Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada

Fran=C3=A7ais
Home
Contact = Us
Important = Notices
Mailing = Lists
Advanced= =20 Search

Citation:Bulletin=20 of April 5, 2007

Date:April 5, 2007

Other formats: PDF=20 WPD=20

<= /TR>

SUPREME=20 COURT =20 = =20 COUR SUPR=C3=8AME

OF = CANADA =20 = =20 = =20 DU CANADA

= =20 BULLETIN OF =20 = =20 BULLETIN=20 DES

= =20 PROCEEDINGS = =20 = =20 = PROC=C3=89DURES

This Bulletin is published at the = direction of the=20 Registrar and is for general information only. It is not to = be used=20 as evidence of its content, which, if required, should be proved = by=20 Certificate of the Registrar under the Seal of the Court. = While=20 every effort is made to ensure accuracy, no responsibility is = assumed for=20 errors or omissions.

Ce Bulletin, publi=C3=A9 sous = l'autorit=C3=A9 de la=20 registraire, ne vise qu'=C3=A0 fournir des renseignements d'ordre=20 g=C3=A9n=C3=A9ral. Il ne peut servir de preuve de son = contenu. Celle=E2=80=91ci=20 s'=C3=A9tablit par un certificat de la registraire donn=C3=A9 sous = le sceau de la=20 Cour. Rien n'est n=C3=A9glig=C3=A9 pour assurer l'exactitude = du contenu, mais=20 la Cour d=C3=A9cline toute responsabilit=C3=A9 pour les erreurs ou = omissions.

Subscriptions may be had at $300 per = year, payable=20 in advance, in accordance with the Court tariff. During = Court=20 sessions it is usually issued weekly.

Le prix de l'abonnement, fix=C3=A9 dans = le tarif de la=20 Cour, est de 300 $ l'an, payable d'avance. Le Bulletin = para=C3=AEt=20 en principe toutes les semaines pendant les sessions de la=20 Cour.

The Bulletin, being a factual report of = recorded=20 proceedings, is produced in the language of record. Where a = judgment=20 has been rendered, requests for copies should be made to the = Registrar,=20 with a remittance of $15 for each set of reasons. All = remittances=20 should be made payable to the Receiver General for=20 Canada.

Le Bulletin rassemble les = proc=C3=A9dures devant la=20 Cour dans la langue du dossier. Quand un arr=C3=AAt est = rendu, on peut se=20 procurer les motifs de jugement en adressant sa demande =C3=A0 la = registraire,=20 accompagn=C3=A9e de 15 $ par exemplaire. Le paiement = doit =C3=AAtre fait=20 =C3=A0 l'ordre du Receveur g=C3=A9n=C3=A9ral du=20 Canada.

April 5, 2007469 - = 512 =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 Le 5 avril 2007

CONTENTS = =20 = =20 = =20 TABLE DES MATI=C3=88RES

Applications = for leave to=20 appeal

filed

Applications = for leave=20 submitted

to Court = since last=20 issue

Judgments on = applications=20 for

leave

Motions

Notices of = appeal filed=20 since last

issue

469

470

471 - 508

509 - 511

512

Demandes d'autorisation d'appel =

d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9es

Demandes soumises =C3=A0 la Cour=20 depuis la derni=C3=A8re parution

Jugements rendus sur les demandes = =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 = =20 d'autorisation

Requ=C3=AAtes

Avis d'appel d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9s depuis la=20 derni=C3=A8re parution

NOTICE

Case summaries = included in=20 the Bulletin are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the = Supreme=20 Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.

AVIS

Les = r=C3=A9sum=C3=A9s de dossiers=20 publi=C3=A9s dans le bulletin sont pr=C3=A9par=C3=A9s par le = Bureau du registraire=20 (Direction g=C3=A9n=C3=A9rale du droit) uniquement =C3=A0 titre = d=E2=80=99information.

APPLICATIONS = FOR LEAVE=20 TO APPEAL FILED

DEMANDES = D'AUTORISATION=20 D'APPEL = D=C3=89POS=C3=89ES

= =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20

Mario Arcuri

Mario Arcuri

v. (31822)

Hugh W. Adamson, et al. = (Alta.)

Graham Price, Q.C.

FILING DATE: 15.02.2007

Lorena Fink

Philip B. Cornish

v. (31917)

Attorney General of Canada = (F.C.)

Tania Nolet

Human Resources and Social Development = Canada

FILING DATE: 02.03.2007

A. D.

Donald Duperr=C3=A9

c. (31908)

C.P. (Qc)

Fran=C3=A7ois Rioux

Rioux, Tremblay

DATE DE PRODUCTION: 09.03.2007

M.S.

James Lockyer

Lockyer, Campbell, Posner

v. (31909)

Her Majesty the Queen = (Ont.)

Alison Wheeler

A.G. of Ontario

FILING DATE: 09.03.2007

APPLICATIONS = FOR=20 LEAVE

SUBMITTED TO = COURT SINCE=20 LAST ISSUE

DEMANDES = SOUMISES =C3=80 LA=20 COUR DEPUIS LA DERNI=C3=88RE = PARUTION

APRIL 2 , 2007 / LE 2 AVRIL = 2007

CORAM: Chief Justice McLachlin and = Charron=20 and Rothstein JJ.

La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Charron = et=20 Rothstein

1. = =20 Toronto Transit Commission v.=20 Amalgamated Transit Union, = Local=20 113 (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) = (31856)

CORAM: Bastarache, LeBel and Fish = JJ.

Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et = Fish

2. = =20 Yunhong Ding, et = al. v. Her=20 Majesty the Queen = (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (31873)

CORAM: Binnie, Deschamps and Abella = JJ.

Les juges Binnie, Deschamps et = Abella

3. = =20 Domfer Metal Powders=20 LTD. v. Comit=C3=A9=20 d=E2=80=99environnement de Ville=E2=80=91=C3=89mard (C.E.V.E.), et = al. (Que.) (Civil)=20 (By Leave) (31841)

JUDGMENTS ON = APPLICATIONS

FOR = LEAVE

JUGEMENTS = RENDUS SUR LES=20 DEMANDES = D'AUTORISATION

= =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20

APRIL 5, 2007 / LE 5 AVRIL 2007

31528 = =20 Executive Director of the = Canadian=20 Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board v. Information=20 Commissioner of Canada and NAV Canada AND BETWEEN NAV Canada v. = Information=20 Commissioner of Canada and Executive Director of the Canadian = Transportation=20 Accident Investigation and Safety Board (FC) (Civil) (By=20 Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The applications for leave to appeal = from the=20 judgments of the Federal Court of Appeal, Numbers = A=E2=80=91165=E2=80=9105 and A=E2=80=91304=E2=80=9105, 2006=20 FCA 157, dated May 1, 2006, are dismissed with costs.

Les demandes d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel des arr=C3=AAts de=20 la Cour d=E2=80=99appel f=C3=A9d=C3=A9rale, num=C3=A9ros = A=E2=80=91165=E2=80=9105 et A=E2=80=91304=E2=80=9105, 2006 CAF 157,=20 dat=C3=A9s du 1er mai 2006, sont rejet=C3=A9es avec d=C3=A9pens. =

CASE SUMMARY

Access to Information =E2=80=94 Privacy = =E2=80=94 Personal Information =E2=80=94=20 Request made and denied for recordings and/or transcripts of air traffic = control=20 communications recorded by NAV CANADA and under the control of the = Canadian=20 Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board =E2=80=94 = Applications for=20 judicial review dismissed and appeals to Federal Court of Appeal allowed = =E2=80=94=20 Whether in light of Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] = 2 S.C.R.=20 403, the Federal Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of = =E2=80=9Cpersonal=20 information=E2=80=9D, as defined under section 3 of the Privacy = Act, R.S.C. 1985,=20 c P-21 and section 19 of the Access to Information Act, R.S.C. = 1985, c.=20 A-1 =E2=80=94 Whether the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal = conflicts with other=20 decisions made by the provincial information and privacy commissioners = =E2=80=94 Did the=20 Federal Court of Appeal err in holding that the air traffic control=20 communications were not commercial or technical information under s. 20 = of the=20 Access Act?

Requests were made for access to = recordings and/or=20 transcripts of air traffic control communications recorded by NAV CANADA = and now=20 under the control of the Executive Director of the Canadian = Transportation=20 Accident Investigation and Safety Board. The requests were denied = based on=20 the purported application of s. 19 of the Access to Information = Act,=20 R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1 (the =E2=80=9CAccess Act=E2=80=9D), namely the = "personal information"=20 exemption. The Federal Court dismissed four applications for = judicial=20 review brought pursuant to s. 42(1)(a) of the Access Act. = The=20 Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, granted the applications = for=20 judicial review and ordered disclosure of the requested records. =

March 18, 2005

Federal Court of Canada

(Snider J.)

Applications by Respondent, Information=20 Commissioner of Canada, pursuant to s. 42(1)(a) of the Access = to=20 Information Act seeking judicial review of a refusal by the = Executive=20 Director of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and = Safety=20 Board to disclose requested information, dismissed. =

May 1, 2006

Federal Court of Appeal

(Richard, Desjardins and Evans=20 JJ.A.)

Appeals allowed.

June 30, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Applications for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Acc=C3=A8s =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99information = =E2=80=94 Protection des renseignements=20 personnels =E2=80=94 Renseignements personnels =E2=80=94 Demande, = refus=C3=A9e, en vue d=E2=80=99obtenir des=20 enregistrements et/ou des transcriptions des communications du = contr=C3=B4le de la=20 circulation a=C3=A9rienne faits par NAV CANADA et maintenant en la = possession du=20 Bureau canadien d=E2=80=99enqu=C3=AAte sur les accidents de transport et = de la s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9 des=20 transports =E2=80=94 Demandes de contr=C3=B4le judiciaire rejet=C3=A9es = et appels devant la Cour=20 d=E2=80=99appel f=C3=A9d=C3=A9rale accueillis =E2=80=94 Au vu de = l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt Dagg c. Canada (Ministre des=20 Finances), [1997] 2 R.C.S. 403, la Cour d=E2=80=99appel = f=C3=A9d=C3=A9rale a-t-elle=20 commis une erreur dans son interpr=C3=A9tation de l=E2=80=99expression = =C2=AB renseignements=20 personnels =C2=BB, au sens de l=E2=80=99article 3 de la Loi = sur la protection=20 des renseignements personnels, L.R.C. 1985, ch. P-21, et = de=20 l=E2=80=99article 19 de la Loi sur l=E2=80=99acc=C3=A8s =C3=A0 = l=E2=80=99information,=20 L.R.C. 1985, ch. A-1? =E2=80=94 La d=C3=A9cision de la Cour = d=E2=80=99appel f=C3=A9d=C3=A9rale=20 contredit-elle d=E2=80=99autres d=C3=A9cisions prises par les = commissaires provinciaux=20 =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99information et =C3=A0 la protection des renseignements = personnels? =E2=80=94 La Cour=20 d=E2=80=99appel f=C3=A9d=C3=A9rale a-t-elle commis une erreur en = d=C3=A9cidant que les communications=20 du contr=C3=B4le de la circulation a=C3=A9rienne n=E2=80=99=C3=A9taient = pas des renseignements =20 commerciaux ou techniques au sens de l=E2=80=99article 20 de la = Loi sur l=E2=80=99acc=C3=A8s=20 =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99information ?

Des=20 demandes ont =C3=A9t=C3=A9 pr=C3=A9sent=C3=A9es pour avoir acc=C3=A8s = =C3=A0 des enregistrements et/ou =C3=A0 des=20 transcriptions des communications du contr=C3=B4le de la circulation = a=C3=A9rienne faits=20 par NAV CANADA et actuellement en la possession du directeur = ex=C3=A9cutif=20 du Bureau canadien d=E2=80=99enqu=C3=AAte sur les accidents de transport = et de la s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9=20 des transports. Les demandes ont =C3=A9t=C3=A9 refus=C3=A9es en raison = de l=E2=80=99application=20 pr=C3=A9sum=C3=A9e de l=E2=80=99article 19 de la Loi sur = l=E2=80=99acc=C3=A8s =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99information,=20 L.R.C. 1985, ch. A-1 (la Loi sur l=E2=80=99acc=C3=A8s), = notamment de l=E2=80=99exception=20 relative aux =C2=AB renseignements personnels =C2=BB. La Cour = f=C3=A9d=C3=A9rale a rejet=C3=A9=20 les quatre demandes de contr=C3=B4le judiciaire qui ont = =C3=A9t=C3=A9 pr=C3=A9sent=C3=A9es en=20 s=E2=80=99appuyant sur l=E2=80=99alin=C3=A9a 42(1)a) de la = Loi sur l=E2=80=99acc=C3=A8s. La=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel f=C3=A9d=C3=A9rale a accueilli les appels, elle a = fait droit aux demandes de=20 contr=C3=B4le judiciaire et ordonn=C3=A9 la communication des documents = demand=C3=A9s.=20

18 mars 2005

Cour f=C3=A9d=C3=A9rale du = Canada

(Juge Snider)

Demandes pr=C3=A9sent=C3=A9es par le = commissaire =C3=A0=20 l=E2=80=99information du Canada, intim=C3=A9, aux termes de=20 l=E2=80=99alin=C3=A9a 42(1)a) de la Loi sur = l=E2=80=99acc=C3=A8s =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99information=20 demandant le contr=C3=B4le judiciaire du refus oppos=C3=A9 par le = directeur ex=C3=A9cutif=20 du Bureau canadien d=E2=80=99enqu=C3=AAte sur les accidents de = transport et de la=20 s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9 des transports de communiquer les = renseignements demand=C3=A9s,=20 rejet=C3=A9es.

1^er mai 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel = f=C3=A9d=C3=A9rale

(Juges Richard, Desjardins et = Evans)

Appels accueillis

30 juin 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demandes d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9es

31582 = =20 Sophie Paquin c. Alain = D=C3=A9ry (Qc)=20 (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram : = Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et = Fish

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al), num=C3=A9ro = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91016554=E2=80=91065, dat=C3=A9 du 23 mai=20 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e sans d=C3=A9pens.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91016554=E2=80=91065,=20 dated May 23, 2006, is dismissed without costs.

CASE SUMMARY

Procedural law =E2=80=93 Civil procedure = =E2=80=93 Action in=20 revendication and partition =E2=80=93 Judgments and orders =E2=80=93 = Reasonable apprehension of=20 bias =E2=80=93 Whether Court of Appeal wrongly refused leave to appeal = in circumstances=20 =E2=80=93 Whether trial unfair.

The=20 parties were de facto spouses between 1995 and 2002 and had=20 two children together. In May 2002, they jointly = purchased a=20 family residence. In October 2002, Ms. Paquin took = refuge in a=20 shelter for abused women. She laid a complaint, and = Mr. D=C3=A9ry was=20 charged with common assault. The charges were ultimately dropped = following=20 a stay of proceedings.

During the discussions concerning the = partition of=20 property, the family residence and the movable property were appraised = at=20 $97,000 and $7,200, respectively, by an expert hired by = Mr. D=C3=A9ry. On=20 December 30, 2002, Mr. D=C3=A9ry put some movable property = into=20 storage. Because they were having difficulty negotiating the = partition,=20 Ms. Paquin agreed to the mediation suggested by Mr. D=C3=A9ry = but then=20 refused mediation a few days before it was to begin. = Ms. Paquin=20 subsequently changed lawyers twice. She took possession of the key = to the=20 storage facility where the movable property was located, but the = unresolved=20 claims for that property were suspended during a dispute over custody of = the=20 children.

On=20 September 12, 2003, the property was seized before judgment and = kept in=20 custody in accordance with art. 734 C.C.P. Ms. Paquin = brought an=20 action in revendication and partition (arts. 953 and 1030 C.C.Q. = and 110=20 and 809 C.C.P.) to have the movable property and the residence=20 partitioned. She also alleged that Mr. D=C3=A9ry had harassed = her, and she=20 claimed $10,000 in compensation.

The=20 Superior Court allowed Ms. Paquin=E2=80=99s action in part. = It declared the=20 seizure before judgment to be proper and valid and added that the costs = of the=20 seizure were payable by Ms. Paquin. It took note of = Mr. D=C3=A9ry=E2=80=99s=20 offer to pay the balance of the hypothecary loan by himself and declared = him the=20 sole owner of the residence. It rejected the harassment = claim. The=20 Court of Appeal denied Ms. Paquin leave to appeal.

February 28, 2006

Quebec Superior Court

(Lanct=C3=B4t J.)

Action in revendication and partition of = movable=20 and immovable property allowed in part; seizure before judgment of = movable=20 property declared proper and valid; Respondent declared sole owner = of=20 immovable

May 23, 2006

Quebec Court of Appeal

(Doyon J.A.)

Motion for leave to appeal=20 dismissed

August 22, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Proc=C3=A9dure =E2=80=93 Proc=C3=A9dure civile = =E2=80=93 Action en revendication=20 et partage =E2=80=93 Jugements et ordonnances =E2=80=93 Crainte = raisonnable de partialit=C3=A9 =E2=80=93 La=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel a-t-elle, =C3=A0 tort, refus=C3=A9 la permission = d=E2=80=99appel dans les=20 circonstances? =E2=80=93 Le proc=C3=A8s en premi=C3=A8re instance = =C3=A9tait-il in=C3=A9quitable?

Les=20 parties ont v=C3=A9cu en union de fait entre 1995 et 2002 et ont eu deux = enfants. En=20 mai 2002, elles ach=C3=A8tent conjointement une r=C3=A9sidence = familiale. En octobre 2002,=20 Mme Paquin se r=C3=A9fugie dans un centre d=E2=80=99h=C3=A9bergement = pour femmes violent=C3=A9es. Mme=20 Paquin porte plainte et des accusations pour voies de fait simples sont = port=C3=A9es=20 contre M. D=C3=A9ry, accusations qui seront =C3=A9ventuellement = abandonn=C3=A9es =C3=A0 la suite=20 d=E2=80=99un arr=C3=AAt des proc=C3=A9dures.

Au=20 cours des discussions portant sur le partage des biens, la = r=C3=A9sidence familiale=20 et les meubles meublants sont =C3=A9valu=C3=A9s, par un expert retenu = par M. D=C3=A9ry, =C3=A0=20 97 000 $ et 7 200 $ respectivement. Le 30 = d=C3=A9cembre 2002, M.=20 D=C3=A9ry fait entreposer certains biens meubles. Face =C3=A0 la = difficult=C3=A9 de n=C3=A9gocier le=20 partage, Mme Paquin accepte la m=C3=A9diation propos=C3=A9e par M. = D=C3=A9ry, pour ensuite la=20 refuser quelques jours avant la date pr=C3=A9vue pour sa tenue. Mme = Paquin change=20 alors d=E2=80=99avocat =C3=A0 deux reprises. Elle prend possession de la = clef de l=E2=80=99entrep=C3=B4t=20 o=C3=B9 se trouvent les meubles, mais les revendications quant aux = meubles, non=20 r=C3=A9gl=C3=A9es, sont suspendues durant une dispute quant =C3=A0 la = garde des enfants.=20

Le=20 12 septembre 2003, les biens sont saisis avant jugement et = entrepos=C3=A9s sous=20 garde, conform=C3=A9ment =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99art. 734 C.p.c. Mme Paquin = intente une action en=20 revendication et partage (art. 953 et 1030 C.c.Q. et 110 et 809 C.p.c.) = afin de=20 faire partager les biens meubles ainsi que la r=C3=A9sidence. Elle = all=C3=A8gue aussi que=20 M. D=C3=A9ry a fait preuve de harc=C3=A8lement =C3=A0 son =C3=A9gard, et = r=C3=A9clame 10 000 $=20 en guise de compensation.

La=20 Cour sup=C3=A9rieure accueille en partie l=E2=80=99action de Mme Paquin. = Elle d=C3=A9clare la=20 saisie avant jugement bonne et valable, les frais d=C3=A9coulant de = celle-ci =C3=A9tant =C3=A0=20 la charge de Mme Paquin. Elle donne acte de l=E2=80=99offre de M. = D=C3=A9ry d=E2=80=99assumer seul le=20 solde du pr=C3=AAt hypoth=C3=A9caire d=C3=BB, et le d=C3=A9clare seul et = unique propri=C3=A9taire de la=20 r=C3=A9sidence. Elle rejette la r=C3=A9clamation fond=C3=A9e sur le = harc=C3=A8lement. La Cour=20 d=E2=80=99appel refuse =C3=A0 Mme Paquin la permission = d=E2=80=99appel.

Le 28 f=C3=A9vrier 2006

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du = Qu=C3=A9bec

(Le juge Lanct=C3=B4t)

Action en revendication et partage de = biens=20 meubles et d=E2=80=99un immeuble accueillie en partie; saisie = avant jugement de=20 biens meubles d=C3=A9clar=C3=A9e bonne et valable; Intim=C3=A9 = d=C3=A9clar=C3=A9 seul et unique=20 propri=C3=A9taire de l=E2=80=99immeuble

Le 23 mai 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du = Qu=C3=A9bec

(Le juge Doyon)

Requ=C3=AAte pour permission = d=E2=80=99appel=20 rejet=C3=A9e

Le 22 ao=C3=BBt 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31700 = =20 Guy Pronovost c. Sa Majest=C3=A9 = la=20 Reine (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram : = Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et = Fish

La demande de prorogation de d=C3=A9lai = est accord=C3=A9e et=20 la demande d=E2=80=99autorisation d=E2=80=99appel de = l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec=20 (Qu=C3=A9bec), num=C3=A9ro 200=E2=80=9110=E2=80=91001365=E2=80=91027, = dat=C3=A9 du 19 juillet 2006, est=20 rejet=C3=A9e.

The application for an extension of time = is=20 granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the = Court=20 of Appeal of Quebec (Quebec), Number = 200=E2=80=9110=E2=80=91001365=E2=80=91027, dated July 19, 2006, is=20 dismissed.

CASE SUMMARY

Criminal law =E2=80=94 Procedure =E2=80=94 = Duties of trial judge =E2=80=94=20 Whether judge had to point out weaknesses in prosecution=E2=80=99s = evidence to jury =E2=80=94=20 Statutory interpretation =E2=80=94 Statutes =E2=80=94 Constitutionality = =E2=80=94 Whether former=20 s. 467.1 of Criminal Code unconstitutional =E2=80=94 If not, = whether=20 application of that section was such as to cause prejudice to Applicant = by=20 making trial unfair, particularly through use made of criminal records = of=20 Applicant=E2=80=99s co=E2=80=91accused.

The=20 Applicant is a founding member and vice=E2=80=91president of the = Blatno=C3=AFs de la=20 Mauricie, a puppet club of the Hells Angels of = Trois=E2=80=91Rivi=C3=A8res. Since the=20 Hells Angels organization is centred around the sale of narcotics, it = must=20 engage in ancillary activities to enforce its supremacy in that = field. =20 Members of affiliated clubs must therefore rely on threats, extortion, = assault=20 and other types of physical violence to make recalcitrants understand = that they=20 have to fall into line and not compete with the Hells Angels=E2=80=99 = lucrative=20 activities. The violence involved in controlling the drug market = therefore=20 led the Applicant and other members of the Blatno=C3=AFs de la Mauricie to commit a series of = assaults on drug=20 dealers. Because of the magnitude of the gang=E2=80=99s activities, the=20 jury convicted the Applicant under the former s. 467.1 of the=20 Criminal Code. The jury=E2=80=99s decision was=20 later affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The Applicant contests = those=20 decisions. He argues that the former s. 467.1 was=20 unconstitutional. In the alternative, he submits that the = application of=20 that section was such as to cause him prejudice by making the trial = unfair,=20 particularly through the use that was made of the criminal records of = his=20 co=E2=80=91accused. Finally, he argues that the trial judge had to = point out the=20 weaknesses in the prosecution=E2=80=99s evidence to the jury.

January 30, 2001

Quebec Superior Court

(Beaulieu J.)

Motion to have s. 467.1 of=20 Criminal Code declared of no force or effect dismissed=20

May=20 21, 2002

Quebec Superior Court

(Grenier J.)

Respondent=E2=80=99s motion to=20 introduce criminal records of Applicant=E2=80=99s co=E2=80=91accused into=20 evidence allowed

June 19, 2002

Quebec Superior Court

(Grenier J.)

Applicant convicted of various counts of = assault,=20 aggravated assault, participation in gang activities and death=20 threats

July 19, 2006

Quebec Court of Appeal (Qu=C3=A9bec)

(Morin, Doyon and Giroux = JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 2, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal and motion for = extension=20 of time filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Droit criminel =E2=80=94 Proc=C3=A9dure = =E2=80=94 Devoirs du juge du proc=C3=A8s =E2=80=94=20 Est-ce que le juge devait signaler au jury les lacunes dans la preuve de = la=20 poursuite ? =E2=80=94 Interpr=C3=A9tation des lois =E2=80=94 Lois = =E2=80=94 Constitutionnalit=C3=A9 =E2=80=94 L=E2=80=99ancien=20 article 467.1 du Code criminel =C3=A9tait-il inconstitutionnel ? = =E2=80=94 Si non,=20 l=E2=80=99application de cet article a-t-elle =C3=A9t=C3=A9 de nature = =C3=A0 causer un pr=C3=A9judice au=20 demandeur en rendant le proc=C3=A8s in=C3=A9quitable, notamment par = l=E2=80=99usage fait des=20 ant=C3=A9c=C3=A9dents judiciaires des coaccus=C3=A9s du demandeur = ?

Le=20 demandeur est membre fondateur et vice-pr=C3=A9sident des Blatno=C3=AFs = de la Mauricie, un=20 club =C3=A9cole des Hells Angels de Trois-Rivi=C3=A8res. Comme = l=E2=80=99organisation des Hells=20 Angels est centr=C3=A9e sur la vente de stup=C3=A9fiants, elle se doit = d=E2=80=99exercer des=20 activit=C3=A9s ancillaires dans le but de faire respecter sa = supr=C3=A9matie dans le=20 domaine. Les membres des clubs affili=C3=A9s se doivent donc = d=E2=80=99utiliser la menace,=20 l=E2=80=99extorsion, les voies de fait et autres s=C3=A9vices corporels, = pour faire=20 comprendre aux r=C3=A9calcitrants qu=E2=80=99ils doivent rentrer dans le = rang et ne pas=20 concurrencer les lucratives activit=C3=A9s des Hells Angels. = La violence inh=C3=A9rente au=20 contr=C3=B4le du march=C3=A9 = de la vente des=20 stup=C3=A9fiants a donc amen=C3=A9 = le demandeur et=20 les autres membres des Blatno=C3=AFs de la Mauricie =C3=A0 = commettre une=20 s=C3=A9rie=20 d=E2=80=99agressions sur des revendeurs de drogue. = L=E2=80=99ampleur des=20 activit=C3=A9s du gang a amen=C3=A9 = le jury=20 =C3=A0=20 condamner le demandeur, en vertu de l=E2=80=99ancien article=20 467.1 du Code criminel. La d=C3=A9cision du jury a=20 =C3=A9t=C3=A9 ensuite confirm=C3=A9e = par la Cour=20 d=E2=80=99appel. Le demandeur conteste ces d=C3=A9cisions. Il=20 soutient que l=E2=80=99ancien article 467.1 =C3=A9tait=20 inconstitutionnel. Si non, il soutient que l=E2=80=99application de cet=20 article a =C3=A9t=C3=A9 de nature =C3=A0 = lui causer un=20 pr=C3=A9judice en rendant le proc=C3=A8s = in=C3=A9quitable,=20 notamment par l=E2=80=99usage fait des ant=C3=A9c=C3=A9dents judiciaires=20 de ses coaccus=C3=A9s. Enfin, il soutient que le juge du = proc=C3=A8s = devait signaler=20 au jury les lacunes dans la preuve de la poursuite. =

Le 30 janvier 2001

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du=20 Qu=C3=A9bec

(Le juge Beaulieu)

Requ=C3=AAte afin que=20 soit d=C3=A9clar=C3=A9=20 inop=C3=A9rant l=E2=80=99article=20 467.1 du Code criminel rejet=C3=A9e=20

Le 21 mai 2002

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du=20 Qu=C3=A9bec

(Le juge Grenier)

Requ=C3=AAte de=20 l=E2=80=99intim=C3=A9e pour=20 mettre en preuve les ant=C3=A9c=C3=A9dents=20 judiciaires des coaccus=C3=A9s du demandeur = accueillie

Le 19 juin 2002

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du=20 Qu=C3=A9bec

(Le juge Grenier)

Demandeur d=C3=A9clar=C3=A9 coupable de=20 diff=C3=A9rents chefs de voies de fait, voies de = fait=20 graves, participation aux activit=C3=A9s=20 d=E2=80=99un gang et menaces de = mort

Le 19 juillet 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du=20 Qu=C3=A9bec (Qu=C3=A9bec)

(Les juges Morin, Doyon et = Giroux)

Appel rejet=C3=A9

Le 2 novembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du=20 Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation=20 d=E2=80=99appel et requ=C3=AAte en=20 prorogation de d=C3=A9lai d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9es

31715 = =20 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and = R.J.=20 Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right = of=20 British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number = CA033179, 2006 BCCA 398, dated September 15, 2006, is dismissed with=20 costs.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la Colombie=E2=80=91Britannique (Vancouver), = num=C3=A9ro CA033179, 2006 BCCA=20 398, dat=C3=A9 du 15 septembre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e avec d=C3=A9pens. =

CASE SUMMARY

Constitutional law - Extraterritoriality - = Private=20 international law - Applicable law - Court having jurisdiction - = Forum=20 conveniens - Jurisdiction simpliciter - Real and substantial=20 connection test - Legislation - Interpretation - Torts - Duty of care = - =20 Agency - Statute creating a cause of action for the government - = Location of=20 breach of duty or wrongful conduct - Retroactive effect of legislation - = Whether=20 enforceable in other jurisdictions - Whether a provincial legislature = can,=20 through the expedient of a statutory presumption, create the = =E2=80=9Csufficient=20 connection=E2=80=9D between the province and extra-provincial parties = and events=20 constitutionally required to make that province=E2=80=99s law applicable = to them - What=20 is the proper test of assumed jurisdiction - Factors in Muscutt v.=20 Courcelles (2002), 213 D.L.R. (4^th) 577 - British = Columbia v.=20 Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473, 2005 SCC = 49.

The=20 Government of British Columbia instituted an aggregate action under the=20 Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. 2000, = c. 30=20 (the =E2=80=9CAct=E2=80=9D) against 14 defendants, to recover = health care expenditures=20 incurred in treating individuals exposed to tobacco products. The = Canadian=20 cigarette manufacturers brought actions, and some of the Applicants = brought=20 applications to have their service ex juris set aside, all = on the=20 ground that the Act is constitutionally invalid. They = claimed that=20 the Act did not respect the territorial limits of provincial = legislative=20 jurisdiction, that it derogated materially from the independence of the=20 judiciary, and that it offended the rule of law. Those constitutional = challenges=20 were unsuccessful before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The=20 Applicants seek to set aside service on the grounds that the Act = is=20 constitutionally inapplicable to them and that, on the basis of = jurisdiction=20 simpliciter and forum conveniens, the court either did not = have=20 jurisdiction over them or should exercise its discretion and decline=20 jurisdiction over them. They argue, inter alia, that any = alleged=20 wrong occurred outside the jurisdiction and long before the Act = was=20 passed, that there is a lack of any real and substantial connection to = B.C.,=20 that recognizing B.C. jurisdiction would be against order and fairness, = and that=20 no valid cause of action exists. They submit the government cannot = impose=20 retroactive liability extra-territorially, and that any judgment would = be=20 unenforceable in other jurisdictions.

June 23, 2005

Supreme Court of British = Columbia

(Holmes J.)

Application = dismissed

September 15, 2006

Court of Appeal for British Columbia=20 (Vancouver)

(Rowles, Hall and Smith = JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 10, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Droit constitutionnel - = Extraterritorialit=C3=A9 - Droit=20 international priv=C3=A9 - Droit applicable - Juridiction = comp=C3=A9tente - Forum=20 conveniens - Simple reconnaissance de comp=C3=A9tence - Crit=C3=A8re = du lien r=C3=A9el et=20 substantiel - L=C3=A9gislation - Interpr=C3=A9tation - = Responsabilit=C3=A9 d=C3=A9lictuelle -=20 Obligation de diligence - Mandat - Loi cr=C3=A9ant une cause = d=E2=80=99action pour le=20 gouvernement - Lieu du manquement =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99obligation ou de la = conduite transgressive=20 - Effet r=C3=A9troactif de la l=C3=A9gislation - Caract=C3=A8re = ex=C3=A9cutoire dans d=E2=80=99autres=20 ressorts - Une l=C3=A9gislature provinciale peut-elle cr=C3=A9er, au = moyen d=E2=80=99une=20 pr=C3=A9somption l=C3=A9gale, le =C2=AB lien suffisant =C2=BB = qui doit exister, en vertu=20 de la Constitution, entre la province, d=E2=80=99une part, et les = parties et les=20 =C3=A9v=C3=A9nements extra-provinciaux, d=E2=80=99autre part, pour que = la loi de la province=20 s=E2=80=99applique =C3=A0 ces parties et =C3=A9v=C3=A9nements? - = Quel crit=C3=A8re doit-on appliquer=20 pour la comp=C3=A9tence d=C3=A9clar=C3=A9e? - Facteurs dont il est = question dans les=20 arr=C3=AAts Muscutt c. Courcelles (2002), 213 D.L.R. = (4^th)=20 577 - Colombie-Britannique c. Imperial Tobacco Canada Lt=C3=A9e, = [2005] 2=20 R.C.S. 473, 2005 CSC 49.

Le=20 gouvernement de la Colombie-Britannique a intent=C3=A9 une action = globale en vertu de=20 la Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, S.B.C. = 2000, ch.=20 30 (la =C2=AB Loi =C2=BB) contre 14 d=C3=A9fendeurs, en = vue de recouvrer les=20 d=C3=A9penses engag=C3=A9es au titre des soins de sant=C3=A9 pour le = traitement des personnes=20 expos=C3=A9es aux produits du tabac. Les fabricants de tabac canadiens = ont intent=C3=A9=20 des actions, et certaines demanderesses ont pr=C3=A9sent=C3=A9 des = demandes en annulation=20 de leur signification ex juris, tous pour le motif = d=E2=80=99inconstitutionnalit=C3=A9=20 de la Loi. Ils ont all=C3=A9gu=C3=A9 que la Loi ne = respectait pas les=20 limites territoriales de la comp=C3=A9tence l=C3=A9gislative = provinciale, qu=E2=80=99elle violait=20 substantiellement l=E2=80=99ind=C3=A9pendance judiciaire et = qu=E2=80=99elle portait atteinte au=20 principe de la primaut=C3=A9 du droit. Ces contestations = constitutionnelles ont =C3=A9t=C3=A9=20 rejet=C3=A9es par la Cour supr=C3=AAme du Canada.

Les=20 demanderesses veulent faire annuler la signification au motif que la = Loi=20 ne s=E2=80=99applique pas =C3=A0 elles sur le plan constitutionnel et = que, sur le plan de la=20 simple reconnaissance de la comp=C3=A9tence et du forum = conveniens, le=20 tribunal n=E2=80=99=C3=A9tait pas comp=C3=A9tent =C3=A0 leur =C3=A9gard = ou devait exercer son pouvoir=20 discr=C3=A9tionnaire et se d=C3=A9clarer incomp=C3=A9tent =C3=A0 leur = =C3=A9gard. Elles plaident entre=20 autres que toute faute all=C3=A9gu=C3=A9e s=E2=80=99est produite =C3=A0 = l=E2=80=99ext=C3=A9rieur du ressort et=20 longtemps avant l=E2=80=99adoption de la Loi, qu=E2=80=99il = n=E2=80=99y avait aucun lien r=C3=A9el et=20 substantiel avec la C.-B., que la reconnaissance de la comp=C3=A9tence = de la C.-B.=20 serait contraire =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99ordre et =C3=A0 = l=E2=80=99=C3=A9quit=C3=A9 et qu=E2=80=99il n=E2=80=99existait aucune = cause=20 d=E2=80=99action valide. Elles soutiennent que le gouvernement ne peut = imposer de=20 responsabilit=C3=A9 r=C3=A9troactive extraterritoriale et que tout = jugement serait=20 insusceptible d=E2=80=99ex=C3=A9cution valable dans d=E2=80=99autres = ressorts.

23 juin 2005

Cour supr=C3=AAme de la = Colombie-Britannique

(Juge Holmes)

Demande = rejet=C3=A9e

15 septembre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la = Colombie-Britannique=20 (Vancouver)

(Juges Rowles, Hall et = Smith)

Appel rejet=C3=A9

10 novembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31716 = =20 B.A.T. Industries P.L.C. v. Her = Majesty=20 the Queen in Right of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) (By=20 Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number = CA033184, 2006 BCCA 398, dated September 15, 2006, is dismissed with=20 costs.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la Colombie=E2=80=91Britannique (Vancouver), = num=C3=A9ro CA033184, 2006 BCCA=20 398, dat=C3=A9 du 15 septembre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e avec d=C3=A9pens. =

CASE SUMMARY

June 23, 2005

Supreme Court of British = Columbia

(Holmes J.)

Application = dismissed

September 15, 2006

Court of Appeal for British Columbia=20 (Vancouver)

(Rowles, Hall and Smith = JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 10, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

23 juin 2005

Cour supr=C3=AAme de la = Colombie-Britannique

(Juge Holmes)

Demande = rejet=C3=A9e

15=20 septembre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la = Colombie-Britannique=20 (Vancouver)

(Juges Rowles, Hall et Smith)

Appel rejet=C3=A9

10=20 novembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation d=E2=80=99appel = d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31717 = =20 British American Tobacco = (Investments)=20 Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia = (B.C.)=20 (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number = CA033185, 2006 BCCA 398, dated September 15, 2006, is dismissed with=20 costs.

La demande=20 d=E2=80=99autorisation d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la = Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la Colombie=E2=80=91Britannique=20 (Vancouver), num=C3=A9ro CA033185, 2006 BCCA 398, dat=C3=A9 du=20 15 septembre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e avec = d=C3=A9pens.

CASE SUMMARY

June 23, 2005

Supreme Court of British = Columbia

(Holmes J.)

Application dismissedSeptember 15, = 2006

Court of Appeal for British Columbia=20 (Vancouver)

(Rowles, Hall and Smith = JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 10, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

23 juin 2005

Cour supr=C3=AAme de la = Colombie-Britannique

(Juge Holmes)

Demande = rejet=C3=A9e

15 septembre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la = Colombie-Britannique=20 (Vancouver)

(Juges Rowles, Hall et = Smith)

Appel rejet=C3=A9

10 novembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31718 = =20 Carreras Rothmans Limited v. Her = Majesty=20 the Queen in Right of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) (By=20 Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number = CA033186, 2006 BCCA 398, dated September 15, 2006, is dismissed with=20 costs.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la Colombie=E2=80=91Britannique (Vancouver), = num=C3=A9ro CA033186, 2006 BCCA=20 398, dat=C3=A9 du 15 septembre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e avec d=C3=A9pens. =

CASE SUMMARY

June 23, 2005

Supreme Court of British = Columbia

(Holmes J.)

Application = dismissed

September 15, 2006

Court of Appeal for British Columbia=20 (Vancouver)

(Rowles, Hall and Smith = JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 10, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

23 juin 2005

Cour supr=C3=AAme de la = Colombie-Britannique

(Juge Holmes)

Demande = rejet=C3=A9e

15 septembre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la = Colombie-Britannique=20 (Vancouver)

(Juges Rowles, Hall et = Smith)

Appel rejet=C3=A9

10 novembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31719 = =20 Ryesekks P.L.C. v. Her Majesty = the Queen=20 in Right of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) (By = Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number = CA033187, 2006 BCCA 398, dated September 15, 2006, is dismissed with=20 costs.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la Colombie=E2=80=91Britannique (Vancouver), = num=C3=A9ro CA033187, 2006 BCCA=20 398, dat=C3=A9 du 15 septembre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e avec d=C3=A9pens. =

CASE SUMMARY

June 23, 2005

Supreme Court of British = Columbia

(Holmes J.)

Application = dismissed

September 15, 2006

Court of Appeal for British Columbia=20 (Vancouver)

(Rowles, Hall and Smith = JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 10, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

23 juin 2005

Cour supr=C3=AAme de la = Colombie-Britannique

(Juge Holmes)

Demande = rejet=C3=A9e

15 septembre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la = Colombie-Britannique=20 (Vancouver)

(Juges Rowles, Hall et = Smith)

Appel rejet=C3=A9

10 novembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31720 = =20 Philip Morris Incorporated v. Her = Majesty=20 the Queen in Right of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) (By=20 Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number = CA033188, 2006 BCCA 398, dated September 15, 2006, is dismissed with=20 costs.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la Colombie=E2=80=91Britannique (Vancouver), = num=C3=A9ro CA033188, 2006 BCCA=20 398, dat=C3=A9 du 15 septembre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e avec d=C3=A9pens. =

CASE SUMMARY

June 23, 2005

Supreme Court of British = Columbia

(Holmes J.)

Application = dismissed

September 15, 2006

Court of Appeal for British Columbia=20 (Vancouver)

(Rowles, Hall and Smith = JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 10, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

23 juin 2005

Cour supr=C3=AAme de la = Colombie-Britannique

(Juge Holmes)

Demande = rejet=C3=A9e

15 septembre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la = Colombie-Britannique=20 (Vancouver)

(Juges Rowles, Hall et = Smith)

Appel rejet=C3=A9

10 novembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31721 = =20 Philip Morris International Inc. = v. Her=20 Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) = (By=20 Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la Colombie=E2=80=91Britannique (Vancouver), = num=C3=A9ro CA033188, 2006 BCCA=20 398, dat=C3=A9 du 15 septembre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e avec d=C3=A9pens. =

CASE SUMMARY

June 23, 2005

Supreme Court of British = Columbia

(Holmes J.)

Application = dismissed

September 15, 2006

Court of Appeal for British Columbia=20 (Vancouver)

(Rowles, Hall and Smith = JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 10, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

23 juin 2005

Cour supr=C3=AAme de la = Colombie-Britannique

(Juge Holmes)

Demande = rejet=C3=A9e

15 septembre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la = Colombie-Britannique=20 (Vancouver)

(Juges Rowles, Hall et = Smith)

Appel rejet=C3=A9

10 novembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31725 = =20 Jacques D=E2=80=99Argy et Richard = Th=C3=A9riault c. Sa=20 Majest=C3=A9 la Reine (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram : = Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et = Fish

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al), num=C3=A9ro = 500=E2=80=9110=E2=80=91003160=E2=80=91056, dat=C3=A9 du 26=20 septembre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number = 500=E2=80=9110=E2=80=91003160=E2=80=91056,=20 dated September 26, 2006, is dismissed.

CASE SUMMARY

Constitutional law - Charter of Rights = - Freedom=20 of expression - Communications law - Broadcasting - Applicants charged = with=20 possession and sale of equipment or device for decoding satellite pay = television=20 signals contrary to ss. 9(1)(c) and 10(1)(b) of=20 Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R=E2=80=912 - = Court of Qu=C3=A9bec=20 acquitting Applicants because ss. 9(1)(c) and = 10(1)(b)=20 infringe freedom of expression protected by s. 2(b) of=20 Charter and infringement not justified under s. 1 - Superior = Court=20 and Court of Appeal setting aside that decision.

The=20 Applicants placed a newspaper advertisement for the sale of systems to = receive=20 satellite pay television from the United States without a = subscription. =20 The telephone numbers in the advertisement were used to trace the = Applicants,=20 who were approached by an officer from the Security Office of the = Canadian=20 Motion Picture Distributors Association about purchasing a parabolic = antenna and=20 a smart card. The next day, two warranted searches were conducted = at the=20 Applicants=E2=80=99 homes, leading to the seizure of items that included = documents on=20 the sale of systems for receiving American satellite television signals = and=20 pirated smart cards. The Applicants themselves also had in their=20 possession a system for decoding, for their personal use and without = prior=20 authorization, the signals transmitted by DIRECTV, an American = distributor of=20 direct broadcast satellite television programming. The Applicants = did not=20 dispute this fact, which they were not concealing. In defence, = they argued=20 instead that ss. 9(1)(c) and 10(1)(b) of the=20 Radiocommunication Act were unconstitutional. The trial = judge ruled=20 in their favour and acquitted them. The Superior Court and the = Court of=20 Appeal found that that decision had to be set aside.

October 28, 2004

Court of Qu=C3=A9bec, Criminal = Division

(Judge C=C3=B4t=C3=A9)

Sections 9(1)(c) and = 10(1)(b) of=20 Radiocommunication Act declared invalid and Applicants=20 acquitted

March 31, 2005

Quebec Superior Court

(D=C3=A9carie J.)

Appeal allowed, Applicants convicted on = all counts=20 and case referred back to Judge C=C3=B4t=C3=A9 for = sentencing

September 26, 2006

Quebec Court of Appeal = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Beauregard, Otis and Giroux = JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

November 15, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Droit constitutionnel - Charte des = droits -=20 Libert=C3=A9 d=E2=80=99expression - Droit des communications - = Radiodiffusion -=20 Demandeurs accus=C3=A9s d=E2=80=99avoir eu en leur possession et = d=E2=80=99avoir vendu du mat=C3=A9riel ou=20 un dispositif permettant de d=C3=A9coder des signaux de = t=C3=A9l=C3=A9vision payante transmis=20 par satellite en violation des al. 9(1)c) et 10(1)b) de la Loi sur la = radiocommunication, L.R.C. 1985, ch. R-2 - Cour du Qu=C3=A9bec = acquittant les=20 demandeurs parce que les al. 9(1)c) et 10(1)b) portent atteinte =C3=A0 = la libert=C3=A9=20 d=E2=80=99expression prot=C3=A9g=C3=A9e par l=E2=80=99al. 2b) de la = Charte et que cette atteinte=20 n=E2=80=99est pas justifi=C3=A9e au regard de l=E2=80=99article premier = - Cour sup=C3=A9rieure et Cour=20 d=E2=80=99appel infirmant cette d=C3=A9cision.

Les=20 demandeurs ont fait publier une annonce dans un journal concernant la = vente de=20 syst=C3=A8mes permettant de capter la t=C3=A9l=C3=A9vision payante par = satellite provenant des=20 =C3=89tats=E2=80=91Unis sans abonnement. Les num=C3=A9ros de = t=C3=A9l=C3=A9phone mentionn=C3=A9s dans l=E2=80=99annonce=20 ont permis de retracer les demandeurs, =C3=A0 qui un agent du Bureau de = surveillance=20 de l'Association canadienne des distributeurs de films s=E2=80=99est = adress=C3=A9 pour=20 acheter une antenne parabolique et une carte =C3=A0 puce. Le lendemain, = deux=20 perquisitions avec mandat sont effectu=C3=A9es aux domiciles respectifs = des=20 demandeurs et on y saisit, entre autres, divers documents reli=C3=A9s = =C3=A0 la vente de=20 syst=C3=A8mes de r=C3=A9ception de signaux am=C3=A9ricains de = t=C3=A9l=C3=A9vision par satellite et des=20 cartes =C3=A0 puce pirat=C3=A9es. De plus, les demandeurs = poss=C3=A9daient eux-m=C3=AAmes un syst=C3=A8me=20 qui leur permettait de d=C3=A9coder, pour leur usage personnel et sans = autorisation=20 pr=C3=A9alable, les signaux =C3=A9mis par le distributeur am=C3=A9ricain = d'=C3=A9missions de=20 t=C3=A9l=C3=A9vision par satellite de radiodiffusion directe, DIRECTV. = Les demandeurs ne=20 contestent pas cette situation, dont ils ne se cachaient pas. En = d=C3=A9fense,=20 ils invoquent plut=C3=B4t que les al. 9(1)c) et 10(1)b) de la Loi sur = la=20 radiocommunication sont inconstitutionnels. La premi=C3=A8re juge = leur donne=20 raison et les acquitte. La Cour sup=C3=A9rieure et la Cour = d=E2=80=99appel concluent que=20 cette d=C3=A9cision doit =C3=AAtre infirm=C3=A9e.

Le 28 octobre 2004

Cour du Qu=C3=A9bec, Chambre = criminelle

(La juge C=C3=B4t=C3=A9)

Alin=C3=A9as 9(1)c) et 10(1)b) de la = Loi sur la=20 radiocommunication d=C3=A9clar=C3=A9s invalides et demandeurs=20 acquitt=C3=A9s

Le 31 mars 2005

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du = Qu=C3=A9bec

(Le juge D=C3=A9carie)

Appel accueilli, demandeurs = d=C3=A9clar=C3=A9s coupables sur=20 chacun des chefs d=E2=80=99accusation et dossier retourn=C3=A9 = =C3=A0 la juge C=C3=B4t=C3=A9 pour=20 qu=E2=80=99elle d=C3=A9termine la peine

Le 26 septembre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Les juges Beauregard, Otis et=20 Giroux)

Pourvoi rejet=C3=A9

Le 15 novembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31740 = =20 Chuck Sun Lau v. Commonwealth of=20 Australia and Canada (Governor General of Canada) (B.C.) = (Criminal) (By=20 Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for an extension of time = is=20 granted and the application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the = Court=20 of Appeal for British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA32741, 2006 BCCA = 484, dated=20 October 31, 2006, is dismissed without costs.

La demande de prorogation de d=C3=A9lai = est accord=C3=A9e et=20 la demande d=E2=80=99autorisation d=E2=80=99appel de = l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la=20 Colombie=E2=80=91Britannique (Vancouver), num=C3=A9ro CA32741, 2006 BCCA = 484, dat=C3=A9 du 31=20 octobre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e sans d=C3=A9pens.

CASE SUMMARY

Constitutional Law - Charter of Rights - = Mobility=20 Rights - Rendition - Whether Canada has = jurisdiction to=20 prosecute the applicant for events in Australia - Whether it was = necessary in=20 circumstances of the case to conduct a Cotroni = analysis -=20 Impact of the applicant=E2=80=99s offer to plead guilty to a charge of = conspiracy to=20 import narcotics into Canada in the context of a Cotroni analysis = - If a=20 Canadian sentencing judge were able to consider events in Australia, = whether it=20 would not have altered the decision to surrender the applicant to = Australia -=20 Whether the Crown failed to discharge its obligation to assure itself = and other=20 decision-makers that prosecution in Canada was not a realistic=20 option.

In=20 1997, the Commonwealth of Australia requested the applicant=E2=80=99s = rendition under=20 the Fugitive Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-32, to face charges = in=20 Australia of possessing and importing heroin. The applicant was arrested = in=20 Canada in 1997 and offered to plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to = import=20 heroin into Canada. Australia alleges the following facts. = The=20 applicant, a Canadian citizen, conspired to import heroin from China = into=20 Canada. The ship carrying the heroin embarked for Australia. = The=20 applicant and an accomplice went to Australia. Crew members from = the ship=20 delivered the heroin to the applicant and his accomplice. The applicant = and his=20 accomplice took the heroin to Perth and sold it to a police = agent. =20 The applicant was arrested in Australia and charged with possessing and=20 importing a commercial quantity of heroin. He escaped and fled to = Canada.=20

September 1, 2003

(Clarkson Gov.Gen.)

Order to surrender applicant to = Australia=20

February 23, 2005

Supreme Court of British = Columbia

(Bennett J.)

Neutral citation: 2005 BCSC = 1021

Applications for an order for disclosure = and for=20 an order quashing Governor General=E2=80=99s order = dismissed

October 31, 2006

Court of Appeal for British Columbia=20 (Vancouver)

(Finch, Southin and Thackray = JJ.A.)

Neutral citation: 2006 BCCA = 484

Appeal dismissed

January 8, 2007

Supreme Court of Canada

Applications for an extension of time = and for=20 leave to appeal filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Droit constitutionnel - Charte des droits - = Libert=C3=A9 de=20 circulation et d=E2=80=99=C3=A9tablissement - Extradition - Le Canada = a=E2=80=91t=E2=80=91il comp=C3=A9tence pour=20 poursuivre le demandeur concernant des =C3=A9v=C3=A9nements qui se sont = produits en=20 Australie? - =C3=89tait-il n=C3=A9cessaire en l=E2=80=99esp=C3=A8ce de = proc=C3=A9der =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99analyse fond=C3=A9e sur=20 l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt Cotroni? - Le fait que le demandeur ait = offert de plaider=20 coupable =C3=A0 une infraction de complot en vue d'importer des = stup=C3=A9fiants au Canada=20 a-t=E2=80=91il une incidence sur l=E2=80=99analyse fond=C3=A9e sur = l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt Cotroni? - La=20 d=C3=A9cision en mati=C3=A8re d'extradition aurait=E2=80=91elle = =C3=A9t=C3=A9 diff=C3=A9rente s'il avait =C3=A9t=C3=A9=20 loisible =C3=A0 un juge canadien charg=C3=A9 de la d=C3=A9termination de = la peine de tenir=20 compte des =C3=A9v=C3=A9nements s'=C3=A9tant produits dans ce pays? - Le = minist=C3=A8re public=20 s=E2=80=99est=E2=80=91il acquitt=C3=A9 de son obligation de = s=E2=80=99assurer et d=E2=80=99assurer d=E2=80=99autres d=C3=A9cideurs=20 qu=E2=80=99une poursuite devant les tribunaux canadiens = n=E2=80=99=C3=A9tait pas une option=20 viable?

En=20 1997, le Commonwealth d=E2=80=99Australie a demand=C3=A9 = l=E2=80=99extradition du demandeur sous le=20 r=C3=A9gime de la Loi sur les criminels fugitifs, L.R.C. 1985, = ch. F-32, pour=20 qu=E2=80=99il r=C3=A9ponde =C3=A0 des accusations de possession et = d=E2=80=99importation d=E2=80=99h=C3=A9ro=C3=AFne en=20 Australie. Le demandeur a =C3=A9t=C3=A9 arr=C3=AAt=C3=A9 au Canada = en 1997 et il a offert de=20 plaider coupable =C3=A0 une infraction de complot en vue = d=E2=80=99importer de l=E2=80=99h=C3=A9ro=C3=AFne au=20 pays. L=E2=80=99Australie all=C3=A8gue les faits suivants : le = demandeur, un citoyen=20 canadien, a complot=C3=A9 en vue d=E2=80=99importer de = l=E2=80=99h=C3=A9ro=C3=AFne de la Chine vers le Canada;=20 le bateau qui transportait l=E2=80=99h=C3=A9ro=C3=AFne est parti =C3=A0 = destination de l=E2=80=99Australie; le=20 demandeur et son complice se sont rendus en Australie; des membres de = l=E2=80=99=C3=A9quipage=20 leur ont livr=C3=A9 l=E2=80=99h=C3=A9ro=C3=AFne; le demandeur et son = complice ont apport=C3=A9 l=E2=80=99h=C3=A9ro=C3=AFne =C3=A0=20 Perth et ils l=E2=80=99ont vendue =C3=A0 un policier; le demandeur a = =C3=A9t=C3=A9 arr=C3=AAt=C3=A9 en Australie=20 et il a =C3=A9t=C3=A9 accus=C3=A9 de possession et d=E2=80=99importation = d=E2=80=99h=C3=A9ro=C3=AFne en quantit=C3=A9=20 commerciale; il s=E2=80=99est =C3=A9chapp=C3=A9 et a fui au = Canada.

1^er septembre 2003

(Gouv. g=C3=A9n. = Clarkson)

Arr=C3=AAt=C3=A9 pr=C3=A9voyant = l=E2=80=99extradition du demandeur vers=20 l=E2=80=99Australie

23 f=C3=A9vrier 2005

Cour supr=C3=AAme de la = Colombie=E2=80=91Britannique

(Juge Bennett)

R=C3=A9f=C3=A9rence neutre : 2005 BCSC = 1021

Demande de communication et demande = visant =C3=A0 faire=20 annuler l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt=C3=A9 pris par la Gouverneure = g=C3=A9n=C3=A9rale,=20 rejet=C3=A9es

31 octobre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel de la = Colombie=E2=80=91Britannique

(Vancouver)

(Juges Finch, Southin et = Thackray)

R=C3=A9f=C3=A9rence neutre : 2006 BCCA = 484

Appel rejet=C3=A9

8 janvier 2007

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d'autorisation d'appel et = requ=C3=AAte en=20 prorogation de d=C3=A9lai d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9es

31741 = =20 Charles Grenier, Gerry Largy et = Maurice=20 Galvin c. St=E2=80=91Patrick=E2=80=99s Academy =E2=80=9COld = Boys=E2=80=9D Association Inc. (Qc) (Civile)=20 (Autorisation)

Coram : = Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et = Fish

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al), num=C3=A9ro = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91015757=E2=80=91057, dat=C3=A9 du 5 octobre=20 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e sans d=C3=A9pens.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91015757=E2=80=91057,=20 dated October 5, 2006, is dismissed without costs.

CASE SUMMARY

Contracts - Nullity - Sale - Conditions - = Company law -=20 Association=E2=80=99s constitution providing for internal formalities = required for=20 alienation of association=E2=80=99s property - Formalities sidestepped = in context of=20 dispute surrounding planned sale - Whether failure to comply with its = internal=20 procedure can relieve company of contractual liability - Whether indoor=20 management rule must be excluded only in case of blatant bad faith and = not=20 because of carelessness and negligence.

The=20 Respondent association=E2=80=99s property was sold to the Applicant = Grenier in 2002 in=20 violation of the prior approval formalities provided for in the = association=E2=80=99s=20 constitution. Two of the association=E2=80=99s = representatives (the other=20 two Applicants) signed the deed. The evidence showed that the = deed=E2=80=99s=20 various signatories were aware of the internal dispute that upset the=20 association with regard to the sale and its approval.

May 31, 2005

Quebec Superior Court

(Mireault J.)

Sale of Respondent=E2=80=99s property = dated=20 March 8, 2002 annulled; Applicants=E2=80=99 offer to = purchase dated=20 April 27, 2001 annulled; return of deposit held in trust = ordered

October 5, 2006

Quebec Court of Appeal = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Gendreau, Dussault and Delisle=20 JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

December 1, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Contrats - Nullit=C3=A9 - Vente - Conditions - = Droit des=20 soci=C3=A9t=C3=A9s - Statuts d=E2=80=99une association pr=C3=A9voyant = les modalit=C3=A9s internes requises=20 pour l=E2=80=99ali=C3=A9nation de ses biens - Modalit=C3=A9s = escamot=C3=A9es dans un contexte de=20 controverse entourant le projet de vente - Le d=C3=A9faut = d=E2=80=99observance de sa=20 proc=C3=A9dure interne peut-elle d=C3=A9gager une compagnie de sa = responsabilit=C3=A9=20 contractuelle? - La r=C3=A8gle de l=E2=80=99indoor management ne = doit-elle =C3=AAtre=20 =C3=A9cart=C3=A9e qu=E2=80=99en cas de mauvaise foi = caract=C3=A9ris=C3=A9e, et non pas pour imprudence et=20 n=C3=A9gligence?

La=20 vente de la propri=C3=A9t=C3=A9 de l=E2=80=99association intim=C3=A9e au = demandeur Grenier est=20 survenue, en 2002, en contravention aux formalit=C3=A9s = d=E2=80=99approbation pr=C3=A9alable=20 pr=C3=A9vues par les statuts de l=E2=80=99association. Deux = repr=C3=A9sentants de celle-ci (les=20 deux autres demandeurs) ont sign=C3=A9 l=E2=80=99acte. La preuve indique = que la controverse=20 interne ayant agit=C3=A9 l=E2=80=99association au sujet de la vente, = comme de son=20 approbation, =C3=A9tait connue des divers signataires de l=E2=80=99acte. =

Le 31 mai 2005

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du = Qu=C3=A9bec

(La juge Mireault)

Annulation de la vente de = propri=C3=A9t=C3=A9 de l=E2=80=99intim=C3=A9e=20 en date du 8 mars 2002; annulation de l=E2=80=99offre = d=E2=80=99achat des demandeurs en=20 date du 27 avril 2001; ordonnance de restitution du = d=C3=A9p=C3=B4t en=20 fiducie.

Le=20 5 octobre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Les juges Gendreau, Dussault et=20 Delisle)

Appel rejet=C3=A9.

Le=20 1 d=C3=A9cembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation d=E2=80=99appel = d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e.

31747 = =20 St=C3=A9phane Turcotte c. Sa = Majest=C3=A9 la=20 Reine (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)

Coram : = Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et = Fish

La requ=C3=AAte pour introduire une = nouvelle preuve est=20 rejet=C3=A9e. La demande de prorogation de d=C3=A9lai est = accord=C3=A9e et la demande=20 d=E2=80=99autorisation d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la = Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al),=20 num=C3=A9ro 500=E2=80=9110=E2=80=91001880=E2=80=91002, dat=C3=A9 du 5 = juin 2003, est rejet=C3=A9e sans=20 d=C3=A9pens.

The motion to produce new evidence is=20 dismissed. The application for an extension of time is granted and = the=20 application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal = of=20 Quebec (Montreal), Number 500=E2=80=9110=E2=80=91001880=E2=80=91002, = dated June 5, 2003, is dismissed=20 without costs.

CASE SUMMARY

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms = (criminal) - Criminal law - Evidence - Verdict = -=20 Corroboration by tainted witnesses - Whether Applicant=E2=80=99s rights = under ss. 7=20 and 11(b) and (d) of Canadian Charter of Rights and=20 Freedoms violated - Whether stay of proceedings is appropriate = remedy within=20 meaning of s. 24(1) of Canadian Charter of Rights and=20 Freedoms.

The=20 Applicant was charged with being a party to the murder of = Sylvain Bujold in=20 Rivi=C3=A8re=E2=80=91des=E2=80=91Prairies on = January 2, 1994. The evidence adduced by=20 the Crown at the second trial was based largely on the testimony of=20 Jean=E2=80=91Claude Bergeron, who was also a party to the = murder. Bergeron=20 was an informer who testified in return for certain benefits. On = the basis=20 of that testimony and of a non=E2=80=91exhaustive list of 19 pieces = of evidence=20 confirming it, the Applicant was convicted. In this application, = the=20 Applicant seeks to introduce new evidence showing the existence of a = verbal=20 agreement in which the = prosecution assured=20 Bergeron that he would be out of prison after three or four years. =20 The Applicant alleges that the failure to disclose that verbal agreement = violated his right to make full answer and defence and made the trial=20 unfair.

June 3, 2000

Quebec Superior Court

(Zigman J.)

Conviction for murder: life=20 imprisonment

June 5, 2003

Quebec Court of Appeal = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Forget, Morissette and Letarte=20 JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

December 7, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Applications for extension of time and = for leave=20 to appeal filed together with motion to introduce new=20 evidence

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Charte canadienne des droits et libert=C3=A9s = de la=20 personne (criminelle) -Droit = criminel -=20 Preuve - Verdict - Corroboration de t=C3=A9moins tar=C3=A9s - Y = a-t-il eu atteinte=20 aux droits du demandeur pr=C3=A9vu aux articles 7 et 11 b) et d) de la = Charte=20 canadienne des droits et libert=C3=A9s de la personne - La = r=C3=A9paration convenable=20 au sens de l=E2=80=99article 24 (1) de la Charte canadienne des = droits et libert=C3=A9s de=20 la personne est-elle l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de = proc=C3=A9dures?

Le=20 demandeur est accus=C3=A9 d=E2=80=99avoir particip=C3=A9 au meurtre de = Sylvain Bujold, le 2=20 janvier 1994, =C3=A0 Rivi=C3=A8re-des-Prairies. =C3=80 cet effet, la = preuve pr=C3=A9sent=C3=A9e par la=20 Couronne au deuxi=C3=A8me proc=C3=A8s repose en grande partie sur le = t=C3=A9moignage de=20 Jean-Claude Bergeron, individu ayant =C3=A9galement particip=C3=A9 au = meurtre. Bergeron=20 est d=C3=A9lateur et a t=C3=A9moign=C3=A9 en contrepartie de certains = avantages. Sur la base de ce t=C3=A9moignage et une=20 liste non exhaustive de 19 =C3=A9l=C3=A9ments confirmatifs de ce t=C3=A9moignage, le=20 demandeur est d=C3=A9clar=C3=A9 coupable. Dans la pr=C3=A9sente demande, le=20 demandeur tente d=E2=80=99introduire une nouvelle preuve =C3=A9tablissant=20 l=E2=80=99existence d=E2=80=99une entente=20 verbale selon laquelle la poursuite aurait assur=C3=A9 = =C3=A0 = Bergeron=20 qu=E2=80=99il=20 sortirait de prison apr=C3=A8s 3 ou 4 ans d=E2=80=99emprisonnement. Le=20 demandeur all=C3=A8gue que l=E2=80=99absence de=20 divulgation de cette entente verbale aurait viol=C3=A9 = son droit=20 =C3=A0 une=20 d=C3=A9fense pleine et enti=C3=A8re et aurait=20 bris=C3=A9=20 l=E2=80=99=C3=A9quit=C3=A9 du proc=C3=A8s.

Le 3 juin 2000

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du=20 Qu=C3=A9bec

(Zigman j.c.s.)

D=C3=A9claration de=20 culpabilit=C3=A9 pour meurtre: emprisonnement = =C3=A0=20 perp=C3=A9tuit=C3=A9

Le 5 juin 2003

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du=20 Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Forget, Morissette, et Letarte=20 jj.c.a.)

Appel rejet=C3=A9

Le 7 d=C3=A9cembre=20 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du=20 Canada

Demandes en prorogation de d=C3=A9lai et=20 d=E2=80=99autorisation d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9es et=20 requ=C3=AAte pour introduire une nouvelle=20 preuve

31756 = =20 Merchant Retail Services Limited=20 (Household Finance) v. Option Consommateurs and Lynda Gagn=C3=A9 = (Que.)=20 (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to = cross=E2=80=91appeal is=20 dismissed without costs and the application for leave to appeal from the = judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91013447=E2=80=91032,=20 dated October 16, 2006, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel incident est=20 rejet=C3=A9e sans d=C3=A9pens et la demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la Cour=20 d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al), num=C3=A9ro = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91013447=E2=80=91032, dat=C3=A9 du 16 octobre 2006, = est rejet=C3=A9e avec d=C3=A9pens.

CASE SUMMARY

Consumer protection =E2=80=93 Class action = =E2=80=93 Remedy =E2=80=93 Exemplary=20 damages =E2=80=93 Prescription =E2=80=93 Whether Court of Appeal erred = both on issue of=20 appropriateness of awarding exemplary damages in circumstances and on = issue of=20 quantum of damages =E2=80=93 Whether Court of Appeal erred on issue of = starting point=20 for prescription of action under Consumer Protection Act = =E2=80=93 Whether courts=20 below erred in finding that class action could be instituted even if = individual=20 action of member designated as representative was prescribed =E2=80=93 = Whether Court of=20 Appeal erred as regards remedy granted in circumstances.

Option consommateurs was authorized to = institute a class=20 action against Household Finance on behalf of persons who, like=20 Lynda Gagn=C3=A9, had entered into contracts with = Household Finance and had=20 late charges imposed on them under a [translation] =E2=80=9Cbuy = now, pay in a year=E2=80=9D=20 variable credit agreement. Option consommateurs argued that the = late=20 charges had been imposed in violation of the Consumer Protection = Act=20 because they had not been disclosed as credit charges or computed in the = required manner. Instead, they had been imposed as a $10 lump sum = payment.=20

The=20 Superior Court allowed the class action in part and ordered the = reimbursement of=20 the late charges paid by the consumers. It also ordered the = reimbursement=20 of all credit charges for contracts entered into on or after = May 13, 1996,=20 which was three years before the action was instituted. The = majority of=20 the Court of Appeal affirmed only the order to reimburse the late = charges, and=20 limited it to contracts entered into on or after May 13, = 1996. It=20 further ordered that each member of the group whose action was not = prescribed be=20 paid $100 in exemplary damages.

April 30, 2003

Quebec Superior Court

(Laram=C3=A9e J.)

Class action allowed in = part

October 16, 2006

Quebec Court of Appeal = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Beauregard, Mailhot and C=C3=B4t=C3=A9 = JJ.A.)

Appeal and incidental appeal allowed in=20 part

December 14, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

January 29, 2007

Supreme Court of Canada

Response and application for leave to = cross=E2=80=91appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Protection du consommateur =E2=80=93 Recours = collectif =E2=80=93=20 R=C3=A9paration =E2=80=93 Dommages exemplaires =E2=80=93 Prescription = =E2=80=93 La Cour d=E2=80=99appel a-t-elle=20 err=C3=A9, tant sur la question de l=E2=80=99opportunit=C3=A9 = d=E2=80=99accorder des dommages exemplaires=20 dans les circonstances que sur celle du quantum de ceux-ci? =E2=80=93 La = Cour d=E2=80=99appel=20 a-t-elle err=C3=A9 sur la question du point de d=C3=A9part de la = prescription du recours=20 en vertu de la Loi sur la protection du consommateur? = =E2=80=93 Les=20 instances inf=C3=A9rieures ont-elles err=C3=A9 en jugeant que le recours = collectif pouvait=20 =C3=AAtre pris m=C3=AAme si l=E2=80=99action individuelle du membre = d=C3=A9sign=C3=A9 comme repr=C3=A9sentant=20 =C3=A9tait prescrite? =E2=80=93 La Cour d=E2=80=99appel a-t-elle = err=C3=A9 quant =C3=A0 la r=C3=A9paration octroy=C3=A9e=20 dans les circonstances?

Option consommateurs a =C3=A9t=C3=A9 = autoris=C3=A9e =C3=A0 exercer un=20 recours collectif contre Household Finance, au nom des personnes qui, = comme=20 Lynda Gagn=C3=A9, avaient contract=C3=A9 avec Household Finance et = s=E2=80=99=C3=A9taient vu imposer=20 des frais de retard en vertu d=E2=80=99une convention de cr=C3=A9dit = variable de type =C2=AB=20 achetez maintenant, payez dans un an =C2=BB. Option consommateurs a = plaid=C3=A9 que les=20 frais de retard avaient =C3=A9t=C3=A9 exig=C3=A9s en contravention de la = Loi sur la=20 protection du consommateur parce qu=E2=80=99il n=E2=80=99avaient pas = =C3=A9t=C3=A9 divulgu=C3=A9s comme des=20 frais de cr=C3=A9dit et qu=E2=80=99ils n=E2=80=99=C3=A9taient pas = calcul=C3=A9s de la mani=C3=A8re prescrite.=20 Plut=C3=B4t, ils =C3=A9taient impos=C3=A9s sous forme de montant = forfaitaire de 10 $.=20

La=20 Cour sup=C3=A9rieure a accueilli le recours collectif en partie et = ordonn=C3=A9 le=20 remboursement des frais de retard pay=C3=A9s par les consommateurs. Elle = a ordonn=C3=A9=20 aussi, dans les cas o=C3=B9 le contrat avait =C3=A9t=C3=A9 form=C3=A9 = =C3=A0 compter du 13 mai 1996 =E2=80=93=20 soit trois ans avant la prise du recours =E2=80=93 le remboursement de = l=E2=80=99ensemble des=20 frais de cr=C3=A9dit. La Cour d=E2=80=99appel, =C3=A0 la majorit=C3=A9, = n=E2=80=99a confirm=C3=A9 que l=E2=80=99ordre de=20 rembourser les frais de retard, mais seulement =C3=A0 = l=E2=80=99=C3=A9gard des contrats form=C3=A9s =C3=A0=20 compter du 13 mai 1996. Elle a ordonn=C3=A9, de plus, la paiement, = =C3=A0 titre de=20 dommages exemplaires, d=E2=80=99un montant de 100 $ =C3=A0 chaque = membre du groupe dont=20 l=E2=80=99action n=E2=80=99=C3=A9tait pas prescrite.

Le 30 avril 2003

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du = Qu=C3=A9bec

(Le juge Laram=C3=A9e)

Recours collectif accueilli en=20 partie

Le 16 octobre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Les juges Beauregard, Mailhot et=20 C=C3=B4t=C3=A9)

Appel et appel incident accueillis en=20 partie

Le 14 d=C3=A9cembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

Le 29 janvier 2007

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

R=C3=A9ponse et demande = d=E2=80=99autorisation d=E2=80=99appel incident=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9es

31759 = =20 R=C3=A9jean Lalumi=C3=A8re c. = Lucille=20 Desormiers (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram : = Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et = Fish

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al), num=C3=A9ro = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91016779=E2=80=91068, dat=C3=A9 du 16 octobre=20 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e avec d=C3=A9pens.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91016779=E2=80=91068,=20 dated October 16, 2006, is dismissed with costs.

CASE SUMMARY

Contracts - Sale - Price adjustment clause - = Taxation -=20 Related persons - Fair market value - Sale of shares with clause for = adjusting=20 price of shares on basis of market value to be determined by Department = of=20 Revenue - Market value deemed nil for tax purposes - Vendor claiming = unpaid=20 price - Purchaser alleging that debt extinguished - Whether Court of = Appeal made=20 palpable and overriding errors in interpreting and applying price = adjustment=20 clause in contract for sale of shares entered into by persons not at = arm=E2=80=99s=20 length - Whether Court of Appeal misinterpreted clause as tax adjustment = clause=20 rather than price adjustment clause.

In=20 1993, the owners of a company transferred all the company=E2=80=99s = shares to their son=20 for $500,000. The contract contained a clause stating that the = price=20 reflected the fair market value of the shares and another clause stating = that=20 the price would be revised if that value were changed by the tax=20 authorities. After subsequently being informed by the Department = of=20 National Revenue that it considered the value to be nil in the = circumstances,=20 the purchaser ceased making payments. The mother, to whom the = father had=20 assigned his claim, claimed the balance of the sale price. In a = cross=20 demand, the son claimed the approximately $26,000 already = paid.

April 28, 2006

Quebec Superior Court

(Riordan J.)

Respondent=E2=80=99s action allowed; = Applicant ordered to=20 pay her $473,000 with interest and additional indemnity; = Applicant=E2=80=99s cross=20 demand dismissed

October 16, 2006

Quebec Court of Appeal = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Otis, Pelletier and Hilton = JJ.A.)

Motion to dismiss appeal allowed; appeal = dismissed

December 15, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Contrats - Vente - Clause d=E2=80=99ajustement = du prix - Droit=20 fiscal - Personnes li=C3=A9es - Juste valeur marchande - Vente = d=E2=80=99actions comportant=20 une clause d=E2=80=99ajustement de leur prix en fonction de la valeur = marchande =C3=A0 =C3=AAtre=20 =C3=A9tablie par le minist=C3=A8re du Revenu - Valeur marchande = r=C3=A9put=C3=A9e nulle aux fins=20 fiscales - R=C3=A9clamation, par le vendeur, du prix impay=C3=A9 - = All=C3=A9gation, par=20 l=E2=80=99acheteur, d=E2=80=99extinction de sa dette - La Cour = d=E2=80=99appel a-t-elle commis des=20 erreurs =C3=A9videntes et d=C3=A9terminantes dans = l=E2=80=99interpr=C3=A9tation et l=E2=80=99application d=E2=80=99une=20 clause de rajustement du prix contenue dans un contrat de vente = d=E2=80=99actions conclu=20 entre des personnes ayant un lien de d=C3=A9pendance? - La Cour = d=E2=80=99appel a-t-elle =C3=A0=20 tort interpr=C3=A9t=C3=A9 la clause comme =C3=A9tant une clause de = rajustement d=E2=80=99imp=C3=B4t plut=C3=B4t=20 qu=E2=80=99une clause de rajustement du prix?

En1993, les propri=C3=A9taires d=E2=80=99une = compagnie ont c=C3=A9d=C3=A9=20 toutes les actions de celle-ci =C3=A0 leur fils pour $ 500 000. Le = contrat=20 comporte une clause =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99effet que le prix refl=C3=A8te la = juste valeur marchande des=20 actions et une autre =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99effet que ce prix sera = r=C3=A9vis=C3=A9 advenant une modification=20 de cette valeur par le fisc. Ayant par la suite re=C3=A7u une = information du=20 minist=C3=A8re f=C3=A9d=C3=A9ral du Revenu =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99effet que ce = dernier, dans le contexte,=20 consid=C3=A9rait la valeur nulle, l=E2=80=99acheteur cesse les = paiements. La m=C3=A8re, =C3=A0 qui le=20 p=C3=A8re a c=C3=A9d=C3=A9 sa cr=C3=A9ance, r=C3=A9clame le solde du = prix de vente. Le fils, par demande=20 reconventionnelle, r=C3=A9clame les quelque $ 26 000 = d=C3=A9j=C3=A0 pay=C3=A9s.

Le 28 avril 2006

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du = Qu=C3=A9bec

(Le juge Riordan)

Action de l=E2=80=99intim=C3=A9e = accueillie; demandeur condamn=C3=A9=20 =C3=A0 lui payer 473, 000 $ avec int=C3=A9r=C3=AAts et = indemnit=C3=A9 additionnelle;=20 demande reconventionnelle du demandeur = rejet=C3=A9e.

Le 16 octobre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Les juges Otis, Pelletier et=20 Hilton)

Requ=C3=AAte en rejet d=E2=80=99appel = accueillie; appel=20 rejet=C3=A9.

Le 15 d=C3=A9cembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e.

31765 = =20 Rodica Stefaniu v. Kalid Ahmed, = Lelise=20 Kristen Zara Ahmed, a minor by her Litigation Guardian, Kalid Ahmed and = Lailah=20 Cassy Mazno Ahmed, a minor by her Litigation Guardian Kalid = Ahmed (Ont.)=20 (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C43568, dated = October 20,=20 2006, is dismissed with costs.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99Ontario, num=C3=A9ro C43568, dat=C3=A9 = du 20 octobre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e=20 avec d=C3=A9pens.

CASE SUMMARY

Torts - Professional liability - Health care - = Psychiatrists - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the law = on an=20 =E2=80=9Chonest and intelligent=E2=80=9D judgment to the extent that it = has and will lead to=20 confusion and a propensity among psychiatrists to lean towards detaining = patients on an involuntary basis to avoid liability - Whether the Court = of=20 Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge=E2=80=99s instruction to = the jury on the=20 law of causation in the context of involuntary admission under = Ontario=E2=80=99s =20 Mental Health Act to the extent that it has led to a concern that = indefinite liability might arise towards psychiatrists who do not detain = a=20 patient, even if pursuant to the provisions of the Act that patient = would have=20 otherwise been released prior to an act giving rise to = liability.

The=20 patient under the care of the applicant psychiatrist was released from a = mental=20 health facility. Seven weeks later, the patient murdered his sister. The = sister=E2=80=99s husband and two daughters sued the psychiatrist for=20 malpractice.

April 22, 2005

Ontario Superior Court of = Justice

(Speigel J.)

Applicant found liable; respondents = awarded=20 damages in the amount of $160,000 plus $12,000 in special=20 damages

October 20, 2006

Court of Appeal for Ontario

(Gillese, Armstrong and Juriansz=20 JJ.A.)

Applicant=E2=80=99s appeal = dismissed

December 19, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Responsabilit=C3=A9 d=C3=A9lictuelle - = Responsabilit=C3=A9=20 professionnelle - Soins de sant=C3=A9 - Psychiatres - La Cour = d=E2=80=99appel a-t-elle eu=20 tort d=E2=80=99appliquer les r=C3=A8gles de droit en mati=C3=A8re = d=E2=80=99appr=C3=A9ciation =C2=AB honn=C3=AAte et=20 intelligente =C2=BB dans la mesure o=C3=B9 ces r=C3=A8gles ont = cr=C3=A9=C3=A9 et cr=C3=A9eront de la=20 confusion et une propension chez les psychiatres =C3=A0 pencher en = faveur de la=20 d=C3=A9tention des patients contre leur gr=C3=A9 pour =C3=A9viter la = responsabilit=C3=A9? - La=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel a-t-elle eu tort de confirmer les directives du = juge de premi=C3=A8re=20 instance au jury sur les r=C3=A8gles de droit en mati=C3=A8re de = causalit=C3=A9 dans le=20 contexte d=E2=80=99une cure obligatoire sous le r=C3=A9gime de la Loi = sur la sant=C3=A9=20 mentale de l=E2=80=99Ontario dans la mesure o=C3=B9 ces directives = font craindre que les=20 psychiatres qui ne d=C3=A9tiennent pas un patient puissent = s=E2=80=99exposer =C3=A0 une=20 responsabilit=C3=A9 ind=C3=A9finie, m=C3=AAme si, en vertu des = dispositions de la loi, ce=20 patient aurait autrement obtenu son cong=C3=A9 avant la survenance = d=E2=80=99un acte qui=20 engage la responsabilit=C3=A9?

Le=20 patient sous les soins du psychiatre demandeur a obtenu son cong=C3=A9 = d=E2=80=99un=20 =C3=A9tablissement psychiatrique. Sept semaines plus tard, le patient a = assassin=C3=A9 sa=20 soeur. L=E2=80=99=C3=A9poux et les deux filles de la soeur ont poursuivi = le psychiatre pour=20 faute professionnelle.

22 avril 2005

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure de justice de = l=E2=80=99Ontario

(Juge Speigel)

Demandeur jug=C3=A9 responsable; = dommages-int=C3=A9r=C3=AAts=20 de 160 000 $ et dommages-int=C3=A9r=C3=AAts = sp=C3=A9ciaux de 12 000 $=20 accord=C3=A9s aux intim=C3=A9s

20 octobre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel de = l=E2=80=99Ontario

(Juges Gillese, Armstrong et=20 Juriansz)

Appel du demandeur = rejet=C3=A9

19 d=C3=A9cembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 rejet=C3=A9e

31771 = =20 Caisse Populaire Desjardins de=20 Drummondville c. Banque Nationale de Gr=C3=A8ce (Canada) (Qc) = (Civile)=20 (Autorisation)

Coram : = Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et = Fish

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al), num=C3=A9ro = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91015389=E2=80=91059, dat=C3=A9 du 1er=20 novembre 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e avec d=C3=A9pens.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91015389=E2=80=91059,=20 dated November 1, 2006, is dismissed with costs.

CASE SUMMARY

Financial institutions =E2=80=93 Banks = =E2=80=93 Obligation of financial=20 institution to consult register of personal and movable real rights = =E2=80=93 Whether=20 Bank acquired rights to cheques =E2=80=93 Whether Bank presumed to be = aware of Caisse=E2=80=99s=20 rights =E2=80=93 Whether Bank liable for losses =E2=80=93 Whether notice = of withdrawal of=20 authorization to collect claims can be set up against Bank.

Abattoir Nutricaille Inc., which was no longer = authorized to collect claims, opened an account at the National Bank of = Greece=20 to negotiate cheques without the knowledge of the Caisse populaire = Desjardins,=20 the hypothecary creditor to which claims had to be paid. Since the = notice of=20 withdrawal of authorization to collect claims had been published in the = register=20 of personal and movable real rights, the main issue was whether that = notice=20 could be set up against the National Bank.

The=20 trial judge found that the Bank could not be held liable for the = Caisse=E2=80=99s=20 losses, because there is no contractual obligation or practice requiring = banks=20 to verify the activities of their customers. The Court of Appeal = affirmed=20 the trial judge=E2=80=99s decision.

February 7, 2005

Quebec Superior Court

(Hurtubise J.)

Action of Caisse populaire Desjardins=20 dismissed

November 1, 2006

Quebec Court of Appeal = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Dalphond, Doyon and V=C3=A9zina = JJ.A.)

Appeal dismissed

December 21, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal = filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Institutions financi=C3=A8res =E2=80=93 = Banques =E2=80=93 Obligation d=E2=80=99une=20 institution financi=C3=A8re de consulter le Registre des droits = personnels et r=C3=A9els=20 mobiliers =E2=80=93 La Banque a-t-elle acquis des droits sur les = ch=C3=A8ques ? =E2=80=93 La=20 Banque est-elle pr=C3=A9sum=C3=A9e conna=C3=AEtre les droits de la = Caisse? =E2=80=93 La Banque est-elle=20 responsable des pertes? =E2=80=93 L=E2=80=99avis de retrait = d'autorisation de percevoir des=20 cr=C3=A9ances est-il opposable =C3=A0 la Banque?

Abattoir Nutricaille Inc., qui n'=C3=A9tait = plus autoris=C3=A9e =C3=A0=20 percevoir des cr=C3=A9ances, a ouvert un compte =C3=A0 la Banque = Nationale de Gr=C3=A8ce=20 pour y n=C3=A9gocier des ch=C3=A8ques =C3=A0 l'insu de la Caisse = populaire Desjardins,=20 cr=C3=A9anci=C3=A8re hypoth=C3=A9caire =C3=A0 qui les cr=C3=A9ances = devaient =C3=AAtre pay=C3=A9es. L'avis de=20 retrait d'autorisation de percevoir des cr=C3=A9ances ayant = =C3=A9t=C3=A9 publi=C3=A9 au Registre=20 des droits personnels et r=C3=A9els mobiliers, la principale question = concerne son=20 opposabilit=C3=A9 =C3=A0 la Banque Nationale.

Le=20 juge de premi=C3=A8re instance conclut que la Banque ne peut =C3=AAtre = tenue responsable=20 des pertes de la Caisse. En effet, il n'existe aucune obligation=20 contractuelle ni aucune pratique pour forcer une banque =C3=A0 = v=C3=A9rifier les activit=C3=A9s=20 de son client. La Cour d=E2=80=99appel confirme la d=C3=A9cision de = premi=C3=A8re instance.=20

Le 7 f=C3=A9vrier 2005

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du = Qu=C3=A9bec

(Le juge Hurtubise)

Action de la Caisse populaire Desjardins = rejet=C3=A9e

Le 1^er novembre = 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Les juges Dalphond, Doyon et=20 V=C3=A9zina)

Appel rejet=C3=A9

Le 21 d=C3=A9cembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du Canada =

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31776 = =20 Mohammed Momin Khawaja v. Her = Majesty the=20 Queen (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Number = 04=E2=80=91G30282, dated=20 October 24, 2006, is dismissed.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour sup=C3=A9rieure de justice de l=E2=80=99Ontario, num=C3=A9ro = 04=E2=80=91G30282, dat=C3=A9 du 24 octobre=20 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e.

CASE SUMMARY

Criminal law - Courts - Jurisdiction - = Constitutionality=20 of the definition of =E2=80=9Cterrorist activity=E2=80=9D as defined in = section 83.01(1)b)(i)(A)=20 of the Criminal Code - Whether SCC has jurisdiction to grant = leave to=20 appeal.

Mohammed Momin Khawaja is charged with = offences under=20 the terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code. He = challenged the=20 constitutionality of some of these provisions, in particular, the = following=20 definition of terrorist activity:

s. 83.01(1) "terrorist activity" = means

(b) an act or omission, in or outside = Canada,

(i) that is committed,

(A) in whole or in part for a political, = religious=20 or ideological purpose, objective or cause,

Rutherford J., of the Ontario Superior Court = of Justice=20 held that the provision infringes the freedoms of conscience and = religion;=20 thought, belief, opinion and expression and of association which are = guaranteed=20 under ss. 2(a), (b) and (d) of the Charter of Rights and = Freedoms. =20 He held that the appropriate remedy would be to sever clause = 83.01(1)(b)(i)(A)=20 from the rest of s. 83.01.

There being no appeal from a declaration in = these=20 circumstances, Khawaja seeks leave to appeal directly to the Supreme = Court of=20 Canada. The Court=E2=80=99s jurisdiction is disputed by the Crown=20 respondent.

October 24, 2006

Ontario Superior Court of = Justice

(Rutherford Douglas = J.A.)

Application for declaration allowed in=20 part

December 27, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Droit criminel - Tribunaux - Comp=C3=A9tence - = Constitutionnalit=C3=A9 de la d=C3=A9finition = d=E2=80=99=C2=AB activit=C3=A9 terroriste =C2=BB figurant=20 =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99art. 83.01(1)b)(i)(A) du Code Criminel = - La CSC a=E2=80=91t=E2=80=91elle=20 comp=C3=A9tence pour autoriser le pourvoi?

Mohammed Momin Khawaja est accus=C3=A9 = d=E2=80=99avoir commis une=20 infraction de terrorisme pr=C3=A9vue au Code criminel. Il a = contest=C3=A9 la=20 constitutionnalit=C3=A9 de certaines des dispositions du Code = criminel en=20 mati=C3=A8re d=E2=80=99antiterrorisme, plus particuli=C3=A8rement la = d=C3=A9finition d=E2=80=99=C2=AB activit=C3=A9=20 terroriste =C2=BB :

art. 83.01(1) =C2=AB activit=C3=A9 terroriste = =C2=BB signifie=20

b) = soit un acte=20 =E2=80=94 action ou omission, commise au Canada ou =C3=A0 = l'=C3=A9tranger=E2=80=94:

(i) d'une part, commis =C3=A0 la = fois=E2=80=94:

(A) au nom =E2=80=94 exclusivement ou = non =E2=80=94 d'un but, d'un=20 objectif ou d'une cause de nature politique, religieuse ou=20 id=C3=A9ologique,

Le=20 juge Rutherford de la Cour sup=C3=A9rieure de justice a conclu que la = disposition=20 contrevient =C3=A0 la libert=C3=A9 de conscience et de religion, =C3=A0 = la libert=C3=A9 de pens=C3=A9e,=20 de croyance, d'opinion et d'expression et =C3=A0 la libert=C3=A9 = d=E2=80=99association, garanties=20 par les art. 2a), b) et d) de la Charte = canadienne=20 des droits et libert=C3=A9s. Il a statu=C3=A9 que la r=C3=A9paration = appropri=C3=A9e serait de=20 retrancher la division 83.01(1)b)(i)(A) de = l=E2=80=99art. 83.01. =20

Le=20 jugement d=C3=A9claratoire rendu en l=E2=80=99instance = n=E2=80=99=C3=A9tant pas sujet =C3=A0 appel, M. Khawaja=20 demande l=E2=80=99autorisation de se pourvoir directement devant la Cour = supr=C3=AAme du=20 Canada. Le minist=C3=A8re public intim=C3=A9 conteste la comp=C3=A9tence = de la Cour.

24 octobre 2006

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure de justice de = l'Ontario

(Juge Douglas = Rutherford)

Demande visant =C3=A0 obtenir un = jugement d=C3=A9claratoire,=20 accueillie en partie

27 d=C3=A9cembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31790 = =20 S=C3=A9curit=C3=A9 Kolossal Inc. = c. Union des=20 agents de s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9 du Qu=C3=A9bec et M=C3=A9tallurgistes Unis = d=E2=80=99Am=C3=A9rique, section locale=20 8922 (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation)

Coram : = Les juges Bastarache, LeBel et = Fish

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al), num=C3=A9ro = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91016870=E2=80=91065, dat=C3=A9 du 6 novembre=20 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e avec d=C3=A9pens.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91016870=E2=80=91065,=20 dated November 6, 2006, is dismissed with costs.

CASE SUMMARY

(Publication = Ban)

Labour law =E2=80=94 Administrative law = =E2=80=94 Judicial review =E2=80=94=20 Standard of review =E2=80=94 Quebec civil law =E2=80=94 Superior force = =E2=80=94 Employees dismissed=20 after contract for services between employer and third party resiliated = without=20 notice =E2=80=94 Employer relying on superior force under Civil Code = of Qu=C3=A9bec to=20 withhold termination pay in lieu of notice provided for in collective = agreement=20 =E2=80=94 Standard of review applicable to grievances = arbitrator=E2=80=99s decision based in=20 part on interpretation of concept from general law =E2=80=94 Whether = arbitrator=20 misinterpreted criterion of irresistibility of superior force =E2=80=94 = Civil Code of=20 Qu=C3=A9bec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1470.

The=20 Applicant is a company that specializes in providing security = services. In=20 early 2004, it entered into a contract with the Canadian Air Transport = Security=20 Authority (CATSA) under which it undertook to supply qualified staff to = provide=20 security screening services in several airports. A clause in the = contract=20 allowed CATSA to resiliate the contract on 30 days=E2=80=99 = notice. On=20 June 22, 2004, CATSA told the Applicant it was resiliating the = contract the=20 same day but offered to limit the resiliation to the Mirabel and Dorval = airports=20 if the Applicant waived the 30 days=E2=80=99 notice, which the = Applicant agreed to=20 do. The Applicant=E2=80=99s employees working at Mirabel and = Dorval were=20 immediately dismissed. The Applicant refused to give them the pay = in lieu=20 of notice provided for in the collective agreement, relying on superior = force=20 under art. 1470 of the Civil Code of Qu=C3=A9bec on the = basis that the=20 resiliation of its contract without notice was an unforeseeable and = irresistible=20 event that made the performance of its obligation impossible. The=20 Respondent, which represented the dismissed employees, filed grievances = against=20 the failure to pay the employees in lieu of giving them notice of=20 termination. The arbitrator found that the resiliation was not=20 irresistible, allowed the grievances and ordered the Applicant to = compensate the=20 employees. Applying the standard of patent unreasonableness, the = Superior=20 Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court of = Appeal=20 refused to grant the Applicant leave to appeal.

September 19, 2005

Tribunal d=E2=80=99arbitrage

(Arbitrator Claude = Lauzon)

Grievances allowed and award made = ordering payment=20 of two weeks=E2=80=99 wages to terminated = employees

June 12, 2006

Quebec Superior Court

(Monast J.)

Application for judicial review=20 dismissed

November 6, 2006

Quebec Court of Appeal = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Dufresne J.A.)

Leave to appeal refused

January 5, 2007

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

(Ordonnance de=20 non-publication)

Droit du travail =E2=80=94 Droit administratif = =E2=80=94 Contr=C3=B4le=20 judiciaire =E2=80=94 Norme de contr=C3=B4le =E2=80=94 Droit civil = qu=C3=A9b=C3=A9cois =E2=80=94 Force majeure =E2=80=94=20 Employ=C3=A9s cong=C3=A9di=C3=A9s =C3=A0 la suite de la r=C3=A9siliation = sans pr=C3=A9avis d=E2=80=99un contrat de=20 service entre l=E2=80=99employeur et un tiers =E2=80=94 Employeur = invoquant la force majeure aux=20 termes du Code civil du Qu=C3=A9bec pour ne pas verser = l=E2=80=99indemnit=C3=A9 de=20 licenciement tenant lieu de pr=C3=A9avis stipul=C3=A9e dans la = convention collective =E2=80=94=20 Quelle est la norme de contr=C3=B4le applicable =C3=A0 la d=C3=A9cision = d=E2=80=99un arbitre des griefs=20 fond=C3=A9e en partie sur l=E2=80=99interpr=C3=A9tation d=E2=80=99une = notion de droit commun? =E2=80=94 L=E2=80=99arbitre=20 a-t-il mal interpr=C3=A9t=C3=A9 le crit=C3=A8re = d=E2=80=99irr=C3=A9sistibilit=C3=A9 de la force majeure? =E2=80=94=20 Code civil du Qu=C3=A9bec, L.Q. 1991, ch. 64, = art. 1470.

La=20 demanderesse est une entreprise sp=C3=A9cialis=C3=A9e dans le domaine de = la=20 s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9. Au d=C3=A9but de l=E2=80=99ann=C3=A9e 2004, = elle s=E2=80=99engage par contrat envers=20 l=E2=80=99Administration canadienne de la s=C3=BBret=C3=A9 du transport = a=C3=A9rien (ACSTA), =C3=A0 lui=20 fournir du personnel qualifi=C3=A9 pour assurer les services de = contr=C3=B4le de s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9=20 dans plusieurs a=C3=A9roports. Une clause du contrat permet =C3=A0 = l=E2=80=99ACSTA de r=C3=A9silier le=20 contrat moyennant un pr=C3=A9avis de 30 jours. Le 22 juin 2004, = l=E2=80=99ACSTA annonce=20 =C3=A0 la demanderesse qu=E2=80=99elle r=C3=A9silie le contrat le jour = m=C3=AAme, mais lui offre de=20 limiter la r=C3=A9siliation aux a=C3=A9roports de Mirabel et Dorval = =C3=A0 condition qu=E2=80=99elle=20 renonce au pr=C3=A9avis de 30 jours, ce que la demanderesse accepte. Les = employ=C3=A9s de=20 la demanderesse travaillant =C3=A0 Mirabel et =C3=A0 Dorval sont = cong=C3=A9di=C3=A9s=20 sur-le-champ. La demanderesse refuse de leur verser = l=E2=80=99indemnit=C3=A9 tenant=20 lieu de pr=C3=A9avis pr=C3=A9vue par la convention collective en = invoquant la force=20 majeure aux termes de l=E2=80=99art. 1470 du Code civil du = Qu=C3=A9bec parce que,=20 selon elle, la r=C3=A9siliation sans pr=C3=A9avis de son contrat est un = =C3=A9v=C3=A9nement=20 impr=C3=A9visible et irr=C3=A9sistible qui rend impossible = l=E2=80=99ex=C3=A9cution de son=20 obligation. L=E2=80=99intim=C3=A9e, qui repr=C3=A9sente les = employ=C3=A9s licenci=C3=A9s, d=C3=A9pose des=20 griefs pour non-paiement du pr=C3=A9avis de licenciement. = L=E2=80=99arbitre conclut que=20 la r=C3=A9siliation n=E2=80=99=C3=A9tait pas irr=C3=A9sistible, = accueille les griefs et ordonne =C3=A0 la=20 demanderesse d=E2=80=99indemniser les employ=C3=A9s. La Cour = sup=C3=A9rieure rejette la=20 requ=C3=AAte en r=C3=A9vision judiciaire en se fondant sur la norme de = la d=C3=A9cision=20 manifestement d=C3=A9raisonnable. La Cour d=E2=80=99appel refuse = d=E2=80=99accorder la=20 permission d=E2=80=99appeler =C3=A0 la demanderesse.

Le 19 septembre 2005

Tribunal d=E2=80=99arbitrage

(L=E2=80=99arbitre Claude = Lauzon)

Griefs accueillis. Sentence = ordonnant le=20 paiement de deux semaines de salaire aux employ=C3=A9s=20 licenci=C3=A9s.

12 juin 2006

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du = Qu=C3=A9bec

(La juge Monast)

Requ=C3=AAte en r=C3=A9vision judiciaire = rejet=C3=A9e

6 novembre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Le juge Dufresne)

Permission d=E2=80=99appeler = refus=C3=A9e

5 janvier 2007

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31793 = =20 Wang Li v. Huang Jiefang = (Que.)=20 (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91017018=E2=80=91060,=20 dated November 8, 2006, is dismissed without costs.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al), num=C3=A9ro = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91017018=E2=80=91060, dat=C3=A9 du 8 novembre=20 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e sans d=C3=A9pens.

CASE SUMMARY

Civil procedure =E2=80=93 Appeals =E2=80=93 = Whether the Court of Appeal=20 erred in finding that the appeal had no chance of success.

In=20 November 2005, Huang Limited Partnership, purporting to be the assignee = of the=20 rights and interests of the respondent Jiefang Huang, instituted an = action to=20 bring an end to the state of indivision existing with the applicant Wang = Li and=20 with Chen Xiaojing, with respect to a property. Huang Ltd. also sought = judgment=20 against Li and Xiaojing for $114,313.13 representing the balance of an=20 unguaranteed loan of $125,000 initially made by Huang to purchase the = property.=20

Huang argued that the loan was temporary. The = property=20 was supposed to quickly appreciate in value and then be sold. He felt = that Li=20 and Xiaojing were delaying the sale, and so took the procedures after = assigning=20 the rights to Huang Ltd. Li and Xiaojing contested the assignment of = interest=20 and argued that a term of 25 years concerning the loan had been verbally = agreed=20 upon. Furthermore, they contended that they had bought Huang=E2=80=99s = share of the=20 property for $4,350.93 in February 2005.

At=20 trial, the judge noted that he was given permission by all parties to = solve the=20 case based on equity. He determined that the assignment by Huang to = Huang Ltd.=20 was contrary to a written agreement. He also determined that Li = and=20 Xiaojing owed, jointly and severally, a debt totalling $114,313.13, and = that=20 they had wrongly assumed that the loan was to be repaid over 25 years. = He ended=20 the indivision, ordered the partition of the property in accordance with = the=20 rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, and designated a bailiff to = sell=20 the property in light of procedures instituted against the property by a = creditor. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that it = had no=20 chance of success.

August 8, 2006

Superior Court of Quebec

(Casgrain J.)

Respondent=E2=80=99s action = granted

November 8, 2006

Court of Appeal of Quebec = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Baudouin, Dussault, and Hilton=20 JJ.A.)

Respondent=E2=80=99s motion to dismiss = granted; appeal=20 dismissed

January 5, 2007

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Proc=C3=A9dure civile =E2=80=93 Appels = =E2=80=93 La Cour d=E2=80=99appel a-t-elle=20 fait une erreur en concluant que l=E2=80=99appel ne pr=C3=A9sentait = aucune chance de=20 succ=C3=A8s?

En=20 novembre 2005, Huang Limited Partnership, se disant cessionnaire des = droits et=20 int=C3=A9r=C3=AAts de l=E2=80=99intim=C3=A9 Jiefang Huang, a = intent=C3=A9 une action visant =C3=A0 mettre fin =C3=A0=20 l=E2=80=99=C3=A9tat d=E2=80=99indivision avec la demanderesse = M^me Wang Li et=20 M^me Chen Xiaojing, =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99=C3=A9gard d=E2=80=99une = propri=C3=A9t=C3=A9. Huang Ltd. voulait=20 aussi faire condamner M^mes Li et Xiaojing au paiement = d=E2=80=99une somme de=20 114 313,13 $, correspondant au solde d=E2=80=99un pr=C3=AAt = non garanti de=20 125 000 $ fait au d=C3=A9part par M. Huang pour = l=E2=80=99acquisition de la=20 propri=C3=A9t=C3=A9.

Monsieur Huang soutenait que le pr=C3=AAt = =C3=A9tait temporaire.=20 On pensait que la valeur de la propri=C3=A9t=C3=A9 augmenterait = rapidement et qu=E2=80=99elle=20 serait alors vendue. Monsieur Huang ayant l=E2=80=99impression que = M^mes=20 Li et Xiaojing retardaient la vente, il a intent=C3=A9 l=E2=80=99action = apr=C3=A8s avoir c=C3=A9d=C3=A9 les=20 droits =C3=A0 Huang Ltd. Mesdames Li et Xiaojing ont contest=C3=A9 la = cession des int=C3=A9r=C3=AAts=20 et ont soutenu qu=E2=80=99une dur=C3=A9e de 25 ans avait =C3=A9t=C3=A9 = convenue verbalement =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99=C3=A9gard=20 du pr=C3=AAt. Ils ont soutenu en outre avoir achet=C3=A9 en f=C3=A9vrier = 2005, pour la somme de=20 4 350,93 $, la part de M. Huang dans la = propri=C3=A9t=C3=A9.

Au=20 proc=C3=A8s, le juge a signal=C3=A9 qu=E2=80=99il avait =C3=A9t=C3=A9 = autoris=C3=A9 par toutes les parties =C3=A0=20 trancher le litige en se fondant sur l=E2=80=99=C3=A9quit=C3=A9. Il a = conclu que la cession=20 effectu=C3=A9e par M. Huang en faveur de Huang Ltd. =C3=A9tait = contraire =C3=A0 une=20 entente =C3=A9crite. Il a =C3=A9galement conclu que = M^mes Li et Xiaojing=20 avaient, solidairement, une dette se montant =C3=A0 = 114 313,13 $ et qu=E2=80=99ils=20 avaient pr=C3=A9sum=C3=A9 =C3=A0 tort que le pr=C3=AAt =C3=A9tait = remboursable sur une dur=C3=A9e de 25 ans.=20 Il a mis fin =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99indivision, ordonn=C3=A9 le partage de la = propri=C3=A9t=C3=A9 en conformit=C3=A9=20 avec les r=C3=A8gles du Code de proc=C3=A9dure civile et a = charg=C3=A9 un huissier de=20 vendre la propri=C3=A9t=C3=A9 =C3=A0 la lumi=C3=A8re de l=E2=80=99action = relative =C3=A0 la propri=C3=A9t=C3=A9 intent=C3=A9e=20 par un cr=C3=A9ancier. La Cour d=E2=80=99appel a rejet=C3=A9 = l=E2=80=99appel au motif qu=E2=80=99il ne pr=C3=A9sentait=20 aucune chance de succ=C3=A8s.

8 ao=C3=BBt 2006

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du = Qu=C3=A9bec

(Juge Casgrain)

Action de l=E2=80=99intim=C3=A9 = accueillie

8 novembre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Juges Baudouin, Dussault et = Hilton)

Requ=C3=AAte de l=E2=80=99intim=C3=A9 en = rejet d=E2=80=99appel accueillie;=20 appel rejet=C3=A9

5 janvier 2007

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

31797 = =20 Rune Brattas v. 9088=E2=80=912895 = Quebec=20 Inc. (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Coram : = Bastarache, LeBel and Fish=20 JJ.

The application for leave to appeal from = the=20 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91017131=E2=80=91061,=20 dated October 24, 2006, is dismissed without costs.

La demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel de l=E2=80=99arr=C3=AAt de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec (Montr=C3=A9al), num=C3=A9ro = 500=E2=80=9109=E2=80=91017131=E2=80=91061, dat=C3=A9 du 24 octobre=20 2006, est rejet=C3=A9e sans d=C3=A9pens.

CASE SUMMARY

Civil procedure =E2=80=93 Subpoena duces = tecum quashed =E2=80=93=20 Appeal =E2=80=93 Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal = dismissed =E2=80=93 Whether=20 the judge of the Court of Appeal erred in refusing leave to = appeal.

Subpoenas were served on Mireault J. and = Dalphond J.A.,=20 requesting them to testify and to bring with them documents in order = that they=20 be examined on judgments they rendered in a case involving Mr. Brattas. = On=20 application by Mireault J. and Dalphond J.A., Tardif J. quashed the = subpoenas.=20 Doyon J.A. dismissed Mr. Brattas=E2=80=99 motion for leave to appeal on = the grounds that=20 an appeal had no chance of success.

September 26, 2006

Superior Court of Quebec

(Tardif J.)

Motions to quash subpoenas=20 granted

October 24, 2006

Court of Appeal of Quebec = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Doyon J.A.)

Motion for leave to appeal=20 dismissed

December 27, 2006

Supreme Court of Canada

Application for leave to appeal=20 filed

R=C3=89SUM=C3=89 DE = L=E2=80=99AFFAIRE

Proc=C3=A9dure civile =E2=80=93 Annulation = d=E2=80=99un bref de=20 subpoena duces tecum =E2=80=93 Appel =E2=80=93 = Requ=C3=AAte pour permission d=E2=80=99appeler=20 aupr=C3=A8s de la Cour d=E2=80=99appel rejet=C3=A9e =E2=80=93 Le juge de = la Cour d=E2=80=99appel a-t-il commis une=20 erreur en refusant d=E2=80=99accorder la permission = d=E2=80=99appeler?

Des=20 brefs de subpoena ont =C3=A9t=C3=A9 signifi=C3=A9s aux juges = Mireault et Dalphond de la=20 Cour d=E2=80=99appel, par lesquels il leur =C3=A9tait ordonn=C3=A9 de = t=C3=A9moigner et de produire des=20 documents afin d=E2=80=99=C3=AAtre interrog=C3=A9s au sujet de jugements = qu=E2=80=99ils ont rendus dans=20 une affaire concernant M. Brattas. =C3=80 la suite d=E2=80=99une = requ=C3=AAte des juges=20 Mireault et Dalphond, le juge Tardif a annul=C3=A9 les brefs de = subpoena. Le=20 juge Doyon de la Cour d=E2=80=99appel a rejet=C3=A9 la requ=C3=AAte de = M. Brattas pour=20 permission d=E2=80=99appeler, au motif que l=E2=80=99appel ne = pr=C3=A9sentait aucune chance=20 raisonnable de succ=C3=A8s.

26 septembre2006

Cour sup=C3=A9rieure du Qu=C3=A9bec =

(Juge Tardif)

Requ=C3=AAtes en annulation de bref de = subpoena=20 accord=C3=A9es

24 octobre 2006

Cour d=E2=80=99appel du Qu=C3=A9bec = (Montr=C3=A9al)

(Juge Doyon)

Requ=C3=AAte pour permission = d=E2=80=99appeler=20 rejet=C3=A9e

27 d=C3=A9cembre 2006

Cour supr=C3=AAme du = Canada

Demande d=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99appel=20 d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9e

MOTIONS

REQU=C3=8ATES

27.3.2007

Before / Devant : ABELLA J.

Motion to extend the time in which to = serve and=20 file the respondent=E2=80=99s=20 record, factum and book of authorities to March 1, 2007, and to = present=20 oral argument at the hearing of the appeal

Andre Omar Steele

v. (31447)

Her Majesty the Queen =20 (Crim.)(B.C.)

Requ=C3=AAte de l=E2=80=99intim=C3=A9e = en prorogation du d=C3=A9lai de=20 signification et de d=C3=A9p=C3=B4t de ses dossier, m=C3=A9moire = et recueil de sources=20 jusqu=E2=80=99au 1^er mars 2007 et en vue de = pr=C3=A9senter une plaidoirie=20 orale lors de l=E2=80=99audition de = l=E2=80=99appel

GRANTED / ACCORD=C3=89E

29.3.2007

Before / Devant : THE DEPUTY = REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to = serve and=20 file the respondent=E2=80=99s=20 response

Mark Rex Kakekagamick

v. (31826)

Her Majesty the Queen = (Crim.)=20 (Ont.)

Requ=C3=AAte en=20 prorogation du d=C3=A9lai=20 de signification et de d=C3=A9p=C3=B4t de=20 la r=C3=A9ponse de l=E2=80=99intim=C3=A9e

GRANTED / ACCORD=C3=89E Time extended to March 12, 2007.

30.3.2007

Before / Devant : THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to state a constitutional = question=20

John Michael Kapp, et al.

v. (31603)

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

Requ=C3=AAte en=20 formulation d=E2=80=99une=20 question constitutionnelle

UPON APPLICATION by the appellants for an order stating = constitutional=20 questions in the above appeal;

AND HAVING READ=20 the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL = QUESTIONS=20 BE STATED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Do = ss.=20 5(1)(l) and 6 of the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licenses=20 Regulations, SOR/93-332, section 35(2) of the Fishery (General)=20 Regulations, SOR/93-53 and Licence No. FRD-98-CL278/MBT, to the = extent that=20 they permit fishing salmon for the purpose of sale, infringe s. 15(1) of = the=20 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

2. If = so, is the=20 infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably = justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian = Charter=20 of Rights and Freedoms?

3. Are = ss.=20 5(1)(l) and 6 of the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licenses=20 Regulations, SOR/93-332, section 35(2) of the Fishery (General)=20 Regulations, SOR/93-53 and Licence No. FRD-98-CL278/MBT, to the = extent that=20 they permit fishing salmon for the purpose of sale, intra vires=20 Parliament pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867?

1. = =20 Dans la mesure o=C3=B9 ils autorisent la p=C3=AAche au saumon aux fins = de vente, l=E2=80=99al.=20 5(1)l) et l=E2=80=99art. 6 du R=C3=A8glement sur les = permis de p=C3=AAche=20 communautaires des Autochtones, DORS/93-332, le par. 35(2) du=20 R=C3=A8glement de p=C3=AAche (dispositions g=C3=A9n=C3=A9rales), = DORS/93-53, et le permis=20 n^o FRD-98-CL278/MBT contreviennent-ils au par. 15(1) de = la=20 Charte canadienne des droits = et=20 libert=C3=A9s?

2. = =20 Dans l=E2=80=99affirmative, cette contravention = constitue=E2=80=91t=E2=80=91elle une limite raisonnable=20 qui est prescrite par une r=C3=A8gle de droit et dont la justification = peut se=20 d=C3=A9montrer dans le cadre d'une soci=C3=A9t=C3=A9 libre et = d=C3=A9mocratique, au sens de=20 l'article premier de la Charte canadienne des droits et=20 libert=C3=A9s?

3. = =20 Dans la mesure o=C3=B9 ils autorisent la p=C3=AAche au saumon aux fins = de vente, l=E2=80=99al.=20 5(1)l) et l=E2=80=99art. 6 du R=C3=A8glement sur les = permis de p=C3=AAche=20 communautaires des Autochtones, DORS/93-332, le par. 35(2) du=20 R=C3=A8glement de p=C3=AAche (dispositions g=C3=A9n=C3=A9rales), = DORS/93-53, et le permis=20 n^o FRD-98-CL278/MBT rel=C3=A8vent-ils de la = comp=C3=A9tence que la Loi=20 constitutionnelle de 1867 conf=C3=A8re au Parlement?

30.3.2007

Before / Devant : CHARRON J.

Motion to produce transcripts and to = extend the=20 time to serve and file for application for leave

Melba Florine Manson, Estate of Hugh = Acel Manson,=20 et al.

v. (31951)

Department of Justice for Canada, et = al. =20 (Alta.)

Requ=C3=AAte en vue de produire des = transcriptions et=20 en prorogation du d=C3=A9lai de signification et de = d=C3=A9p=C3=B4t de la demande=20 d=E2=80=99autorisation d=E2=80=99appel

UPON APPLICATION by the applicants for an order to produce = transcripts=20 and for an order to extend the time to apply for leave to = appeal.

AND HAVING READ=20 the material filed;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1)=20 The motion to produce transcripts is dismissed.

2)=20 The applicants must serve and file the notice of application for leave = to appeal=20 and all supporting material by April 30, 2007.

=C3=80=20 LA SUITE DE LA REQU=C3=8ATE pr=C3=A9sent=C3=A9e par les demandeurs en = vue d=E2=80=99obtenir une=20 ordonnance intimant la production des transcriptions ainsi = qu=E2=80=99une ordonnance=20 prorogeant le d=C3=A9lai imparti pour demander l=E2=80=99autorisation = d=E2=80=99interjeter=20 appel;

ET APR=C3=88S EXAMEN=20 des documents d=C3=A9pos=C3=A9s,

IL EST PAR LA PR=C3=89SENTE ORDONN=C3=89 CE = QUI SUIT=20 :

1)=20 La requ=C3=AAte solllicitant la production des transcriptions est = rejet=C3=A9e.

2)=20 Les demandeurs soivent signifier et d=C3=A9poser l=E2=80=99avis de = demande d=E2=80=99autorisation=20 d=E2=80=99appel et tous les documents appuyant cette demande au plus = tard le 30 avril=20 2007.

02.4.2007

Before / Devant : THE DEPUTY = REGISTRAR

Motion to extend the time in which to = serve and=20 file the respondent=E2=80=99s=20 response to the application for leave to appeal

Stephen Peckhover

v. (31839)

Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.)=20 (Ont.)

Requ=C3=AAte en prorogation du = d=C3=A9lai de signification=20 et de d=C3=A9p=C3=B4t de la r=C3=A9ponse de l=E2=80=99intim=C3=A9e = =C3=A0 la demande d=E2=80=99autorisation=20 d=E2=80=99appel

GRANTED / ACCORD=C3=89E Time extended to February 22, = 2007.

NOTICES OF = APPEAL FILED=20 SINCE LAST ISSUE

AVIS = D=E2=80=99APPEL D=C3=89POS=C3=89S=20 DEPUIS LA DERNI=C3=88RE = PARUTION

= =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20

26.03.2007

Donald Norman Evans

v. (31733)

Teamsters Local Union No. 31 = (Y.T.)

(By=20 Leave)

29.03.2007

Mihaly Illes

v. (31954)

Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

(As=20 of Right)

= =20 = =20 = =20 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SCHEDULE=20

= =20 = =20 = =20 CALENDRIER DE LA = COUR=20 SUPREME

=20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 =20 - = 2006=20 - =20

OCTOBER -=20 OCTOBRE

NOVEMBER=20 - NOVEMBRE

DECEMBER=20 - DECEMBRE

=20 3

=20 4

=20

=20 1

=20 2

=20 5

=20 7 = =20

=20 8

=20 9

=20 10

=20 11

=20 M 4

=20 5

=20 6

=20 7

=20 8

=20 9

=20 H 13

=20 14

=20 15 =

=20 16

=20 17

=20 18

= =20

=20 10

=20 11

=20 12

=20 13

=20 14

=20 15

=20 16

=20 19

=20 20

=20 21

=20 22 =

=20 23 =

=20 24

=20 25

=20 18

=20 19

=20 20

=20 21

=20 22

=20 23

= 29

=20 30

=20 31

=20 26

=20 27 =20

=20 28

= =20

=20 30

=20 =20

24 = =20 31

=20 H 25

=20 H 26

=20 27

=20 28

=20 29

=20 =20 30

=20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 = =20 - 2007 = -

JANUARY -=20 JANVIER

FEBRUARY=20 - F=C3=89VRIER

MARCH -=20 MARS

=20 H 1

=20 2

=20 3

= =20

=20 5

= =20

=20 1

=20 22

=20 23

=20 24

=20 27

=20 28

=20 =20

=20 26

=20 27

=20 28

=20 29

= =20

APRIL -=20 AVRIL

MAY -=20 MAI

JUNE -=20 JUIN

=20 1

=20 2

=20 3

=20 4

=20 5

=20 30

=20 31

Sittings of the=20 court:

S=C3=A9ances de la=20 cour:

18 sitting = weeks/semaines=20 s=C3=A9ances de la cour = =20

87 sitting = days/journ=C3=A9es=20 s=C3=A9ances de la cour = =20

9 motion = and=20 conference days/ journ=C3=A9es = =20

= =20 requ=C3=AAtes.conf=C3=A9rences = =20 =20 =

3 = holidays during=20 sitting days/ jours f=C3=A9ri=C3=A9s = =20

= =20 durant les sessions = =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =

Motions:

Requ=C3=AAtes:

Holidays:

Jours = f=C3=A9ri=C3=A9s:

= H

Home
Contact = Us
Important = Notices
Mailing = Lists
Advanced= =20 Search
Fran=C3=A7ais=20