DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Courts Seminar / Colloque Des Cours

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Courts Seminar / Colloque Des Cours Federal Courts Seminar / Colloque des Cours fédérales Oct 27 - Oct 28, 2011 Ottawa (Fairmont Chateau Laurier - Ottawa Convention Centre) List of All Participants and Faculty (Total 136) 1. Mr. Kevin Aalto, Prothonotary 15. L'honorable Pierre Blais, Juge en chef Federal Court Federal Court of Appeal 2. Ms. Roza Aronovitch, Prothonotary 16. L'honorable Edmond P. Blanchard, Juge en Federal Court chef Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada 3. Ms. Vanessa Arviset Brisset Bishop 17. Judge Danny J. Boggs United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 4. Madame Julie S. Aubry Circuit Ministère de la Justice 18. Mr. Philippe Boisvert 5. Mr. Simon Barker Federal Court of Appeal AB Oland & Company 19. L'honorable juge Richard Boivin 6. Ms. Ashley Barnes Federal Court Federal Court 20. Ms. Chantelle Bowers 7. Mr. Andrew Baumberg Federal Court of Appeal Federal Court 21. Mr. Thomas Brady 8. Ms. Suzelle Bazinet Heenan BlaikieCour municipale de Thetford Federal Court of Appeal Mines 9. Ms. Susan Beaubien 22. Ms. Murielle Brazeau Macera & Jarzyna Federal Court 10. L'honorable juge Michel Beaudry 23. Commissioner William Brooks Federal Court Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs 11. L'honorable juge Marie‐Josée Bédard Federal Court 24. Mr. Daniel Brunet Office of the Information Commissioner 12. Ms. Judith Bellis Justice Canada 25. Madame Laurence Brunet‐Baldwin Federal Court of Appeal 13. The Honourable Justice Ronald L. Berger Court of Appeal of Alberta 26. Ms. Giovanna Calamo Federal Court 14. Mr. Andrew Bernstein Torys 27. The Honourable Justice Douglas R. Campbell Federal Court 28. Mr. David Colford Brisset Bishop 45. Mr. Daniel Gosselin Courts Administration Service 29. Madame Isabelle Côté Federal Court of Appeal 46. Madame Elizabeth Greene Barreau de Montréal 30. The Honourable Justice Paul S. Crampton Federal Court 47. Me Pascale‐C Guay Justice Canada 31. Mr. Anthony G. Creber Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 48. Me Nathalie Guertin Barreau de Montréal 32. Madame Nathalie Daigle Federal Court 49. The Honourable Justice Dolores M. Hansen Federal Court 33. Mr. Robert Danay Justice Canada 50. Ms. Susan Hare M'Chigeeng First Nation 34. Ms. Wendy Danson McCuaig Desrochers LLP 51. The Honourable Justice Sean J. Harrington Federal Court 35. The Honourable Justice Yves de Montigny Federal Court 52. Mr. Fred Headon Canadian Bar Association 36. Ms. Danièle Dion Brisset Bishop 53. The Honourable Justice Joe E. Hershfield Tax Court of Canada 37. Ms. Anne Edge Federal Court 54. The Honourable Justice Roger T. Hughes Federal Court 38. The Honourable Justice John Maxwell Evans Federal Court of Appeal 55. Mr. Peter Hutchins Hutchins Legal Inc. 39. The Honourable Justice David P.S. Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal 56. The Honourable Frank Iacobucci Torys 40. Mr. Robert J. Frater Federal Department of Justice 57. Mr. Mahmud Jamal Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP 41. Mr. Andres Garin Supreme Court of Canada 58. The Honourable David H. Jenkins, Chief Justice 42. The Honourable Justice Johanne Gauthier Prince Edward Island Court of Appeal Federal Court 59. The Honourable Justice Susan Kenny 43. Mr. Michel Gérin Federal Court of Australia Intellectual Property Institute of Canada 60. Mr. Lorne Lachance 44. Ms. Mary Gleason Justice Canada Norton Rose OR LLP 61. Mr. Roger Lafrenière, Prothonotary 77. Ms. Ariane Mallette Federal Court Federal Court 62. L'honorable juge Maurice E. Lagacé 78. The Honourable Justice Leonard S. Tony Federal Court Mandamin Federal Court 63. Me Raynold Langlois Langlois Kronstrom Desjardins 79. Mr. Kenneth Manning Justice Canada 64. Madame Michèle Lavergne Justice Canada 80. L'honorable juge Luc Martineau Federal Court 65. The Honourable Justice Carolyn A. Layden‐ Stevenson 81. Mr. Martin G. Masse Federal Court of Appeal Lang Michener LLP and McMillan LLP 66. Mr. Alain Le Gal 82. Madame Lisa Maziade Federal Court of Appeal Ministère de la Justice 67. L'honorable juge J. François Lemieux 83. Ms. Emily McCarthy Federal Court Office of the Information Commissioner 68. Me Bernard Letarte 84. Ms. Barbara A. McIsaac, Q.C. Ministère de la Justice Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 69. L'honorable juge Gilles Létourneau 85. The Honourable William P. McKeown Federal Court of Appeal Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 70. L'honorable juge Allan F. Lutfy 86. The Right Honourable Beverley M. McLachlin, Federal Court P.C., Chief Justice of Canada Supreme Court of Canada 71. The Honourable W. Andrew MacKay Federal Court 87. Ms. Martha Milczynski, Prothonotary Federal Court 72. Ms. Sylvia MacKenzie Federal Court 88. Mr. Richard Morneau, Prothonotary Federal Court 73. Mr. Robert MacKinnon Justice Canada 89. Mr. John Morrissey Smart & Biggar Fetherstonaugh 74. Professor Audrey Macklin University of Toronto 90. The Honourable Justice Richard G. Mosley Federal Court 75. The Honourable Justice Anne L. Mactavish Federal Court 91. Professor David J. Mullan Queen's University 76. L'honorable juge Robert M. Mainville Federal Court of Appeal 92. Mr. John A. Myers Taylor McCaffrey LLP 93. The Honourable Justice Marc Nadon 109. The Honourable Justice Donald J. Rennie Federal Court of Appeal Federal Court 94. The Honourable Justice David G. Near 110. L'honorable John D. Richard Federal Court 111. The Honourable Justice Joseph T. Robertson 95. L'honorable juge Marc Noël Court of Appeal of New Brunswick Federal Court of Appeal 112. Ms. Judith M. Robinson 96. L'honorable Simon Noël, Juge en chef Norton Rose OR LLP suppléant Federal Court 113. Mr. Aaron Rodgers Miller Thomson LLP 97. Mr. Jean‐Robert Noiseux Justice Canada 114. The Honourable Justice Marshall E. Rothstein Supreme Court of Canada 98. Mr. John G. O'Connor Langlois Kronstrom Desjardins 115. The Honourable Justice James Russell Federal Court 99. The Honourable Justice John A. O'Keefe Federal Court 116. L'honorable juge André F. Scott Federal Court 100. Mr. J. Aidan O'Neill Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP 117. The Honourable Justice J. Edgar Sexton Federal Court of Appeal 101. The Honourable Justice James O'Reilly Federal Court 118. The Honourable Justice Karen R. Sharlow Federal Court of Appeal 102. Madame Marie‐Claire Perrault Federal Court of Appeal 119. The Honourable Justice Robert J. Sharpe Court of Appeal for Ontario 103. The Honourable Justice Michael L. Phelan Federal Court 120. Mr. Andrew Shaughnessy Torys 104. L'honorable juge Yvon Pinard Federal Court 121. The Honourable Justice Michel M.J. Shore Federal Court 105. Mr. George J. Pollack Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP 122. The Honourable Justice Sandra Jean Simpson Federal Court 106. Monsieur Gabriel Querry Federal Court of Appeal 123. The Honourable Justice Judith A. Snider Federal Court 107. Mr. Andrew J. Raven Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck 124. Mr. Ronald Stevenson LLP/s.r.l. Justice Canada 108. Mr. Max Reed 125. The Honourable Justice David W. Stratas Federal Court of Appeal Federal Court of Appeal 126. The Honourable Barry Lee Strayer 127. Ms. Cecily Y. Strickland Stewart McKelvey 128. Ms. Mireille A. Tabib, Prothonotary Federal Court 129. The Honourable Max M. Teitelbaum 130. The Honorable Arthur L. Thurlow 131. L'honorable juge Danièle Tremblay‐Lamer Federal Court 132. L'honorable juge Johanne Trudel Federal Court of Appeal 133. The Honourable Ronald S. Veale, Senior Judge Supreme Court of Yukon 134. Mr. Vincent Veilleux Justice Canada 135. Professor Janet Walker Osgoode Hall Law School 136. The Honourable Justice Russel W. Zinn Federal Court .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LAW Symposia Booklet out 2006
    UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA FACULTY OF LAW INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW SYMPOSIA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN GLOBAL MAINSTREAM PRACTICE FRIDAY, JULY 14, 2006 SATURDAY, JULY 15, 2006 UBC Robson Square and the Terminal City Club, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada For detailed and updated information, go to www.ipint.org. St. Peter’s College, University of Oxford and Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre at St. Peter’s I am pleased to welcome you to the 2006 International Intellectual Property Law Symposium in Vancouver, British Columbia. With links to technology, communications and global commerce, IP law and policy lie at the heart of the information economies of the 21st century. As such, IP issues have become increasingly important both to commercial law generalists, who must be able to identify the scope and effect of these issues within their practice, and ROBERT HOWELL to IP specialists, who are called upon to grapple with advanced aspects of the subject area. This Symposium seeks ACADEMIC DIRECTOR to address the needs of both groups. INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW SUMMER PROGRAM Distinguished speakers from the judiciary, practice, government and academe will discuss contemporary issues PROFESSOR at the cutting edge of IP law development. We are particularly UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA, FACULTY OF LAW fortunate this year to have Justice Louis LeBel of the Supreme Court of Canada delivering our keynote address. We are also delighted to welcome, among others, recently appointed Professor Robert Howell has been with the Faculty of Law Supreme Court of Canada Justice Marshall Rothstein and at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada Canada’s Competition Commissioner Sheridan Scott.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel G.C. Glover Page 1 Managing IP Milestone Case of the Year for 2016
    Daniel Glover is national co-lead of our Cyber/Data Group and a Daniel G.C. member of our Intellectual Property, Privacy, Technology, Consumer Glover Products & Retail Group, Franchise & Distribution, and Appellate Groups. Partner Toronto Daniel has significant experience in all aspects of information law. His [email protected] practice takes a 360-degree approach to data: he helps clients extract the tremendous value inherent in data, while at the same time t. +1 416-601-8069 managing the complex risks associated with data. He has worked on the highest-stakes files in the field, having advised clients in relation to the three largest data breaches in Canadian history and having argued landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada and other leading appellate courts. Daniel G.C. His insights come from significant exposure to the many different Glover areas of law touching on the exploitation and protection information, Partner including privacy, cybersecurity, breach response, copyright and Toronto trademark infringement, privilege, anti-spam and marketing compliance, confidential information, competition law, constitutional [email protected] law, and Internet law. t. +1 416-601-8069 This exposure touches upon a broad diversity of industries. Daniel has advised numerous clients in the technology, social media, consumer Bar Admission products, retail, financial services, insurance, entertainment, gaming, automotive, industrial and health services fields, including in the class Ontario 2006 action setting and also before key privacy, health privacy, and Law School marketing regulators across Canada. University of Toronto In his litigation practice, Daniel delivered oral submissions on behalf of Practices the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and other creative industry stakeholders in the landmark decision of Appellate Litigation IP Litigation Equustek Solutions Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Taxpayer Vol41 No10-1Stproof 1..8
    Editor: Arthur B.C. Drache, C.M., Q.C. Pages 73-80 May 17, 2019 Vol. xli No. 10 Minister come to the Island during the election would be P.E.I. Election Produces Minority ªcounter-productiveº. Government ThesurgeoftheGreenswasnosurpriseaspollsformonths had suggested that they were running ahead of the two For the first time since the 19th century, voters in Prince traditional parties and might actually form the govern- Edward Island have abandoned their traditional embrace ment. In the event, the Conservatives finished with 37 of the Island's two-party system, electing a Tory minority percent of the popular vote, followed by the Greens at 31 government and handing the upstart Green Party official and the Liberals at 29. The NDP received just 3 percent. opposition status for the first time. Voter turnout was 77 percent, a five-point drop from the With all polls reporting the Tories had won 12 seats, the 2015 election. Greens held eight, and the incumbent Liberals, led by The election campaign was in stark contrast to that in Premier Wade MacLauchlan, had won six. But MacLau- Alberta. Civility was the rule of the day and even in the chlan lost his own seat. He subsequently announced his leaders' debate, there was more consensus on issues than resignation as head of the party. real debate. The Liberals were seeking a fourth term in office, having Premier-designate Dennis King now faces a task that has repeatedly reminded Islanders that the province's econ- never before been faced by a P.E.I. premier. He needs to omy remains the strongest in the country.
    [Show full text]
  • ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REPORTS Fifth Series/Cinqui`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence En Droit Administratif
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REPORTS Fifth Series/Cinqui`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence en droit administratif VOLUME 91 (Cited 91 Admin. L.R. (5th)) EDITORS-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEURS´ EN CHEF David Phillip Jones, Q.C., Anne S. de Villars, Q.C., C. ARB., B.A.(HONS.) (MCGILL),C. ARB., B.SC. (HONS.) (SOUTHAMPTON), B.C.L., M.A.(OXON.) LL.B.(ALBERTA) de Villars Jones Barristers and Solicitors Edmonton, Alberta QUEBEC EDITOR/REDACTEUR´ POUR LE QUEBEC´ Denis Lemieux, LL.L., D. EN D. Facult´e de droit, Universit´e Laval Qu´ebec, Qu´ebec ASSOCIATE EDITOR/REDACTEUR´ ADJOINT Andrew J. Roman, B.A.(MCGILL), LL.B.(OSGOODE HALL) Miller, Thomson Toronto, Ontario ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REPORTS, a national series of topical law re- Recueil de jurisprudence en droit administratif, une s´erie nationale de ports, is published 12 times per year. Subscription rate $482.00 per bound recueils de jurisprudence sp´ecialis´ee, est publi´e 12 fois par ann´ee. volume including parts. Indexed: Carswell’s Index to Canadian Legal L’abonnement est de 482 $ par volume reli´e incluant les fascicules. Indexa- Literature. tion: Index a` la documentation juridique au Canada de Carswell. Editorial Offices are also located at the following address: 430 rue St. Pierre, Le bureau de la r´edaction est situ´e a` Montr´eal — 430, rue St. Pierre, Mon- Montr´eal, Qu´ebec, H2Y 2M5. tr´eal, Qu´ebec, H2Y 2M5. ________ ________ © 2015 Thomson Reuters Canada Limited © 2015 Thomson Reuters Canada Limit´ee NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: All rights reserved. No part of this publica- MISE EN GARDE ET AVIS D’EXONERATION´ DE RESPON- tion may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any SABILITE´ : Tous droits r´eserv´es.
    [Show full text]
  • IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER Third Series/Troisi`Eme S´Erie Recueil De Jurisprudence En Droit De L’Immigration VOLUME 99 (Cited 99 Imm
    IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER Third Series/Troisi`eme s´erie Recueil de jurisprudence en droit de l’immigration VOLUME 99 (Cited 99 Imm. L.R. (3d)) EDITORS-IN-CHIEF/REDACTEURS´ EN CHEF Cecil L. Rotenberg, Q.C. Mario D. Bellissimo, LL.B. Barrister & Solicitor Ormston, Bellissimo, Rotenberg Don Mills, Ontario Toronto, Ontario Certified Specialist Certified Specialist ASSOCIATE EDITOR/REDACTEUR´ ADJOINT Randolph Hahn, D.PHIL.(OXON), LL.B. Guberman, Garson Toronto, Ontario Certified Specialist CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF/REDACTION´ DE CARSWELL Cheryl L. McPherson, B.A.(HON.) Director, Primary Content Operations Directrice des activit´es li´ees au contenu principal Graham B. Peddie, LL.B. Product Development Manager Sharon Yale, LL.B., M.A. Jennifer Weinberger, B.A.(HON.), Supervisor, Legal Writing J.D. Supervisor, Legal Writing Peter Bondy, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Heather Stone, B.A., LL.B. Lead Legal Writer Lead Legal Writer Rachel Bernstein, B.A.(HON.), J.D. Peggy Gibbons, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Stephanie Hanna, B.A., M.A., LL.B. Mark Koskie, B.A.(HON.), M.A., LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Legal Writer Nicole Ross, B.A., LL.B. Amanda Stewart, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Martin-Fran¸cois Parent, LL.B., LL.M., DEA (PARIS II) Bilingual Legal Writer Erin McIntosh, B.A.(HON.) Content Editor IMMIGRATION LAW REPORTER, a national series of topical law reports, Recueil de jurisprudence en droit de l’immigration, une s´erie nationale de is published twelve times per year. Subscription rate $361 per bound volume recueils de jurisprudence sp´ecialis´ee, est publi´e 12 fois par anne´e.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflecting on the Legacy of Chief Justice Mclachlin April 10-11, 2018 University of Ottawa Faculty of Law Schedule DAY ONE: TUES
    Reflecting on the Legacy of Chief Justice McLachlin April 10-11, 2018 University of Ottawa Faculty of Law Schedule DAY ONE: TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2018 1:00-1:15PM Opening and smudging ceremony: Elder Claudette Commanda (FTX 147, 147A, 147B) 1:15-1:45PM Opening keynote: Lady Brenda Hale, UK Supreme Court (FTX 147, 147A, 147B) 2:00-2:30PM Break; walk to Tabaret Hall 2:30-4:00PM Panel one: Chief Justice McLachlin’s Influence on Private Law Chair: Justice Robert Sharpe, Ontario Court of Appeal Bruce Feldthusen, Ottawa “Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin: Canadian Tort Law’s Most Influential Judge Ever - Who Knew?” Irehobhude O Iyioha, “Transcending Gender and Identity-Based Inequalities in Tort Law Alberta & Nikita Gush, Jurisprudence: A Critical Review of the Contributions of Alberta McLachlin’s Judgments” Erika Chamberlain, Western “Evaluating the Chief Justice’s Decisions on “Residual Policy Considerations” in Negligence” 4:00-5:30PM Panel two: Influences & Influence Chair: Mr. Owen Rees, Conway Baxter Wilson LLP, former Executive Legal Officer, Supreme Court of Canada Ian Greene, York & Peter “From Pincher Creek to Chief Justice: the Making of Beverley McCormick, Lethbridge McLachlin” Anne-Françoise Debruche, “Le juge, l’enfant à naître et l’opinion publique: La contribution de Ottawa la juge McLachlin à la transparence du discours judiciaire canadien Eszter Bodnár, Eötvös “The McLachlin Court and the Principle of Open Justice” Loránd University, Budapest 6:30PM Reception at the Supreme Court of Canada DAY TWO: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018 9:00-9:05AM
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Review of Civil Litigation
    ANNUAL REVIEW OF CIVIL LITIGATION 2019 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE TODD L. ARCHIBALD SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (ONTARIO) 30839744 Discovery as a Forum for Persuasive Advocacy: Art and Science of Persuasion Ð Chapter IX 1 TODD ARCHIBALD,ROGER B. CAMPBELL AND MITCHELL FOURNIE The flash and dash of the courtroom is exhilarating for the lawyer but dangerous for the client. Accordingly, the truly successful lawyer will take his cases there only seldom. When he does go, he will go highly prepared; and that high level of preparation will be made possible by the apparently dull, but fascinatingly powerful tool, of discovery. And when a lawyer has been successful in keeping his client out of a trial, it will most often have been the same tool, discovery, which will have helped him do it.1 I. DISCOVERY AS A FORUM FOR PERSUASIVE ADVOCACY The image of the persuasive litigator is often associated with trials. It is an image that evokes the courtroom scenario and the pressures that accompany it. Here, witnesses are tenaciously cross-examined, answers are carefully assessed, credibility is gauged, and lawyers make their opening and closing addresses in full view of the judge, jury, and public. It is an image that draws on the solemnity and magnitude of trial, where the potential for settlement has long passed and a verdict or judgment is the only potential outcome. It is from this situation, at the end of the litigation process, that our notions of persuasive advocacy are often derived. In this ninth installment of the Art and Science of Persuasion, we look at how persuasive advocacy can and must extend beyond the courtroom.
    [Show full text]
  • CCPI Memorandum of Argument for Application to Intervene
    Court File No. A-408-09 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Appellant And MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT OF THE PROPOSED INTERVENER THE CHARTER COMMITTEE ON POVERTY ISSUES PART ONE: FACTS A. The Proposed Intervener – The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) 1. The Charter Committee on Poverty Issues (CCPI) was granted intervener status at the Federal Court in the present case to address “issues arising from the requirement to pay fees to process Humanitarian and Compassionate (H & C) Applications for permanent residence pursuant to the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] 1 and the impact of such fees on persons living in poverty.” 1 Decision of Prothonothary Aalto, Toronto, Ontario, March 18, 2009 IMM 2926-08. 2 2. In his decision to grant intervener status, Prothonotary Aalto stated that “CCPI and the other intervener LIFT (Low Income Families Together) would be raising arguments relating to sections 7 and 15 of the Charter as well as other arguments relating to patterns of discrimination and inequality, public policy concerns and competing demands on resources.” He found that “this is one of those unique cases that raise issues of public policy, access to justice and discrimination and inequality” such that the Court will benefit from the participation of CCPI and LIFT.2 3. CCPI seeks leave from this Honourable Court to intervene in the appeal to address these same issues as they arise in the Appeal from the Decision of Madam Justice Snider in the Federal Court (2009 FC 873). 3 B. Qualifications of CCPI 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Tax Journal, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2008
    canadian tax journal / revue fiscale canadienne (2008) vol. 56, no 3, 661 - 707 The Dividing Line Between the Jurisdictions of the Tax Court of Canada and Other Superior Courts David Jacyk* P r é c i s Le droit fiscal est sans aucun doute l’une des branches du droit les plus exigeantes et les plus complexes au Canada. On pourrait penser qu’en matière de droit fiscal, la question de la juridiction des tribunaux se pose très simplement en ces termes : quel tribunal peut statuer sur les affaires qui concernent l’administration de la législation fiscale? Pourtant, cette question à elle seule a fait l’objet d’un grand nombre de litiges depuis des décennies, devant différents tribunaux de première instance et d’appel partout au Canada, ce qui montre bien la complexité de la question de la compétence des tribunaux dans un état fédéral, et ce, même dans un domaine de droit comme la fiscalité qui est pourtant bien circonscrit. L’abondance de jurisprudence sur la question de la juridiction est particulièrement importante depuis quelques années, et elle comporte plusieurs décisions des cours d’appel qui ont contribué à éclaircir davantage cette question. Ce nouvel éclairage a donné lieu à des développements très appréciés. En reconstituant l’évolution du droit dans ce domaine, le présent article brosse un portrait détaillé et complet du droit et propose une analyse qui s’appuie sur les étapes suivantes : n l’examen de la structure des tribunaux fédéraux et en fiscalité; n la reconstitution de l’évolution de la jurisprudence aussi bien avant qu’après la réorganisation au fédéral du réseau des cours d’appel en fiscalité de 1991; n la prise en compte des décisions des tribunaux provinciaux qui se sont penchés sur cette question de façon indépendante du réseau des tribunaux fédéraux; n la prise en compte de l’ensemble des décisions en matière de rectification, un domaine qui a donné lieu à mon avis à des anomalies, mais des résultats tout de même gérables et prévisibles; * Of the Department of Justice, Ottawa.
    [Show full text]
  • Practice and Procedure the Applicable Rules Of
    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE THE APPLICABLE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL COURT: A SHORT PRIMER ON A TRICKY QUESTION Whether at trial or during interlocutory proceedings, litigators need to know the applicable rules of evidence, since there are import- ant variations in provincial evidence law. The largest difference, of course, is between the civil law of QueÂbec and laws of the nine common-law provinces. Yet significant differences exist even between the common law provinces themselves. Admissions made during discovery can be contradicted at trial in Ontario, but not in Saskatchewan.1 Spoliation of evidence requires intentional conduct in British Columbia before remedies will be granted, but not in New Brunswick.2 Evidence obtained through an invasion of privacy is inadmissible in Manitoba, while the other provinces have yet to legislate on this issue.3 1. Marchand (Litigation Guardian of) v. Public General Hospital Society of Chatham (2000), 43 C.P.C. (5th) 65, 51 O.R. (3d) 97, 138 O.A.C. 201 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 72-86, leave to appeal refused [2001] 2 S.C.R. x, 156 O.A.C. 358 (note), 282 N.R. 397 (note) (S.C.C.); Branco v. American Home Assur- ance Co., 2013 SKQB 98, 6 C.C.E.L. (4th) 175, 20 C.C.L.I. (5th) 22 (Sask. Q.B.) at paras. 96-101, additional reasons 2013 SKQB 442, 13 C.C.E.L. (4th) 323, [2014] I.L.R. I-5534, varied on other issues without comment on this point 2015 SKCA 71, 24 C.C.E.L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen
    Date: 20080417 Docket: T-866-95 Citation: 2008 FC 497 Vancouver, British Columbia, April 17, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Applicant and HELMUT OBERLANDER Respondent Docket: T-1505-01 A-294-03 BETWEEN: HELMUT OBERLANDER Applicant (Appellant) and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/cfef0d/ Page: 2 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER Introduction [1] These reasons deal with motions for orders fixing costs brought by both parties in two distinct but closely related proceedings in this Court. The first of those proceedings was a reference made under section 18 of the Citizenship Act. Following the decision of Justice MacKay on that reference both parties made applications to him for costs orders which were by consent adjourned sine die pending the completion of revocation proceedings before the Governor in Council and the judicial review thereof. Justice MacKay having now retired, and no costs order having been made by him, each party now seeks an Order for its costs of the reference from me. [2] Mr. Oberlander also seeks certain extra-judicial costs allegedly incurred by him in the period following Justice MacKay's decision and culminating in the Governor in Council's decision to revoke his citizenship. [3] Finally, following the revocation decision by the Governor in Council, Mr. Oberlander brought judicial review proceedings which were dismissed by a judge of this Court but later allowed by the Federal Court of Appeal “with costs here and below” and I am now asked to fix the amount of such costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Court File No. 1801-04745 Court Court of Queen's
    DocuSign Envelope ID: A75076B7-D1B5-4979-B9B7-ABB33B19F417 Clerk’s stamp: COURT FILE NO. 1801-04745 COURT COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL CENTRE CALGARY PLAINTIFF HILLSBORO VENTURES INC. DEFENDANT CEANA DEVELOPMENT SUNRIDGE INC., BAHADUR (BOB) GAIDHAR, YASMIN GAIDHAR AND CEANA DEVELOPMENT WESTWINDS INC. PLAINTIFFS BY COUNTERCLAIM CEANA DEVELOPMENT SUNRIDGE INC., BAHADUR (BOB) GAIDHAR AND YASMIN GAIDHAR DEFENDANTS BY COUNTERCLAIM HILLSBORO VENTURES INC., NEOTRIC ENTERPRISES INC., KEITH FERREL AND BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP DOCUMENT BRIEF OF LAW AND ARGUMENT OF THE APPLICANT HILLSBORO VENTURES INC. ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AND Dentons Canada LLP CONTACT INFORMATION OF PARTY Bankers Court FILING THIS DOCUMENT 15th Floor, 850 – 2nd Street SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 0R8 Attn: Derek Pontin / John Regush Ph. (403) 268-6301 / 7086 Fx. (403) 268-3100 File No.: 559316-3 Brief of Law and Argument of the Applicant in respect of an application to be heard by the Honourable Madam Justice Eidsvik, scheduled on June 2 and 3, 2021 NATDOCS\54598355\V-1 DocuSign Envelope ID: A75076B7-D1B5-4979-B9B7-ABB33B19F417 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 II. FACTS..............................................................................................................................................1 a. The Application Record....................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]