Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., (2003) 179 O.A.C. 291 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
• Citation: (2003), 179 O.A.C. 291 (SCC),2003 SCC 63
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 06 November 2003

Toronto v. CUPE (2003), 179 O.A.C. 291 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2003] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.022

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (appellant) v. City of Toronto and Douglas C. Stanley (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario (intervener)

(No. 28840; 2003 SCC 63; 2003 CSC 63)

Indexed As: Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.

November 6, 2003.

Summary:

A public service employee was found guilty in criminal court of sexual assault charges respecting acts committed in the workplace. The employer dismissed him. The employee grieved.

An arbitrator allowed the grievance and ordered the employee reinstated. The employer applied for judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported 134 O.A.C. 48, allowed the application. The union appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 149 O.A.C. 213, dismissed the appeal. The union appealed. At issue was whether a person convicted of sexual assault, and dismissed from his employment as a result, could be reinstated by a labour arbitrator who concluded, on the evidence before him, that the sexual assault did not take place.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 3202

Judicial review - General - Scope or standard of review - LeBel, J. (Deschamps, J., concurring), of the Supreme Court of Canada referred to "growing criticisms with the ways in which the standards of review currently available within the pragmatic and functional framework are conceived and applied" - LeBel, J., proceeded to reevaluate the contours of the various standards of review, a process that, in his view, was particularly important with respect to patent unreasonableness - To this end, LeBel, J., reviewed: (a) the interplay between correctness and patent unreasonableness both in the instant case and, more broadly, in the context of judicial review of adjudicative decision makers generally, with a view to elucidating the conflicted relationship between these two standards; and (b) the distinction between patent unreasonableness and reasonableness simpliciter, which, despite a number of attempts at clarification, remained a nebulous one - See paragraphs 60 to 135.

Arbitration - Topic 7960

Judicial review - Jurisdiction of arbitrator - General - Abuse of jurisdiction - General - Collateral attack on judicial decision - [See first Estoppel - Topic 386].

Arbitration - Topic 8307

Judicial review - Grounds - General - Abuse of process - [See first Estoppel - Topic 386].

Arbitration - Topic 8307

Judicial review - Grounds - General - Abuse of process - A public service employee was found guilty in the criminal courts of sexual assault charges respecting acts committed in the workplace - He was dismissed - The employee grieved - The arbitrator allowed relitigation of the issue of whether the employee did the acts alleged in the criminal charge - The arbitrator ruled that the presumption raised by the criminal conviction had been rebutted and that the employee had been dismissed without just cause - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a judicial review decision that quashed the arbitrator's decision - The court stated that the facts of this appeal pointed to the blatant abuse of process that resulted when relitigation of the sort described above was permitted - The arbitrator was required as a matter of law to give full effect to the conviction - He was incorrect in not doing so - As a result of that error of law, the arbitrator's conclusion that the employee had been wrongfully dismissed was patently unreasonable - See paragraphs 1 to 60.

Arbitration - Topic 8403

Judicial review - Grounds - Misconduct - Unreasonable or patently unreasonable interpretation - [See second Arbitration - Topic 8307].

Courts - Topic 2015

Jurisdiction - General principles - Controlling abuse of its process - [See second Arbitration - Topic 8307 and first Estoppel - Topic 386].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings (incl. validity of statutes) - The Ontario Divisional Court ruled that the collateral attack rule, issue estoppel and abuse of process barred relitigation of a criminal conviction for sexual assault in a subsequent grievance for alleged wrongful dismissal brought before an arbitrator by the employee who had been dismissed because of the conviction - The Ontario Court of Appeal, in affirming that relitigation was barred, relied however, on a self-standing "finality principle" - The Supreme Court of Canada thought it useful to disentangle these various rules and doctrines - After discussion of the relevant law, the court concluded that it was apparent that the common law doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack and abuse of process adequately captured the concerns that arose when finality in litigation had to be balanced against fairness to a particular litigant - There was no need to endorse a self-standing and independent "finality principle" either as a separate doctrine or as an independent test to preclude relitigation - See paragraphs 22 to 55.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings (incl. validity of statutes) - A public service employee was found guilty in the criminal courts of sexual assault charges respecting acts committed in the workplace - He was dismissed - The employee grieved - The arbitrator allowed relitigation of the issue of whether the employee did the acts alleged in the criminal charge - At issue was whether issue estoppel barred relitigation - The Supreme Court of Canada held that issue estoppel had no application here where: (1) the primary concerns here were about the integrity of the criminal process and the increased authority of a criminal verdict, rather than some of the more traditional issue estoppel concerns that focused on the interests of the parties, such as costs and multiple "vexation"; and (2) the court saw no need to reverse or relax the long-standing application of the mutuality requirement in this case - See paragraphs 23 to 32.

Estoppel - Topic 396

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - In labour relations proceedings - [See both Estoppel - Topic 386].

Labour Law - Topic 9114

Public service labour relations - Grievances - Bars - Res judicata - [See both Estoppel - Topic 386].

Labour Law - Topic 9154

Public service labour relations - Discipline and dismissal of civil or public servants - Dismissal - What constitutes cause for - Criminal conduct - [See second Arbitration - Topic 8307].

Labour Law - Topic 9353

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators or grievance appeal boards - Scope of review (incl. standard) - [See second Arbitration - Topic 8307].

Labour Law - Topic 9354

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators or grievance appeal boards - Patently unreasonable decisions - [See second Arbitration - Topic 8307].

Labour Law - Topic 9356

Public service labour relations - Judicial review - Decisions of adjudicators, arbitrators or grievance appeal boards - Error of law - [See second Arbitration - Topic 8307].

Master and Servant - Topic 7568

Dismissal of employees - Grounds - Criminal conduct - [See second Arbitration - Topic 8307].

Practice - Topic 5408.1

Judgments and orders - General - Collateral attack - [See first Estoppel - Topic 386].

Cases Noticed:

Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) et al. v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (2003), 311 N.R. 189; 179 O.A.C. 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 6, 62].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [paras. 12, 62].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, consd. [paras. 12, 81].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [paras. 13, 71].

Board of Education of Toronto v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation District 15 et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 487; 208 N.R. 245; 98 O.A.C. 241, consd. [paras. 14, 68].

Social Services Administration Board (Parry Sound District) v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 324 et al. (2003), 308 N.R. 271; 177 O.A.C. 235 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Demeter v. British Pacific Life Insurance Co., Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California and Dominion Life Assurance Co. (1983), 150 D.L.R.(3d) 249 (H.C.), affd. (1984), 7 O.A.C. 143; 48 O.R.(2d) 266 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Hunter v. Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, [1982] A.C. 529 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Del Core v. College of Pharmacists (Ont.) (1985), 10 O.A.C. 57; 51 O.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979), 439 U.S. 322 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Regan (G.A.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 297; 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63, refd to. [para. 31].

Lemay v. R., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 232, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Banks, [1916] 2 K.B. 621 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194, consd. [para. 33].

R. v. Sarson (J.A.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 223; 197 N.R. 125; 91 O.A.C. 124, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 35].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 36].

United States of America v. Shulman, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 616; 268 N.R. 115; 145 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 36].

Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), consd. [para. 37].

Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; 296 N.R. 257; 167 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 37].

K.F. et al. v. White (2001), 142 O.A.C. 116; 53 O.R.(3d) 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Bomac Construction Ltd. et al. v. Stevenson et al., [1986] 5 W.W.R. 21; 48 Sask.R. 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Bjarnarson (H.R.) v. Manitoba (1987), 48 Man.R.(2d) 49; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 32 (Q.B.), affd. (1987), 50 Man.R.(2d) 178; 21 C.P.C.(2d) 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

McIlkenney v. Chief Constable of West Midlands, [1980] Q.B. 283 (Eng. C.A.), consd. [para. 39].

R. v. McIlkenny (1991), 93 Cr. App. Rep. 287 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Bromley (R.) (2001), 197 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 316; 591 A.P.R. 316; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 480 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Q. v. Minto Management Ltd. (1984), 46 O.R.(2d) 756 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Nigro v. Agnew-Surpass Shoe Stores Ltd. (1977), 18 O.R.(2d) 215 (H.C.), affd. (1978), 18 O.R.(2d) 714 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Germscheid v. Valois (1989), 68 O.R.(2d) 670 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Simpson v. Geswein (1995), 103 Man.R.(2d) 69; 25 C.C.L.T.(2d) 49 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 49].

Roenisch v. Roenisch (1991), 123 A.R. 303; 85 D.L.R.(4th) 540 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 49].

Saskatoon Credit Union Ltd. v. Central Park Enterprises Ltd. (1988), 47 D.L.R.(4th) 431 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Canadian Tire Corp. v. Summers (1995), 23 O.R.(3d) 106 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 49].

Chamberlain et al. v. Board of Education of School District No. 36 (Surrey), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710; 299 N.R. 1; 175 B.C.A.C. 161; 289 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 61].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38, refd to. [para. 62].

Miller v. Workers' Compensation Commission (Nfld.) et al. (1997), 154 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 52; 479 A.P.R. 52 (Nfld. T.D.), consd. [para. 63].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 941; 150 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 68].

Ivanhoe Inc. et al. v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 500 et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 565; 272 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 68].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 69].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 71].

Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) - see Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al.

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 72].

National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 72].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 72].

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 74].

Macdonell v. Québec (Commission d'accès à l'information) (2002), 294 N.R. 238 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 75].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237, consd. [para. 79].

Service Employees' International Union, Local 333 v. Nipawin District Staff Nurses' Association et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 382, refd to. [para. 86].

Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 A.C. 147 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 87].

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 796, [1970] S.C.R. 425, refd to. [para. 87].

Paccar of Canada Ltd. v. Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers, Local 14, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 983; 102 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 89].

Syndicat canadien de la Fonction publique, section locale 301 v. Montréal (Ville), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 793; 210 N.R. 101, refd to. [para. 93].

Domtar Inc. v. Commission d'appel en matière de lésions professionnelles et autres, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 756; 154 N.R. 104; 55 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 93].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454 and Hardy, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1079; 226 N.R. 319; 168 Sask.R. 104; 173 W.A.C. 104, refd to. [para. 97].

Planet Development Corp. and Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry in the United States and Canada, Local 740, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 644; 123 N.R. 241; 88 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 274 A.P.R. 15, refd to. [para. 98].

Hao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 184 F.T.R. 246 (T.D.), consd. [para. 105].

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 579 v. Bradco Construction Ltd., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 316; 153 N.R. 81; 106 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 140; 334 A.P.R. 140, refd to. [para. 107].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 122].

Constitutional Amendment References 1981 (Man., Nfld., Que.), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753; 39 N.R. 1; 11 Man.R.(2d) 1; 34 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 95 A.P.R. 1, consd. [para. 129].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, consd. [para. 129].

Statutes Noticed:

Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-23, sect. 22.1 [para. 11].

Labour Relations Act, S.O. 1995, c. 1, Schedule A, sect. 48(1) [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Allars, Margaret, On Deference to Tribunals, With Deference to Dworkin (1994), 20 Queen's L.J. 163, pp. 178 [para. 98]; 187 [para. 91]; 197 [para. 92].

Comtois, Suzanne, Vers la primauté de l'approche pragmatique et fonctionnelle: Précis du contrôle judiciaire des décisions de fond rendues par les organismes administratifs (2003), pp. 34, 35 [para. 104].

Cowan, Jeff G., The Standard of Review: The Common Sense Evolution? (2003), pp. 27-2 [para. 104]; 28 [para. 63].

Driedger, Elmer A., The Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 367, 368 [para. 133].

Dyzenhaus, David, The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy (1997), The Province of Administrative Law 279, p. 286 [para. 122].

Elliott, David W., Suresh and the Common Borders of Administrative Law: Time for the Tailor? (2002), 65 Sask. L. Rev. 469, pp. 486, 487 [para. 112].

Evans, J.M., et al., Administrative Law (3rd Ed. 1989), p. 414 [para. 131].

Falzon, Frank A.V., Standard of Review on Judicial Review or Appeal (2002), Administrative Justice Review Background Papers: Background Papers Prepared by Administrative Justice Project for the Attorney General of British Columbia, pp. 32 [para. 63]; 33 [paras. 63, 108].

Garant, Patrice, Droit administratif (4th Ed. 1996), vol. 2, p. 193 [para. 104].

Holloway, Ian, "A Sacred Right": Judicial Review of Administrative Action as a Cultural Phenomenon (1993), 22 Man. L.J. 28, pp. 64, 65 [para. 98].

Jones, David Phillip, Notes on Dr. Q and Ryan: Two More Decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Standard of Review in Administrative Law (2003), p. 10 [para. 118].

Lange, Donald J., The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Canada (2000), pp. 344, 347, 348 [para. 38].

Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct (2000), pp. 58, 61 [para. 31].

Lovett, Deborah K., That Curious Curial Deference Just Gets Curiouser and Curiouser -- Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc. (1997), 55 Advocate (B.C.) 541, p. 545 [para. 108].

MacLauchlan, H. Wade, Transforming Administrative Law: The Didactic Role of the Supreme Court of Canada (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. 281, pp. 285, 286 [para. 85]; 289, 290, 291 [para. 130].

McLachlin, Beverley, The Roles of Administrative Tribunals and Courts in Maintaining the Rule of Law (1998-1999), 12 C.J.A.L.P. 171, pp. 174 [para. 130]; 175 [para. 131].

Mullan, David J., Administrative Law (2001), pp. 69 [paras. 85, 87]; 70 [para. 88]; 72 [paras. 114, 116]; 73 [para. 114].

Mullan, David J., Of Chaff Midst the Corn: American Farm Bureau Federation v. Canada (Canadian Import Tribunal) and Patent Unreasonableness Review (1991), 45 Admin. L.R. 264, pp. 269, 270 [para. 91].

Mullan, David J., Recent Developments in Standard of Review (2000), Taking the Tribunal to Court: A Practical Guide for Administrative Law Practitioners, pp. 4 [para. 119]; 18 [para. 121]; 20 [paras. 90, 91]; 24 [para. 105]; 25 [paras. 105, 109]; 26 [para. 63].

Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (3rd Ed. 2002), p. 120 [para. 18].

Perell, Paul, Res Judicata and Abuse of Process (2001), 24 Adv. Q. 189, pp. 196, 197 [para. 49].

Perreault, Gabrielle, Le contrôle judiciaire des décisions de l'administration: de l'erreur juridictionnelle à la norme de contrôle (2002), p. 116 [para. 104].

Phipson on Evidence (14th Ed. 1990), by Howard, M.N., Crane, Peter, and Hochberg, Daniel A., pp. 33-94 to 33-95 [para. 18].

Sossin, Lorne, Developments in Administrative Law: The 1997-98 and 1998-99 Terms (2000), 11 S.C.L.R.(2d) 37, p. 49 [para. 97].

Sprague, James L.H., Another View of Baker (1999), 7 Reid's Administrative Law 163, pp. 163, 165, note 5 [para. 111].

Teplitsky, Martin, Prior Criminal Convictions: Are They Conclusive Proof? An Arbitrator's Perspective (2002), Labour Arbitration Yearbook 2001-2002, vol. 1, p. 279 [para. 50].

Watson, Garry D., Duplicative Litigation: Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process and the Death of Mutuality (1990), 69 Can. Bar Rev. 623, pp. 624, 625 [para. 37]; 631 [paras. 26, 27]; 632 [para. 28]; 633 [paras. 28, 50]; 648 to 651 [paras. 23, 49].

Counsel:

Douglas J. Wray and Harold F. Caley, for the appellant;

Jason Hanson, Mahmud Jamal and Kari M. Abrams, for the respondent City of Toronto;

No one appeared for the respondent Douglas C. Stanley;

Sean Kearney, Mary Gersht and Meredith Brown, for the intervener, Attorney General of Ontario.

Solicitors of Record:

Caley & Wray, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent City of Toronto;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Attorney General of Ontario.

This appeal was heard on February 13, 2003, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on November 6, 2003, and the following reasons were filed:

Arbour, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 59;

LeBel, J. (Deschamps, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 60 to 135.