), 24365, *B 1859(94)
D.M. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24462, *B 115(95)
D'Amato v. Badger (B.C.), 24364, *B 14(95)
D'Amore Construction (Windsor) Ltd. v. The Queen (Ont.),
24372, *B 13(95)
David Hunt Farms Ltd. v. Minister of Agriculture (F.C.A.)(Ont.),
24281, *02 2.2.95 1511(94) 249(95)
DeCoste v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24306, *B 8(95)
Desaulniers c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24356, *01 19.1.95 1772(94) 40(95)
Devereaux v. Morrow (Ont.), 23798, *A 2068(93)
Dewald v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24363, *03 2.2.95 1774(94) 247(95)
Dick v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24059, *01 2.2.95 730(94) 245(95)
Didone c. Didone-Gagnon (Qué.), 24440, *B 240(95)
Disco Gas & Oil Ltd. v. Petro-Canada Inc. (B.C.), 24379, *02
2.2.95 56(94) 251(95)
D'Onofrio v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24277, *01 2.2.95 1510(94) 253(95)
Dorscheid v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24420, *B 21(95)
Eakin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24451, *B 116(95)
Elgersma v. Attorney General for Ontario (Ont.), 24347, *A 1674(94)
Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board (Ont.),
24243, *02 12.1.95 1324(94) 37(95)
Eneas v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24086, *B 732(94)
Ernst & Young Inc. v. B.J. Robertson & Associates Ltd. (Alta.),
24545, *A 230(95)
Ernst & Young Inc. v. Dylex Ltd. (Ont.), 24557, *A 291(95)
Ernst & Young Inc. v. Price Waterhouse Ltd. (Ont.), 24259, *03 2.2.95 1329(94) 255(95)
Fletcher v. Scurry-Rainbow Oil Ltd. (Alta.), 24404, *B 17(95)
Fong v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24448, *B 116(95)
Foshay v. The Queen (Ont.), 24274, *A 1304(94)
Fou du Roi Inc. c. Morin (Qué.), 24463, *A 1(95)
Foulston v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24529, *A 113(95)
Fraternité des policiers de la communauté urbaine de Montréal c.
Communauté urbaine de Montréal (Qué.), 24445, *B 300(95)
Funk (Harold Chalmers) v. Royal Bank of Canada (Ont.), 24443, *B 292(95)
Funk (Steven Christopher) v. Labus Investments Ltd. (B.C.), 24416, *B 125(95)
G.W.M. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24394, *B 232(95)
Gaucher c. J. M. Asbestos Inc. (Qué.), 24441, *B 302(95)
Gendron c. 2968-1467 Québec Inc. (Qué.), 24555, *A 290(95)
Gerber Scientific Instrument Co. v. Bell-Northern Research Ltd. (Ont.),
24449, *B 296(95)
Gestion Gilles Ménard Inc. c. Filion (Qué.), 24375, *B 1858(94)
Gharavy c. Pinel (Qué.), 24460, *B 301(95)
Gillis v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24453, *B 233(95
Greenbaum c. Public Curator of Quebec (Qué.), 24434, *B 126(95)
Greenpeace Canada v. MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. (B.C.), 24437, *B 238(95)
Gresham v. Ernst & Young Inc. (Sask.), 22888, *A 716(92)
Guns N'Roses Missouri Storm Inc. c. Productions Musicales
Donald K. Donald Inc. (Qué.), 24286, *02 2.2.95 1562(94) 255(95)
Guzyk v. Hare (B.C.), 24373, *B 1851(94)
Gymnase Longueuil Inc. c. Construction Dupal Inc. (Qué.), 24348, *01
26.1.95 1960(94) 128(95)
Hasan v. Council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons
of New Brunswick (N.B.), 24398, *B 29(95)
Hay v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24480, *A 3(95)
Hayoun c. Compagnie T. Eaton Ltée (Qué.), 24501, *A 6(95)
Henry v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24384, *B 1958(94)
Hershkovitz c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24417, *B 123(95)
Hinchey v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24430, *B 298(95)
Hinse c. La Reine (Crim.)(Qué.), 24320, *01 26.1.95 1679(94) 129(95)
Holt v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24362, *01 12.1.95 1769(94) 33(95)
Howe v. Professional Conduct Committee (Ont.), 24275, *02 2.2.95 1333(94) 252(95)
Hunter v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24552, *A 290(95)
Jackson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24241, *01 2.2.95 1247(94) 252(95)
Johnson v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24133, *01 2.2.95 1319(94) 249(95)
Jones v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23667, *03 22.12.94 1467(93) 33(95)
Kaban v. Sett (Man.), 24444, *B 236(95)
Kalin v. City of Calgary (Alta.), 24418, *A 1799(94)
Kansa General Insurance Co. v. Simcoe & Erie General
Insurance Co. (B.C.), 24368, *B 30(95)
Karpiel v. Pelican (Ont.), 24490, *B 295(95)
Keegstra v. The Queen (Alta.), 24296, *A1674(94)
Kerrar c. Souyad (Qué.), 24470, *B 242(95)
Kerrar c. Souyad (Qué.), 24479, *B 241(95)
Kieling v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (Sask.), 24285, *02 12.1.95 1556(94) 38(95)
Kindret v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Crim.)(Man.), 24215, *01 12.1.95 1331(94) 37(95)
Kujawa v. Milgaard (Crim.)(Sask.), 24382, *02 2.2.95 1855(94) 250(94)
Laidlaw Carriers Inc. v. Ford (Ont.), 24539, *A 229(95)
Lajoie v. The Queen (Ont.), 21436, *A 975(89)
Landry c. La Reine (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 24370, *01 26.1.95 1854(94) 130(95)
Langer v. MacMillan Bloedel (B.C.), 24437, *B 238(95)
Lawrence v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24524, *A 229(95)
Laws v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24504, *A 112(95)
Lawson v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24331, *01 19.1.95 1850(94) 42(95)
Lehndorff United Properties (Canada) Ltd. v. City of Edmonton
(Alta.), 24412, *B 120(95)
Lemky v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24454, *B 10(95)
Levert v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24411, *A 6(95)
Logozar v. Golder (Alta.), 24406, *B 125(95)
Lozinski v. Agricultural Credit Corporation of Saskatchewan
(Sask.), 24326, *02 26.1.95 1681(94) 132(95)
Ludwig v. Crick (B.C.), 24327, *B 1773(94)
Luscar Ltd. v. Pembina Resources Ltd. (Alta.), 24496, *A 6(95)
M.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24431, *B 23(95)
MacIsaac v. MacNeil (N.S.), 24180, *B 1957(94)
Mackie v. Milgaard (Crim.)(Sask.), 24382, *B 1855(94)
MacNeill v. Attorney General of Canada (F.C.A.), 24231, *02
12.1.95 1322(94) 36(95)
Manley v. Clarfield (Ont.), 24476, *A 3(95)
Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin (Ont.), 24499, *A 5(95)
Marchés Bonanza (Lachine) Inc. c. Procureur général du Québec
(Qué.), 24547, *A 290(95)
Marchés Bonanza (Lachine) Inc. c. Procureur général du Québec
(Qué.), 24548, *A 290(95)
Marinaro v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24322, *A 230(95)
McDowall v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24390, *B 299(95)
McGillivary v. Province of New Brunswick (N.B.), 24336, *B 1848(94)
McLeod v. Law Society of Saskatchewan (Sask.), 24459, *B 122(95)
McMaster v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24395, *B 9(95)
McPhillips v. British Columbia Ferry Corporation (B.C.),
24246, *02 26.1.95 1329(94) 134(95)
Meditrust Pharmacy Services Inc. v. Ordre des Pharmaciens
du Québec (Qué.), 24487, *A 4(95)
Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Health and
Welfare (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24260, *02 2.2.95 1318(94) 257(95)
Meubles du Québec Inspiration XIXe Ltée c. Ville de
Chicoutimi (Qué.), 24355, *02 26.1.95 1858(94) 134(95)
Michaud v. Bank of Montreal (N.B.), 24497, *A 5(95)
Minister of Justice of Canada c. Jamieson (Crim.)(Qué.), 24253, *03
2.2.95 77(94) 256(95)
Mohan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 24523, *A 113(95)
Morrissey v. Morrissey (P.E.I.), 24202, *02 12.1.95 1322(94) 36(95)
Municipalité de la paroisse de Ste-Rose-du-Nord c. Procureur
général du Québec (Qué.), 24354, *B 1854(94)
NB Power Corporation v. Sivret (N.B.), 24538, *A 229(95)
Nand v. Edmonton Public School District # 7 (Alta.), 24500, *A 6(95)
National Parole Board v. Mooring (Crim.)(B.C.), 24436, *03
15.12.94 1953(94) 52(95)
Neuberger v. Connors (Ont.), 24346, *B 22(95)
Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. The Queen in
right of Newfoundland (Nfld.), 24525, *A 113(95)
Noble v. First City Trust Co. (Alta.), 24403, *B 16(95)
Noftall v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24426, *B 118(95)
P.L. v. Director of Child Welfare (Nfld.), 23886, *01
2.2.95 93(93) 252(95)
P. (S.) c. R. (M.) (Qué.), 24251, *03 2.2.95 1239(4) 255(95)
Paramadevan v. Semelhago (Ont.), 24325, *03 2.2.95 1682(94) 253(95)
Patenaude c. Procureur général du Québec (Qué.), 24415, *B 302(95)
Patrick Press Ltd. v. Pierre (B.C.), 23837, *A 2069(93)
Peckham v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24401, *B 1955(94)
Pennie v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24432, *B 237(95)
Peroux c. Cité de la Santé de Laval (Qué.), 24464, *A 1(95)
Peters v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 24391, *B 7(95)
Petrini v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 24433, *B 28(95)
Pilote c. Corporation de l'Hôpital Bellechasse de Montréal
(Qué.), 24419, *B 25(95)
Portree v. Woodsmill Homes Ltd. (Man.), 24289, *02 12.1.95 1557(94) 39(95)
Prince Rupert Grain Ltd. v. International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union, Ship and Dock Foremen, Local
514 (F.C.A)(B.C.), 24428, *B 117(95)
Procureur général du Québec c. 2747-3174 Québec Inc. (Qué.),
24309, *B 239(95)
R. v. Adams (Crim.)(Alta.), 24252, *C 1896(94)
R. c. Aubin (Crim.)(Qué.), 24350, *01 19.1.95 1777(94) 41(95)
R. v. Austin (Crim.)(B.C.), 24486, *B 231(95)
R. v. Calder Crim.)((Ont.), 24323, *B 7(95)
R. v. Chaulk (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24502, *A 6(95)
R. c. Chevrier (Qué.), 23126, *A 2510(92)
R. v. Fisher (Crim.)(Ont.), 24102, *01 2.2.95 875(94) 245(95)
R. c. Gauthier (Crim.)(Qué.), 24234, *B 15(95)
R. v. Lambert (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24378, *B 12(95)
R. c. Laporte (Crim.)(Qué.), 24551, *A 290(95)
R. v. MacLeod (Crim.)(N.B.), 24397, *B 12(95)
R. v. McPhail (Crim.)(Man.), 24475, *A 2(95)
R. v. Marrie (Crim)(Nfld.), 24471, *B 119(95)
R. v. Marwin G. (Crim.)(Ont.), 24484, *B 292(95)
R. v. Nikolovski (Ont.), 24360, *A 1797(94)
R. v. Peterson (Crim.)(B.C.), 24421, *B 20(95)
R. v. Robinson (Crim.)(B.C.), 24302, *B 1953(94)
R. c. Simard (Crim.)(Qué.), 24408, *B 15(95)
R. v. Sylliboy (Crim.)(N.S.), 21929, *A 1015(90)
R. in right of the province of British Columbia v. National
Bank of Canada (B.C.), 24509, *A 112(95)
R.L. c. J.M. (Qué.), 24537, *A 229(95)
Raîche c. Giard (Qué.), 24467, *A 2(95)
Ratelle c. La Reine (Qué.), 24333, *02 26.1.95 1769(94) 128(95)
Reed v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24332, *B 27(95)
Remington v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 24376, *01 9.2.95 1954(94) 304(95)
Richardson c. Cooke (Qué.), 24546, *A 230(95)
Rizk c. Syndicat des enseignantes et enseignants de Le Royer
(Qué.), 24427, *B 237(95)
Robinson v. Laushway (Ont.), 24492, *A 5(95)
Rogers v. The Queen in right of Newfoundland (Nfld.), 24531, *A 229(95)
Roland Home Improvements Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada
(Ont.), 24442, *B 235(95)
Rosen v. Rosen (Ont.), 24312, *B 1628(94)
Ross v. United States of America (Crim.)(B.C.), 24400, *B 124(95)
Roy c. Patenaude (Qué.), 24469, *01 2.2.95 26(95) 249(95)
Royal Bank of Canada v. North American Life Assurance Co.
(Sask.), 24316, *B 1628(94)
Ruffo c. Conseil de la Magistrature (Qué.), 23222, *05 29.12.94 75(95) 75(95)
S.P. c. M.R. (Qué.), 24251, *03 2.2.95 1327(94) 255(95)
Scarth v. Northland Bank (Alta.), 24424, *B 18(95)
Schachtschneider v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23698, *B 1747(93)
Schofield v. Smith (N.B.), 24282, *02 12.1.95 1559(94) 39(95)
Scott & Pichelli Ltd. v. General Motors Acceptance
Corporation of Canada, Ltd. (Ont.), 24485, *A 4(95)
Scott Maritimes Ltd. v. Labour Standards Tribunal (N.S.),
24494, *A 6(95)
Sebastian v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.), 24457, *B 295(95)
Simanek v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24344, *01 12.1.95 1853(94) 33(95)
Simcoe Erie Group v. Myers (Ont.), 24330, *02 19.1.95 1773(94) 41(95)
Simpson v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24465, *B 231(95)
Siska Indian Band v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (F.C.A.),
23643, *A 1312(93)
Skelding v. Skelding (B.C.), 24389, *B 21(95)
Skyview Hotels Ltd. v. Chiips Inc. (Alta.), 24374, *B 13(95)
Snyder v. Snyder (Alta.), 24308, *B 1629(94)
Sobieh v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 24184, *B 114(95)
Society for Manitobans with Disabilities Inc. v. The Queen
in right of the province of Manitoba (Man.), 24556, *A 290(95)
Sous-ministre du revenu national c. Hydro-Québec ((C.A.F.)Qué.),
24361, *B 22(95)
Stephenson v. Edmonton Telephones Corporation (Alta.),
24540, *A 229(95)
Swantje v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 24439, *B 235(95)
Syndicat de l'enseignement du Lanaudière c. Commission scolaire
des Cascades-l'Achigan (Qué.), 24472, *A 3(95)
Syndicat des employés du Centre hospitalier régional de Lanaudière
(CSN) c. Centre hospitalier régional de Lanaudière (Qué.),
24528, *A 113(95)
Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St.-Ferdinand (C.S.N.)
c. Curateur public, Me Rémi Lussier (Qué.), 24511, *A 112(95)
Taddéo c. Ville de Montréal-Nord (Qué.), 24510, *A 112(95)
Tardi c. General Motors Acceptance Corporation du Canada Ltée
(Qué.), 24387, *01 26.1.95 1767(94) 131(95)
Tarel Hotel Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Co-Operative Financial
Services Ltd. (Sask.), 24402, *B 120(95)
Taylor v. Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority (Ont.),
24185, *02 12.1.95 1321(94) 35(95)
Tennant v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 24339, *B 1776(94)
Terminaux Portuaires du Québec Inc. c. Association des Employeurs
Maritimes (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 24481, *A 3(95)
Terry v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24335, *03 2.2.95 1680(94) 246(95)
Thibodeau c. Corporation municipale de Ste-Julienne (Qué.),
24468, *A 2(95)
Tinkasimire v. Ontario Workers Compensation Board (Ont.),
24239, *01 12.1.95 1320(94) 35(95)
Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Vita Health Company (1985) Ltd.
(Man.), 24385, *B 24(95)
Trunzo v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 24261, *B 1330(94)
Tyndall v. Manitoba Labour Board (Man.), 24272, *01 12.1.95 1332(94) 38(95)
United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Tri-Service Machine Ltd.
(Alta.), 24294, *02 9.2.95 1557(94) 304(95)
Vaughan v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24345, *B 1956(94)
Village Commissioners of Waverly v. Kerr (N.S.), 24151, *B 1848(94)
Ville de St-Georges c. Commission municipale du Québec
(Qué.), 24352, *B 1961(94)
Villeneuve v. Continental Insurance Co. (P.E.I.), 24212, *02 12.1.95 1320(94) 34(95)
Webber (Ronald) v. A. Jourdain Investments Ltd. (Ont.),
24383, *B 10(95)
Weisfeld v. The Queen (F.C.A.), 24334, *A 1595(94)
Whissell v. The Queen (Alta.), 24517, *A 112(95)
White v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24115, *05 25.1.95 144(95) 144(95)
Whitmell v. Ritchie (Ont.), 24388, *B 121(95)
Whitley v. United States of America (Crim.)(Ont.), 24438, *B 297(95)
Wilson v. McCrea (Ont.), 24358, *02 2.2.95 1776(94) 250(95)
Wisotzki v. Bannon (Ont.), 23823, *A 2065(93)
Woldrich v. Mental Health Review Board (Man.), 24553, *A 290(95)
Wolf v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24478, *B 233(95)
Woo Investments Inc v. Confederation Life Insurance Co. (Sask.),
24300, *02 12.1.95 1558(94) 39(95)
Wood v. The Queen (Crim.)(N.S.), 24542, *A 229(95)
Yarema v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24446, *B 114(95)
This index includes appeals standing for judgment at the beginning of 1995 and all appeals heard in 1995 up to now.
Cet index comprend les pourvois en délibéré au début de 1995 et tous ceux entendus en 1995 jusqu'à maintenant.
*01 dismissed/rejeté
*02 dismissed with costs/rejeté avec dépens
*03 allowed/accueilli
*04 allowed with costs/accueilli avec dépens
*05 discontinuance/désistement
Hearing/ Judgment/
CASE/AFFAIRE Audition Jugement
Page
Bardyn v. Botiuk (Ont.), 23517 1920(94)
Biddle v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23734 1606(94)
Blenner-Hassett v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23923, *01 31.1.95 268(95) 268(95)
Branch v. British Columbia Securities Commission (Crim.)(B.C.),
22978 368(94)
Burlingham v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23966 1758(94)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada Labour Relations
Board (Ont.), 23142, *02 McLachlin J. dissenting 27.1.95 461(94) 150(95)
Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. The Queen in right of Ontario (Ont.),
23721, fails on the first ground; the first constitutional question
is answered in the affirmative. The second and third constitutional
questions are in reserve 146(95)
Chan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(B.C.), 23813 267(95)
Chaplin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23865, *01 6.10.94 (REASONS
TO FOLLOW) 1606(94) 1606(94)
Chen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23984 314(95)
Crawford v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23711 1756(94)
Dow Corning Corporation v. Hollis (B.C.), 23776 270(95)
Dunn v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24041, *03 L'Heureux-Dubé J.
dissenting 27.1.95 1700(94) 150(95)
Durish v. White Resource Management Ltd. (Alta.), 23483 1533(94)
Egan v. The Queen (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23636 1701(94)
Halcrow v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 23542, *01 27.1.95 266(95) 266(95)
Hibbert v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23815 266(95)
Imperial Tobacco Ltd. c. Attorney General of Canada (Qué.), 23490 1871(94)
Jobin v. The Queen (Crim.)(Alta.), 23190 368(94)
Laporte v. The Queen (Crim.)(Man.), 24140, *01 27.1.95 266(95) 266(95)
Maksymec v. Botiuk (Ont.), 23519 1920(94)
Matsqui Indian Band v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23643,
*02 L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Iacobucci JJ. dissenting
26.1.95 1586(94) 149(95)
Mayfield Investments Ltd. v. Stewart (Alta.), 23739, *04 26.1.95 1588(94) 150(95)
Miron v. Trudel (Ont.), 22744 967(94)
Neuzen v. Korn (B.C.), 23773 271(95)
O'Connor v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24114 269(95)
O'Leary v. The Queen (Ont.), 23928 1917(94)
Piluke v. The Queen (Crim.)(B.C.), 24070, *01 31.1.95 268(95) 268(95)
Primeau v. The Queen (Crim.)(Sask.), 23613 368(94)
R. v. Bernshaw (Crim.)(B.C.), 23748, *03 7.10.94 1585(94) 1585(94) & 152(95)
R. v. Lepage (Crim.)(Ont.), 23974 1791(94)
R. v. McIntosh (Crim.)(Ont.), 23843 1869(94)
R. v. Park (Crim.)(Alta.), 23876 1919(94)
R. c. Thibaudeau (C.A.F.)(Qué.), 24154 1531(94)
RJR -- MacDonald Inc. c. Attorney General of Canada (Qué.), 23460 1871(94)
R.J.S. v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23581, *01 2.2.95 368(94) 272(95)
Richard B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto 595(94) &
(Ont.), 23298, *01 17.3.94 464(94) 151(95)
Shaw Cable Systems B.C. v. B.C. Telephone Co. (F.C.A.)(B.C.),
23717 145(95)
Silveira v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 24013 1758(94)
Siska Indian Band v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23643 1586(94)
Simpson v. The Queen (Crim.)(Nfld.), 24099, *03 3.2.95 314(95) 314(95)
St. Pierre v. The Queen (Crim.)(Ont.), 23518 1915(94)
Telecommunications Workers Union v. Canadian Radioi-Television and
Telecommunications Commission (F.C.A.)(Ont.), 23778 145(95)
United Steelworkers of America, Local 9332 v. Richard (N.S.),
23621 965(94)
Vout v. Hay (Ont.), 24009 148(95)
Weber v. Ontario Hydro (Ont.), 23401 1918(94)
Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co.
(Man.), 23624, *03 26.1.95 1587(94) 149(95)
Workers' Compensation Board v. Husky Oil Operations Ltd. (Sask.)
23936 147(95)
DEADLINES: MOTIONS
|
DÉLAIS: REQUÊTES
|
BEFORE THE COURT:
Pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the following deadlines must be met before a motion before the Court can be heard: |
DEVANT LA COUR:
Conformément à l'article 23.1 des Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, les délais suivants doivent être respectés pour qu'une requête soit entendue par la Cour: |
|
|
|
|
Motion day : March 6, 1995
Service : February 13, 1995 Filing : February 20, 1995 Respondent : February 27, 1995
|
Audience du : 6 mars 1995
Signification : 13 février 1995 Dépot : 20 février 1995 Intimé : 27 février 1995
|
Motion day : April 4, 1995
Service : March 13, 1995 Filing : March 20, 1995 Respondent : March 27, 1995 |
Audience du : 4 avril 1995
Signification : 13 mars 1995 Dépot : 20 mars 1995 Intimé : 27 mars 1995
|
Motion day : May 1, 1995
Service : April 10, 1995 Filing : April 17, 1995 Respondent : April 24, 1995 |
Audience du : 1 mai 1995
Signification : 10 avril 1995 Dépot : 17 avril 1995 Intimé : 24 avril 1995
|
|
|
|
|
DEADLINES: APPEALS
|
DÉLAIS: APPELS |
The next session of the Supreme Court of Canada commences on April 24, 1995.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and Rules, the following requirements for filing must be complied with before an appeal will be inscribed and set down for hearing:
Case on appeal must be filed within three months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Appellant's factum must be filed within five months of the filing of the notice of appeal.
Respondent's factum must be filed within eight weeks of the date of service of the appellant's factum.
Intervener's factum must be filed within two weeks of the date of service of the respondent's factum.
The Registrar shall inscribe the appeal for hearing upon the filing of the respondent's factum or after the expiry of the time for filing the respondent's factum
The Registrar shall enter on a list all appeals inscribed for hearing at the April 1995 Session on February 28, 1995.
|
La prochaine session de la Cour suprême du Canada débute le 24 avril 1995.
Conformément à la Loi sur la Cour suprême et aux Règles, il faut se conformer aux exigences suivantes avant qu'un appel puisse être inscrit pour audition:
Le dossier d'appel doit être déposé dans les trois mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.
Le mémoire de l'appelant doit être déposé dans les cinq mois du dépôt de l'avis d'appel.
Le mémoire de l'intimé doit être déposé dans les huit semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'appelant.
Le mémoire de l'intervenant doit être déposé dans les deux semaines suivant la signification de celui de l'intimé.
Le registraire inscrit l'appel pour audition après le dépôt du mémoire de l'intimé ou à l'expiration du délai de signification du mémoire de l'intimé.
Le 28 février 1995, le registraire met au rôle de la session d'avril 1995 tous les appels inscrits pour audition.
|