1SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN LEAVE APPLICATIONS
OTTAWA, 2012-02-20. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT IN THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45 A.M. EST ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2012. THIS LIST IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995-4330
COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA -- PROCHAINS JUGEMENTS SUR DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION
OTTAWA, 2012-02-20. LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA ANNONCE QUE JUGEMENT SERA RENDU DANS LES DEMANDES D’AUTORISATION D’APPEL SUIVANTES LE JEUDI 23 FÉVRIER 2012, À 9 H 45 HNE. CETTE LISTE EST SUJETTE À MODIFICATIONS.
SOURCE: COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA (613) 995-4330
COMMENTS/COMMENTAIRES: comments-commentaires@scc-csc.gc.ca
Note for subscribers:
The summaries of the cases are available at http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca:
Click on Cases and on SCC Case Information, type in the Case Number and press Search. Click on the Case Number on the Search Results screen, and when the docket screen appears, click on “Summary” which will appear in the left column.
Alternatively, click on
http://scc.lexum.org/en/news_release/2012/12-02-20.2a/12-02-20.2a.html
Note pour les abonnés :
Les sommaires des causes sont affichés à l’adresse http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca :
Cliquez sur « Dossiers », puis sur « Renseignements sur les dossiers ». Tapez le no de dossier et appuyez sur « Recherche ». Cliquez sur le no du dossier dans les Résultats de la recherche pour accéder au Registre. Cliquez enfin sur le lien menant au « Sommaire » qui figure dans la colonne de gauche.
Autre façon de procéder : Cliquer sur
http://scc.lexum.org/fr/news_release/2012/12-02-20.2a/12-02-20.2a.html
Kaitlyn Ruth Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (34352)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia as represented by Al Hoffman, Chief Inspector of Mines et al. v. Chief Roland Willson on his Own Behalf and on Behalf of all the Members of West Moberly First Nations et al.(B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34403)
Jigarkumar Patel v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34411)
Richard Rondel v. Kelly Anne Robinson (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34435)
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. Ministry of Energy et al. (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34154)
Jeffrey Lipsitz et al. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34439)
James Whelan v. Woodbine Entertainment Group (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34327)
Nancy-Gay Rotstein, et al. v. Lawrence Jerome Berk Smith, Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Ruth Dorothea Smith (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34476)
Pavitar Singh Bajwa v. British Colombia Veterinary Medical Association (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34434)
Cassidy Alexis Ediger, an infant by her guardian Ad Litem, Carolyn Grace Ediger v. William G. Johnston (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34408)
Sa Majesté la Reine c. Alphide Manning (Qc) (Criminelle) (Autorisation) (34358)
Mikel (Mehrdad) Golzarian c. Association des policiers provinciaux du Québec et autres (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation) (34503)
Jacynthe Deschênes c. Banque Canadienne Impériale de Commerce (C.F.) (Civile) (Autorisation) (34453)
Sylvie P. Hébert c. Jean T. Lacroix (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation) (34374)
Daniel W. Onischuk v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta et al. (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34528)
34352
|
Kaitlyn Ruth Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen
(Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
|
Criminal law — Driving offences — Evidence — Standard of proof — Business records — Medical records — Exception to rule of inadmissibility of hearsay evidence — Crown tendering record of hospital blood analysis results as prima facie proof of its contents in impaired driving case — Does any business record admitted into a criminal trial pursuant to s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 5 (the “Act”) automatically constitute presumptive proof (i.e. prima facie proof beyond a reasonable doubt) of its contents — Does a record produced by a machine (such as a blood — alcohol reading produced in a hospital) automatically constitute prima facie proof beyond a reasonable doubt of its contents just by entry into a criminal trial pursuant to s. 30 of the Act.
|
|
The applicant was the driver of an automobile involved in a single vehicle accident. She was seriously injured and one of the four passengers was killed. Blood and other samples were taken from her in hospital for the purpose of medical treatment and analysis. The police obtained the records showing the results of the sample analyses (the “toxicology report”). The applicant was charged with dangerous driving causing death, impaired driving causing death, driving with more than 80 mg of alcohol to 100 mg of blood in her system and taking a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, contrary to sections 249(4), 255(3), 253(1)(b) and 335 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46.
The Crown tendered the toxicology report at trial and relied on it as prima facie evidence of its contents. The trial judge admitted the evidence contained in the toxicology report under s. 30 of the Act and held that the report only proved the truth of its contents on a balance of probabilities. Because the Crown had failed to call evidence establishing the reliability of the hospital’s analysis of the applicant’s blood alcohol level, it had failed to prove that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The applicant was acquitted of the over .08 charge and the charges of dangerous driving and impaired driving causing death, but was convicted of taking a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the first three charges.
|
April 10, 2010
Provincial Court of Alberta
(Debow J.)
|
|
Applicant acquitted of counts of impaired driving causing death, dangerous driving causing death and driving with more than 80 mg of alcohol to 100 ml of blood in her system; conviction for of taking a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent
|
May 11, 2011
Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary)
(Fraser, Martin and Bielby JJ.A.)
2011 ABCA 136; 1001 0132 A
|
|
Appeal allowed; Acquittals quashed and new trial ordered on all three counts
|
July 27, 2011
Supreme Court of Canada
|
|
Application for leave to appeal filed
|
34352
|
Kaitlyn Ruth Smith c. Sa Majesté la Reine
(Alb.) (Criminelle) (Autorisation)
|
Droit criminel — Infractions en matière de conduite automobile — Preuve — Norme de preuve — Pièces commerciales — Dossiers médicaux — Exception à la règle d'inadmissibilité de la preuve par ouï dire — Le ministère public a déposé le relevé des résultats de l'analyse de sang effectuée à l'hôpital comme preuve prima facie de son contenu dans une affaire de conduite avec facultés affaiblies — Une pièce commerciale admise à un procès criminel en application de l'art. 30 de la Loi sur la preuve au Canada, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C 5 (la « Loi ») constitue t elle automatiquement une preuve par présomption (c'est à dire une preuve prima facie hors de tout doute raisonnable) de son contenu? — Une pièce produite par une machine (par exemple, un relevé d'alcoolémie produit dans un hôpital) constitue t elle automatiquement une preuve prima facie hors de tout doute raisonnable de son contenu du seul fait qu'elle est introduite à un procès criminel en application de l'art. 30 de la Loi?
|
|
La demanderesse était la conductrice d'une automobile impliquée dans un accident de la route à un seul véhicule. Elle a été grièvement blessée est un des quatre passagers a été tué. Des échantillons de sang et d'autres échantillons ont été prélevés sur elle à l'hôpital pour fins de traitement médical et d’analyse. La police a obtenu les pièces indiquant les résultats des analyses d'échantillons (le « rapport de toxicologie »). La demanderesse a été accusée de conduite dangereuse causant la mort, de conduite avec facultés affaiblies causant la mort, de conduite alors que son alcoolémie dépassait 80 mg d'alcool par 100 mg de sang et d'avoir pris un véhicule à moteur sans le consentement du propriétaire, contrairement aux articles 249(4), 255(3), 253(1)b) et 335 du Code criminel, L.R.C. 1985, ch. C 46.
Le ministère public a déposé le rapport de toxicologie au procès et s’est appuyé sur ce rapport comme preuve prima facie de son contenu. Le juge du procès a admis la preuve contenue dans le rapport de toxicologie en application de l'art. 30 de la Loi et a statué que le rapport ne prouvait la véracité de son contenu que selon la prépondérance des probabilités. Parce que le ministère public avait omis de présenter une preuve établissant la fiabilité de l'analyse effectuée à l’hôpital du taux d'alcoolémie de la demanderesse, il n'avait pas prouvé ce fait hors de tout doute raisonnable. La demanderesse a été acquittée relativement à l'accusation de taux d'alcoolémie supérieur à ,08 et aux accusations de conduite dangereuse et de conduite avec facultés affaiblies causant la mort, mais a été déclarée coupable d'avoir pris un véhicule à moteur sans le consentement du propriétaire. La Cour d'appel de l'Alberta a accueilli l'appel et a ordonné la tenue d'un nouveau procès sur les trois premières accusations.
|
10 avril 2010
Cour provinciale de l'Alberta
(Juge Debow)
|
|
Demanderesse acquittée sous les chefs d'accusation de conduite dangereuse causant la mort, de conduite avec facultés affaiblies causant la mort et de conduite alors que son taux d'alcoolémie dépassait 80 mg d'alcool par 100 mg de sang; elle est déclarée coupable d'avoir pris un véhicule à moteur sans le consentement du propriétaire
|
11 mai 2011
Cour d'appel de l'Alberta (Calgary)
(Juges Fraser, Martin et Bielby)
2011 ABCA 136; 1001 0132 A
|
|
Appel accueilli; acquittements annulés et nouveaux procès ordonné sous les trois chefs
|
27 juillet 2011
Cour suprême du Canada
|
|
Demande d'autorisation d'appel, déposée
|
34403
|
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia as Represented by Al Hoffman, Chief Inspector of Mines, Victor Koyanagi, Inspector of Mines, and Dale Morgan, District Manager, Peace Forest District v. Chief Roland Willson on his Own Behalf and on Behalf of all the Members of West Moberly First Nations and the West Moberly First Nations,
- and between -
First Coal Corporation v. Chief Roland Willson on his Own Behalf and on Behalf of all the Members of West Moberly First Nations and the West Moberly First Nations
(B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)
|
Constitutional law – Aboriginal rights – Crown – Honour of Crown – Duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to decisions that might adversely affect their Aboriginal rights and title claims – Did the majority of the Court of Appeal err in their characterization of Treaty 8 rights, effectively applying a “frozen in time” approach to treaty interpretation? – Did the majority of the Court of Appeal properly interpret the interplay of constitutional duty and statutory authority in determining the required scope of and on that basis the reasonableness of the Crown’s consultation process? – Did the majority of the Court of Appeal fail to adhere to the direction of this court in, Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. V. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 650 in their consideration of the implications of past events in determining the reasonableness of the Crown consultation process?
In 2009, government officials from the first applicant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia (“BC”) issued a timber licence to cut and two amendments to an existing mining permit to allow the second applicant First Coal Corporation (“FCC”) to obtain bulk coal samples and engage in exploration drilling, on land claimed by the Aboriginal respondents West Moberly First Nations (“WMFN”) as their traditional hunting grounds under Treaty 8. WMFN sought judicial review of these decisions, alleging they were made without proper consultation, and without consideration of their Treaty 8 rights and the impact on a caribou herd. The Supreme Court of British Columbia chambers judge allowed WMFN’s application for judicial review, and suspended one of the amended mining permits and the licence to cut for 90 days, ordering the Crown to implement a program during this period for caribou herd protection and restoration as an accommodation measure. A majority of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed BC’s appeal, but substituted a different remedy, ordering a stay of one of the permit amendment and the licence to cut pending meaningful consultation, and setting aside the specific accommodation measure directed by the chambers judge.
|
|
March 19, 2010
Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Williamson J.)
2010 BCSC 359
|
|
Application for judicial review by respondents WMFN allowed
|
May 25, 2011
Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Victoria)
(Finch C.J., Garson (dissenting)
and Hinkson, JJ.A.)
2011 BCCA 247
Docket: CA038048
|
|
Appeal by applicant BC dismissed
|
August 23, 2011
Supreme Court of Canada
|
|
1st application for leave to appeal filed
(BC)
|
August 24, 2011
Supreme Court of Canada
|
|
2nd application for leave to appeal filed
(FCC)
| |
