DOCSLIB.ORG

S.C.C. File No. 38992 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL of MANITOBA)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
S.C.C. File No. 38992 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL of MANITOBA) S.C.C. File No. 38992 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA) BETWEEN: CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION / SOCIÉTÉ RADIO-CANADA Appellant (Moving Party) -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent (Respondent) -and- STANLEY FRANK OSTROWSKI Respondent (Appellant) -and- B.B., SPOUSE OF THE LATE M.D., AND J.D., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE M.D. Respondents (Interested Parties) -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, CENTRE FOR FREE EXPRESSION, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF JOURNALISTS, NEWS MEDIA CANADA, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA / CANADA and AD IDEM / CANADIAN MEDIA LAWYERS ASSOCIATION Interveners FACTUM OF THE RESPONDENT, STANLEY FRANK OSTROWSKI - REDACTED (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) LOCKYER CAMPBELL POSNER MICHAEL J. SOBKIN 30 St. Clair Ave. West, Suite 103 331 Somerset Street West Toronto, ON M4V 3A1 Ottawa, ON K2P 0J8 Tel: 613.282.1712 James Lockyer, LSO# 16359A Fax: 613.288.2896 Jessica Zita, LSO# 72449R Email: [email protected] Tel: 416.847.2560, ext. 222 Fax: 416.847.2564 Agent for the Counsel for the Respondent, Email: [email protected]; Stanley Frank Ostrowski [email protected] STROSBERG SASSO SUTTS LLP 1561 Ouellette Avenue Windsor, ON N8K 1X5 Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., LSO# 12640O Tel: 519.561.6228 Email: [email protected] David Robins, LSO# 42332R Tel: 519.561.6215 Fax: 866.316.5308 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Stanley Frank Ostrowski MLT AIKINS LLP GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP 360 Main Street, 30th Floor 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Winnipeg, MB R3C 4G1 Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3 Jonathan B. Kroft Jeffrey W. Beedell, LSO# 24711B Tel: 204.957.4671 Tel: 613.786.0171 [email protected] Fax: 613.788.3587 Email: [email protected] Alexa N. Cantor Tel: 204.957.4657 Agent for the Counsel for the Appellant [email protected] Jennifer A. Sokal Tel: 204.957.4870 Fax: 204.957.4253 Counsel for the Appellant DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MANITOBA GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP 405 Broadway, Suite 730 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Winnipeg, MB R3C 3L6 Ottawa, ON K1P 1C3 Dennis Guenette D. Lynne Watt, LSO# 35328C Tel: 204.945.5183 Tel: 613.786.8695 Fax: 204.948.2041 Fax: 613.788.3509 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Her Majesty the Agent for the Counsel for the Respondent, Queen Her Majesty the Queen ROBERT GOSMAN LAW CORPORATION SUPREME ADVOCACY LLP P.O. Box 29035 City Place 340 Gilmour Street, Suite 100 Winnipeg, MB R3C 4L1 Ottawa, ON K2P OR3 Robert Gosman Tel: 204.298.8049 Thomas Slade, LSO# 60851U Fax: 204.949.0891 Tel: 613.695.8855 [email protected] Fax: 613.695.8580 [email protected] Counsel for the Respondents, B.B., spouse of the late M.D., and J.D., in his capacity as executor Agent for the Counsel for the Respondents, of the estate of the late M.D. B.B., spouse of the late M.D., and J.D., in his capacity as executor of the estate of the late M.D. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Ministry of the Attorney General th World Exchange Plaza 720 Bay Street, 10 Floor 100 Queen Street, Suite 1300 Toronto, ON M7A 2S9 Ottawa, ON K1P 1J9 Michael Bernstein, LSO# 20508B Tel: 416.326.4600 Nadia Effendi, LSO# 49004T Fax: 416.326.4656 Tel: 613.787.3562 Email: [email protected] Fax: 613.230.8842 Email: [email protected] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BRANCH Ministry of the Attorney General 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General Toronto, ON M7A 2S9 of Ontario Yashoda Ranganathan, LSO# 57236E Tel: 647.637.0883 Fax: 416.326.4015 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH GIB VAN ERT LAW COLUMBIA rd 148 Third Avenue 940 Blanshard Street, 3 Floor Ottawa, ON K1S 2K1 Victoria, BC V8W 3E6 Lesley A. Ruzicka Gib van Ert, LSO# 75786I Chantelle Rajotte Tel: 613.408.4297 Jacqueline Hughes Fax: 613.651.0304 Tel: 778.974.5156 Email: [email protected] Fax: 250.387.4262 Email: [email protected]; Agent for Counsel for the Intervener, [email protected]; [email protected] Attorney General of British Columbia Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia STOCKWOODS LLP KHALID M. ELGAZZAR, LSO# 51924U TD North Tower, Suite 4130 440 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 200 77 King Street West, PO Box 140 Ottawa, ON K1R 7X6 Toronto, ON M5K 1H1 Tel: 613.663.9991 Justin Safayeni, LSO# 58427U Fax: 613.663.5552 Tel: 416.593.7200 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Agent for Counsel for the Interveners, the Zachary Al-Khatib, LSO# 74081S Centre for Free Expression at Ryerson Tel: 416.593.3494 University, Canadian Association of Fax: 416.593.9345 Email: [email protected] Journalists, News Media Canada and Communication Workers of America / Counsel for the Interveners, the Centre for Canada Free Expression at Ryerson University, Canadian Association of Journalists, News Media Canada and Communication Workers of America / Canada REYNOLDS, MIRTH, RICHARDS & FARMER LLP 3200 Manulife Place 10180-101 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3W8 Tess Layton Tel: 780.425.9510 Fax: 780.429.3044 Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Interveners, Ad Idem / Canadian Media Lawyers Association ii E. The Practice of Appeal Courts across Canada of Imposing Publication Bans and/or Sealing Orders where Fresh Evidence is Presented on Appeal Pursuant to s. 683 of the Criminal Code .......................................................................................... 29 F. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 34 PART IV: SUBMISSIONS ON COST ...................................................................................... 35 PART V: ORDER REQUESTED ............................................................................................. 35 PART VI: SUBMISSIONS ON CONFIDENTIALITY .......................................................... 35 PART VII: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. 36 2 4. On November 27, 2018, the Comi of Appeal released its decision on the admission of the - fresh evidence and on the appeal itself. It allowed the conviction appeal but dismissed the - application and ordered that the sealing order and the publication ban continue as pe1manent Orders. SeeR. v. Ostrowski., 2018 MBCA 125 at paras. 81-82 5. On this appeal, the Canadian Broadcasting Co1poration/Societe Radio-Canada ("the CBC"), now seeks to set aside these Orders. fu seeking such relief, the CBC argues that this appeal raises issues fundamental to our democratic society: that comts must be open to public scrntinyto maintain faith in the administration of justice. Ostrowski adopts and relies upon CBC's position in this regard. 6. fu addition, Ostrowski submits that his own personal and detennined interest in the outcome of this appeal gives fmiher cause for the Orders to be set aside. Since his conviction in 1987 for the first degree murder of Robe1i Nieman, Ostrowski has maintained, and continues to maintain, his innocence and was wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit. Ostrowski spent more than 23 years in prison2 before his release on bail on December 18, 2009 while he awaited the Minister's decision on his application for ministerial relief. Following a reference by the Minister of Justice in 2014, Ostrowski asked the Court of Appeal to quash his conviction and enter an acquittal. On November 27, 2018, the Comi of Appeal quashed his conviction but denied him his acquittal after finding, per Truscott, that it was "not clearly more probable than not that the accused would be acquitted at a hypothetical new trial." fustead, the Comi of Appeal ordered a new trial and thereupon ordered a judicial stay of proceedings. R. v. Ostrowski., 2018 MBCA 125 at paras. 79 and 83 7. Ostrowski asse1is that there was official misfeasance that led to his wrongful conviction, and he wants the public to know this. It is in this context that he suppo1is CBC's application to lift the Manitoba Comi of Appeal's Orders on the- fresh evidence application. fu dismissing the - application, the Comi of Appeal found that the Lovelace deal was made by federal 2 After his murder conviction, Ostrowski was convicted of cocaine traffickingand received a concurrent sentence of 15 years imprisonment. 4 recanted his statements and on May 13, 1987, Luzny was acquitted after an application for a directed verdict. On May 23, 1987, Ostrowski and Correia were convicted of first degree murder. 11. Ostrowski and Correia appealed their convictions. On February 24, 1989, the Manitoba Court of Appeal, Hall, O’Sullivan and Philp JJ.A. presiding, dismissed Ostrowski’s appeal with O’Sullivan J.A. dissenting. O’Sullivan J.A. would have allowed Ostrowski’s appeal and ordered a new trial, his dissent being primarily based on errors in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury. Correia’s appeal was unanimously dismissed. Ostrowski appealed his conviction as of right to the Supreme Court of Canada. On June 20, 1990, his appeal, LaForest, L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ. presiding, was dismissed with brief oral reasons given by Cory J. R. v. Ostrowski and Correia, 1989 CanLII 7367 (M.B.C.A.); R. v. Ostrowski, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 82 12. In 2001, Ostrowski approached the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC) which agreed to review his case. Commencing in 2003, AIDWYC discovered new evidence that was previously undisclosed. It consisted of what has become known as the “Lovelace deal” and the “Jacobson Report”. Commissioner LeSage’s Report from the Driskell Inquiry in 2007 was an important milestone for Ostrowski’s case: it thoroughly reviewed the practices and conduct of Manitoba Justice and Mr. Dangerfield in the prosecution of James Driskell for murder. Mr. Dangerfield was also the senior prosecutor at Ostrowski’s trial and Ostrowski’s case was raised in the testimony and addressed in the Commissioner’s Report.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • COVID-19 Guide: In-Person Hearings at the Federal Court
    COVID-19 Guide: In-person Hearings at the Federal Court OVERVIEW This guide seeks to outline certain administrative measures that are being taken by the Court to ensure the safety of all individuals who participate in an in-person-hearing. It is specifically directed to the physical use of courtrooms. For all measures that are to be taken outside of the courtroom, but within common areas of a Court facility, please refer to the guide prepared by the Courts Administrative Service, entitled Resuming In-Person Court Operations. You are also invited to view the Court’s guides for virtual hearings. Additional restrictions may apply depending on the evolving guidance of the local or provincial public health authorities, and in situations where the Court hearing is conducted in a provincial or territorial facility. I. CONTEXT Notwithstanding the reopening of the Court for in-person hearings, the Court will continue to schedule all applications for judicial review as well as all general sittings to be heard by video conference (via Zoom), or exceptionally by teleconference. Subject to evolving developments, parties to these and other types of proceedings are free to request an in-person hearing1. In some instances, a “hybrid” hearing, where the judge and one or more counsel or parties are in the hearing room, while other counsel, parties and/or witnesses participate via Zoom, may be considered. The measures described herein constitute guiding principles that can be modified by the presiding Judge or Prothonotary. Any requests to modify these measures should be made as soon as possible prior to the hearing, and can be made by contacting the Registry.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Administration Systems
    COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS of key characteristics of COURT ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS Presented to the Canadian Judicial Council Administration of Justice Committee Administrative Efficiency in Trial and Appeal Courts Sub-Committee By Karim Benyekhlef Cléa Iavarone-Turcotte Nicolas Vermeys Université de Montréal Centre de recherche en droit public July 6th, 2011 © Canadian Judicial Council Catalogue Number JU14-24/2013E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-21994-3 Available from: Canadian Judicial Council Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0W8 (613) 288-1566 (613) 288-1575 (facsimile) and at: www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca FOREWORD | iii Foreword In 2006, the Canadian Judicial Council published a report entitled Alternative Models of Court Administration. In exploring the trend towards governments granting greater administrative autonomy to the courts, the report offered seven different models present in a number of jurisdictions. In 2011 the Administration of Justice Committee of Council commissioned a research study which would present a comparison of key characteristics of court administrative systems against those models in common law countries including Australia, England and Wales, New Zealand, North Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Scotland. Key to this comparative analysis was the collection of legislation, memoranda of understanding and other forms of written agreements between the Judiciary and the Executive. They outline which level of government is responsible for certain or all aspects of court administration. The report consists of two documents. Presented here is the first part, namely, a comparative analysis building on the seven models presented in the 2006 report and further analysing how each of the selected jurisdictions advances their work according to six specific characteristics of court administration.
    [Show full text]
  • 71 History of Factums Je Côté* I
    HISTORY OF FACTUMS 71 HISTORY OF FACTUMS J.E. CÔTÉ* The history of the factum in Canada is little known Bien que l’histoire du mémoire au Canada soit peu but greatly significant in the development of written connue, elle a contribué de façon importante à argument. Written argument grew alongside the oral l’avènement de l’argumentation écrite, qui évolué en legal tradition. The factum developed in Canada in an parallèle avec la tradition de l’exposé oral. Le unorthodox way. Unlike most Canadian laws and mémoire s’est implanté au Canada selon une voie peu procedures, which find their roots in common law orthodoxe. Contrairement à la plupart des lois et England, the factum originated in Quebec’s civil procédures canadiennes qui prennent leur fondement jurisdiction before being adopted in the Northwest dans la common law de l’Angleterre, le mémoire a pris Territories. This article explores the evolution of son origine dans le système de droit civil du Québec written argument and the historical use of the factum avant d’être adopté dans les Territoires du Nord- in the United Kingdom and Canada and details the Ouest. Outre un survol de l’évolution de practice of factum use in Alberta particularly. l’argumentation écrite et de la façon dont on a eu recours au mémoire au Royaume-Uni et au Canada par le passé, l’article expose en détail l’utilisation du mémoire en Alberta. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 71 II. EVOLUTION ................................................ 72 A. THE UNITED KINGDOM ................................... 72 B. QUEBEC ............................................... 74 C. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Precedent Unbound? Contemporary Approaches to Precedent in Canada
    The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2007 Precedent Unbound? Contemporary Approaches to Precedent in Canada Debra Parkes Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Courts Commons Citation Details Debra Parkes, "Precedent Unbound? Contemporary Approaches to Precedent in Canada" ([forthcoming in 2007]) 32:1 Man LJ 135. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Page 1 TITLE: Precedent Unbound? Contemporary Approaches to Precedent in Canada AUTHOR: Debra Parkes SOURCE: Manitoba Law Journal CITED: (2007) 32 Man. L.J. 135 - 162 1 Stare decisis is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere, and may be translated as "to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters."1 In Gulliver's Travels, the English satirist Johnathan Swift had Gulliver say: It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before, may le- gally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the deci- sions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of decreeing accordingly.2 While the notion that Canadian appellate judges slavishly adhere to outdated precedent in a manner contrary to "common justice and the general re ason of mankind" does not accurately describe the current reality, there remains a lively and important debate about the functions, values and limits of "abiding by things decided" in common law systems.3 In this vein, Justices Steel and Freedman in the recent R.
    [Show full text]
  • File No. 33880 (ON APPEAL from the MANITOBA COURT of APPEAL) BETWEEN: Manitoba Metis Federation Inc., Yvon Dumont, Billy Jo De L
    File No. 33880 IN SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE MANITOBA COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: Manitoba Metis Federation Inc., Yvon Dumont, Billy Jo De La Ronde, Roy Chartrand, Ron Erickson, Claire Riddle, Jack Fleming, Jack McPherson, Don Roulette, Edgar Bruce Jr., Freda Lundmark, Miles Allarie, Celia Klassen, Alma Belhumeur, Stan Guiboche, Jeanne Perrault, Marie Banks Ducharme and Earl Henderson Appellants and Attorney General of Canada and Attorney General of Manitoba Respondents APPELLANTS' FACTUM ROSENBLOOM, ALDRIDGE, BARTLEY & BURKE-ROBERTSON ROSLING Barristers & Solicitors Barristers & Solicitors 70 Gloucester Street 440 - 355 Burrard Street Ottawa ON K2P OA2 Vancouver B.C. V6C 2G8 THOMAS R. BERGER, Q.c. ROBERT E. HOUSTON, Q.C. JAMES ALDRIDGE, Q.c. Tel: 613-236-9665 HARLEY SCHACHTER Fax: 613-235-4430 Tel: 604-684-1311 Fax: 604-684-6402 Counsel for the Applicants Ottawa Agent for the Applicants Myles J. Kirvan Myles J. Kirvan DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA CANADA Department of Justice Department of Justice Prairie Region 234 Wellington Street 301-310 Broadway Avenue Room 216 Winnipeg MB R3C OS6 Ottawa ON KIA OH8 MARK KINDRACHUK CHRISTOPHER RUP AR Tel: 306-975-4765 Tel: 613-941-2351 Fax: 306-975-5013 Fax: 613-954-1920 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Counsel for the Respondent, The Attorney General of Canada The Attorney General of Canada ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON Department of Justice Barristers & Solicitors Constitutional Law Branch Suite 2600, 160 Elgin Street 1205 - 405 Broadway Ottawa, ON KIP 1C3 Winnipeg MB R3C 3L6 HEATHER LEONOFF, Q.c.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Litigation in Canada
    Guide to Litigation in Canada Guide to Litigation in Canada · 1 CONTENTS Introduction: Litigating in Canada………………….... 3 Litigation in Each Province Alberta………………………………………………........ 4 British Columbia……………………………………........ 8 Manitoba……………………………………………........ 11 New Brunswick……………………............................... 13 Newfoundland and Labrador………………………....... 16 Nova Scotia………………………………………............ 19 Ontario……………………………………………........... 20 Prince Edward Island………………………………......... 22 Quebec……………………………………………........... 24 Saskatchewan……………………………………........... 26 About RMC............................................................... 28 INTRODUCTION: LITIGATING IN CANADA Canada has a population of 35 million people which is less than the population of California. It is approximately 3.88 million square miles which makes it the second largest country in the world. It is divided into ten provinces and three territories. Each province and territory has its own government. The capital of Canada is the City of Ottawa where the federal House of Commons and Senate create legislation which applies to the entire country. Each province has its own capital where their legislatures exist and pass laws for their particular province. Canada is a constitutional democracy however, its constitution is made up of a number of statutes, orders-in-council and judicial decisions which interpret these documents. One of the most significant is The Constitution Act, 1867. This act divides different powers between the federal and provincial governments. The Constitution Act, 1867 provides the provinces with the power to administer justice in their own provinces. As such, each province will have its own unique court system and administration to carry out the laws of the land. It is because of these procedural differences that lawyers will typically practice within their own province. While the courts are operated by the province, the judges in civil courts are appointed by the federal government.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Courts II: Appeals from the Manitoba Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada, 1906-1990
    A Tale of Two Courts II: Appeals from the Manitoba Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada, 1906-1990 Peter McCormick' and Suzanne Maisey" THE PURPOSE OF THIS paper is to consider the history of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, primarily in the context of subsequent appeals from that Court to the Supreme Court of Canada. This paper examines the attributes of the Manitoba Court of Appeal that correlate with the patterns that emerge out of the appeal loss to the Supreme Court of Canada. The period under consideration reaches from the establish- ment of the Manitoba Court at the beginning of the 1906/1907 term to the end of the 1989/90 term, which roughly corresponds with the retirement of Chief Justice Alfred Monnin early in 1990. By fortunate 1991 CanLIIDocs 119 coincidence, this same time period is very closely coincident with the span from the beginning of the Supreme Court Chief Justiceship of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick (June 4, 1906) to the retirement of Chief Justice Brian Dickson — a nice artistic touch by virtue of the fact that Justice Dickson himself served on the Manitoba Court of Appeal for five years. The nine provincial and eleven federal chief justiceships will provide the basic periodicization for the analysis. This paper will focus on the most obvious dimension of the inter- action between a specific court and a higher court — namely, the rate and the patterns of higher court interventions into lower court deci- sions brought before it on appeal. The term "intervention" is used in the sense suggested by Burton Atkins:1 a higher court decision that significantly alters the resolution imposed by the lower court.
    [Show full text]
  • The Manitoba Court of Appeal, 2000–2004: Caseload, Output and Citations
    The Manitoba Court of Appeal, 2000–2004: Caseload, Output and Citations PETER Mc CORMICK* his article revives a series of annual pieces on the Manitoba Court of TAppeal that appeared in Volumes 19 through 22 of this Journal, studying the Court through the collection and examination of statistics about various aspects of its activities. More correctly, there were three such series—one looking at “caseload and output”,1 a second looking at citation practices,2 and a third looking at appeals from the Manitoba Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.3 This article shall combine a brief consideration of all three of these elements. Because it is picking up on these themes after a silence of more than a decade, I will be considering not a single year but four successive terms (2000 through 2003 inclusive), the first four terms of the new century.4 The broader motivation is a profound curiosity about the work and role of the provincial courts of appeal, about what they do and how they do it. The work of the trial courts is conceptually straightforward: they represent a judicial first attempt to ascertain facts against the background of law and achieve a fair resolution of a specific dispute. The work of the Supreme Court of Canada, as a national high court of final appeal, is also conceptually straightforward: its * Professor, University of Lethbridge. 1 Peter McCormick, “Caseload and Output of the Manitoba Court of Appeal 1988" (1990)19(1) M.L.J. 31; Peter McCormick, "Caseload and Output of the Manitoban [sic] Court of Appeal 1989" (1990) 19(3) M.L.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Appeals in Saskatchewan
    Civil Appeals in Saskatchewan The Court of Appeal Act & Rules Annotated First Edition The Honourable Stuart J. Cameron 2015 CanLIIDocs 293 Law Society of Saskatchewan Library 2015 CanLIIDocs 293 Civil Appeals in Saskatchewan The Court of Appeal Act & Rules Annotated 2015 CanLIIDocs 293 First Edition The Honourable Stuart J. Cameron Law Society of Saskatchewan Library Civil Appeals in Saskatchewan: The Court of Appeal Act & Rules Annotated First Edition © 2015 Stuart J. Cameron Published by The Law Society of Saskatchewan Library ISBN 978-0-9699120-8-8 Contact: Law Society of Saskatchewan Library 2425 Victoria Avenue Regina, SK S4P4W6 306-569-8020 www.lawsociety.sk.ca All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means: photocopying, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication 2015 CanLIIDocs 293 Cameron, Stuart J. (Stuart John), author Civil appeals in Saskatchewan : the Court of Appeal Act & rules annotated / the honourable Stuart J. Cameron. Includes index. ISBN 978-0-9699120-8-8 (bound) 1. Saskatchewan. Court of Appeal Act, 2000. 2. Saskatchewan. Court of Appeal--Rules and practice. 3. Appellate procedure-- Saskatchewan. I. Law Society of Saskatchewan. Libraries, issuing body II. Saskatchewan. Court of Appeal Act, 2000. III. Title. KES565.C34 2015 347.7124’0355 C2015-906628-X KF9058.ZB6C34 2015 Layout and design by Kelly Laycock. Printed and bound in Canada by Friesens. C016245 15 16 17 18 • 4 3 2 1 Contents Foreword by the Honourable Chief Justice Robert Richards.
    [Show full text]
  • Quebec Civil Law and Canadian Federalism
    Quebec Civil Law and Canadian Federalism Catherine Valcket I. INTRODUCTION . .............................................. 67 If. CIViL LEGAL METHOD ......................................... 73 A. The Civil Law Conception of the ProperScope of Judicial Power ............ 73 B. The Civil Code ........................................... 77 C. Codal Reasoning ........................................... 81 Im. QUEBEC'S LEGISLATIVE POWERS IN THE CANADIAN FEDERATION ............... 88 A. The "Propertyand CivilRights" Clause of Section 8 of the Quebec Act and Subsection 92(13) of the British North America Act ............................ 90 B. The General Legislative Powers of Section 91 of the B.N.A. Act ............ 92 C. The "Trade and Commerce" and "Peace, Order, and Good Government" Clauses of Section 91 of the B.N.A. Act ................................... 95 D. The JudicialDoctrine of Ancillary Legislative Power Under the B.N.A. Act ..... 98 E. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ....................... 101 IV. THE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF QUEBEC LAW IN THE CANADIAN FEDERATION ....... 103 A. The Legislative Powers Concerningthe Administration of Justice Under Sections 101 and 92(14) of the B.N.A. Act ................................... 104 B. The General Jurisdictionof Provincial Courts ........................ 107 C. The Institution of the Supreme Court of Canada ...................... 110 V. LEGAL METHOD IN QUEBEC ...................................... 114 A. The Substance of Judgmentsfrom Quebec ........................... 114
    [Show full text]
  • Court File No.: T-1621-19 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN
    Court File No.: T-1621-19 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant (Moving Party) -and- FIRST NATIONS CHILD AND FAMILY CARING SOCIETY OF CANADA, ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS, CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, CHIEF OF ONTARIO, AMNESTY INTERVNATIONAL and NISHNAWBE ASKI NATION Respondents (Responding Parties) MOTION RECORD OF THE RESPONDENT, CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION in response to the Applicant’s Motion for Stay of Order (as per the Directions by the Court of October 25, 2019) Brian Smith and Jessica Walsh Legal Services Division Canadian Human Rights Commission 344 Slater Street, 8th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1E1 Tel: (613) 943-9205 / 943-9134 Fax: (613) 993-3089 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Canadian Human Rights Commission TO: The Administrator Federal Court Thomas D’Arcy McGee Building 90 Sparks Street, 5th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 0H9 AND TO: Rob Frater, Tara DiBenedetto and Max Binnie Department of Justice Canada Civil Litigation Section 50 O’Connor Street, Suite 500 Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 Tel: 613-670-6289 / 613-670-6270 / 613-670-6283 Fax: 613-954-1920 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Applicant / Moving Party, Attorney General of Canada AND TO: David Taylor Conway Baxter Wilson LLP Suite 400 – 411 Roosevelt Avenue Ottawa, ON K2A 3X9 Tel: 613-619-0368 Fax: 613-688-0271 Email: [email protected] Sarah Clarke Clarke Child & Family Law Suite 950- 36 Toronto Street Toronto, ON M5C 2C5 Tel: 416-260-3030 Fax: (647) 689-3286 Email: [email protected] Counsel for First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada AND TO: David C.
    [Show full text]
  • Defence of Property in R V Stanley
    The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2020 A Colonial Castle: Defence of Property in R v Stanley Alexandra Flynn Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Estair Van Wagner Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons Citation Details Alexandra Flynn & Estair Van Wagner, “A Colonial Castle: Defence of Property in R v Stanley” (2020) 98:2 Can Bar Rev 359. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Full citation: Alexandra Flynn & Estair Van Wagner, “A Colonial Castle: Defence of Property in R v Stanley” (2020) 98:2 Canadian Bar Review 359-387. A Colonial Castle: Defence of Property in R v Stanley Alexandra Flynn and Estair Van Wagner* *Abstract* In 2016, Gerald Stanley shot 22-year-old Colten Boushie in the back of the head after Boushie and his friends entered his farm. Boushie died instantly. Stanley relied on the defence of accident and was found not guilty be an all-white jury. Throughout the trial, Stanley invoked concerns about trespass and rural crime (particularly property crime), much of which was of limited relevance to whether or not the shooting was an accident. We argue that the assertions of trespass shaped the trial, yet were not tested by the jury through a formal invocation of the defence of property.
    [Show full text]