Advanced Search
- All Databases (1,254)
- Decisions (530)
- Resources (724)
1,254 result(s)
-
926.
English and Laing v. Richmond et al. - [1956] SCR 383 - 1956-03-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
Solicitors for the appellants: Allen, Weekes & Lawson. Solicitors for the respondents: Fennell, McLean & Seed.
-
927.
Reference re Regina v. Coffin - [1956] SCR 191 - 1956-01-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
(Makin v. A.G. for New South Wales [1894] A.C. 57 and Allen v. The King 44 S.C.R. 331 followed). [...] Allen v. The King 10. Les circonstances établies, ne laissaient aucune alternative au jury. [...] The meaning of the language quoted is indistinguishable from that of the section 1019 considered in Allen's Case.
-
928.
Lewkowicz v. Korzewich - [1956] SCR 170 - 1955-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
The second marriage need not be shown to have been such as to constitute a valid marriage but for the first; Reg. v. Brierly[17] at 537; Reg. v. Allen[18]; R. v. Robinson[19].
-
929.
SCR | RCS [1955] - 1955-11-15
Canada Supreme Court ReportsAlberta Statutes, reference [1938] S.C.R. 100 Allen v. Allen Allen v. The King American National Red Cross v. Geddes Bros.61 Can. S.C.R. 143 Amerique, The Anderson Logging Co. v. The King..... [...] This case is quite distinguishable from Allen v. The King (3), where counsel for the Crown sought, through cross-examination, to place in evidence that given by a witness at the preliminary who was not called at the trial. [...] Had she admitted that she had corn- SEM N Zug mitted adultery, the effect of the section would not have SEMA ezY been to render the evidence inadmissible (Allen v. Allen — (2) : Locke J. Welstead v. Brown (3) ).
-
930.
Semanczuk v. Semanczyk - [1955] SCR 658 - 1955-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Had she admitted that she had committed adultery, the effect of the section would not have been to render the evidence inadmissible (Allen v. Allen 5 : Welstead v. Brown 6).
-
931.
Hebert v. The Queen - [1955] SCR 120 - 1954-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
This case is quite distinguishable from Allen v. The King 14, where counsel for the Crown sought, through cross-examination, to place in evidence that given by a witness at the preliminary who was not called at the trial.
-
932.
Boucher v. The Queen - [1955] SCR 16 - 1954-12-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
The infringement of these rights was, in my opinion, a substantial wrong, within the meaning of section 1014 (2) of the Criminal Code, and accordingly that provision has no application to this case: Makin v. Attorney General for New South Wales[22]; Allen v. The King[23]; Northey v. The King[24]. [...] a character that the appellant was deprived of his right to the verdict of a jury following a trial according to law and such deprivation is of necessity 'a substantial wrong, an argument which would have required a 'careful examination of the judgments in such cases as Allen v. The King[31] and Northey v. The King[32].
-
933.
SCR | RCS [1954] - 1954-11-18
Canada Supreme Court ReportsIn Re Van Allen [1953] O.R. 569 approved. Decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal [1953] O.W.N. 699, affirmed. [...] As was held in Re Van Allen, it was not a new "case" that came before the judge on February 25, 1953. [...] In Re Van Allen [1953] O.R. such; and no control, in a proprietary sense 569 approved.
-
934.
Hamilton (City) v. Hamilton Children's Aid Society - [1954] SCR 569 - 1954-10-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
In Re Van Allen [1953] O.R. 569 approved. Decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal [1953] O.W.N. 699, affirmed. [...] There is only one possible ground of distinction between the facts in the case at bar and those in Re Van Allen. [...] As was held in Re Van Allen, it was not a new “case” that came before the judge on February 25, 1953.
-
935.
The Queen v. Snider - [1954] SCR 479 - 1954-06-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
...Now, before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the
-
936.
C.P.R. v. Turta - [1954] SCR 427 - 1954-05-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
It was urged by Mr. Nolan that as Anton Turta had purchased the land for farming purposes only he could not be said to be a purchaser for value of the petroleum rights, and Pleasance v. Allen 23 was cited as an authority against him.
-
937.
District Registrar of Portage La Prairie v. Canadian Superior Oil of California Ltd. - [1954] SCR 321 - 1954-05-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
A. E. Hoskin, Q.C. and John Allen, Q.C. for the appellant. J. G. Cowan, Q.C. for the Attorney General of Manitoba. [...] Solicitors for the appellant: A. E. Hoskin and John Allen. Solicitors for the respondents: Maclnnes, Burbidge, Hetherington, Allison, Campbell & Findlay.
-
938.
Taylor v. Silver Giant Mines Ltd. - [1954] SCR 280 - 1954-05-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
Wheeler and Allen, one of the directors of the Silver Giant Company who was also present at the meeting, said that at this time Taylor told them that the Hedley Mascot Company was declining to pay him any commission, which was apparently his reason for demanding a larger amount from Silver Giant.
-
939.
SCR | RCS [1953] vol 2 - 1953-11-25
Canada Supreme Court ReportsThe judgments of this Court in O'Brien v. Allen (1) and in Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan (2), establish that the use of highways in the province is a subject matter within the provincial power. [...] In O'Brien v. Allen (supra) at page 342, Sedgewick J., delivering the unanimous judg- ment of the Court said:— . [...] It appears to me to follow from the judgments in O'Brien v. Allen (supra) and Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan (supra) that the legislative authority to permit, forbid or regulate the use of the highways for purposes other than that of passing and repassing belongs to the Province.
-
940.
Saumur v. City of Quebec - [1953] 2 SCR 299 - 1953-10-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
The judgments of this Court in O'Brien v. Allen[54] and in Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan[55], establish that the use of highways in the province is a subject matter within the provincial power. [...] In O'Brien v. Allen (supra) at page 342, Sedgewick J., delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court said:— [...] It appears to me to follow from the judgments in O'Brien v. Allen (supra) and Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan (supra) that the legislative authority to permit, forbid or regulate the use of the highways for purposes other than that of passing and repassing belongs to the Province.
-
941.
SCR | RCS [1952] vol 2 - 1952-12-15
Canada Supreme Court ReportsA TABLE OF THE NAMES OF THE CASES CITED IN THIS VOLUME NAME OF CABE Adamson v. Melbourne Adolph Lumber Co. v. Meadow Creek Lumber Co. Akers v. Commissioner of Taxes Allen v. Allen Allen v. Furnes Armstrong v. Redford Associated Insulation Products Ltd. v. Golder Atlantic Smoke Shops v. Conlon [1941] S.C.R. 670; A.G. for [...] Solicitors for the appellant: Porter, Allen & Mac-Kimmie. Solicitor for the respondent: H. W. Riley. 60381-3i [...] Miller v. Allen (3). The Court of Appeal relies upon Roberto v. Bumb (4).
-
942.
Kloepfer Wholesale Hardware v. Roy - [1952] 2 SCR 465 - 1952-06-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Miller v. Allen[5]. The Court of Appeal relies upon Roberto v. Bumb[6].
-
943.
Smith v. Smith - [1952] 2 SCR 312 - 1952-05-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
law in Stuart v. Stuart where a number of authorities bearing on the issue were considered-Loveden v. Loveden[12] ; Allen v. Allen and Bell [13] ; FitzRandolph v. FitzRandolph[14]; L. v. L. and K.[15] ; Churchman v. Churchman, supra; Ginesi v. Ginesi [16] [...] While in Allen v. Allen [34], Lopes L.J., delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in a case where the evidence was circumstantial, had said in part (p. 252) :‑
-
944.
SCR | RCS [1952] vol 1 - 1952-04-22
Canada Supreme Court ReportsAeronautics Reference Allen v. Allen and Bell Anderson v. Hunter Ashbury v. Riche A.G. for Canada v. A.G. for B.0 A.G. for Canada v. A.G. for Ontario A.G. for Ontario v. A.G. for Canada A.G. for Ontario v. Canada Temperance Fed.. 1946 A.G. v. Keyer's Royal Hotel A.G. v. Great Eastern Ry. Co. Auger v. Beaudry. [...] Allen v. Allen and Bell [1894] p. 248 at 255, Laiin v. Lapin [1945] 3 D.L.R. 595 and Waugh v. Waugh [1946] 2 D.L.R. 133, distinguished. [...] Allen v. Allen and Bell [1894] without deciding, that a motion to stike p. 248 at 255, Luffin v. Lufn [1945] out a Statement of Claim heard in Cham-3 D.L.R. 595 and Waugh v. Waugh [1946] bers by the Local Master is a judicial 2 D.L.R. 133, distinguished.
-
945.
Bouck v. Minister of National Revenue - [1952] 2 SCR 17 - 1952-03-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
The learned Chief Justice thus viewed the decision of the Court of Appeal in Allen v. Furnes 27. [...] In Allen's case, the gift was to a father for life "for the support and maintenance of himself and children." [...] Solicitors for the appellant: Porter, Allen & MacKimmie. Solicitor for the respondent: H. W. Riley.
-
946.
SCR | RCS [1951] - 1951-10-22
Canada Supreme Court ReportsA TABLE OF THE NAMES OF THE CASES CITED IN THIS VOLUME NAME OF CASE Adams v. Lindsell Addie v. Dumbreck [1929] A.C. 358 Alexandria, The Alina, The Allen v. The King Amiot v. Dugas Anderson v. Dickie Andreas v. C.P.R. Anthony v. A.G. for Alberta Antoniou v. Union Bank of Canada 61 Can. S.C.R. 253 Arklay v. Andrews Armand v. [...] Gouin v. The King (1926) S.C.R. 539, at p. 543; Allen v. The King (• 1911) 44 Can. S.C.R. 331, at p. 339; Makin v. Att.-Gen. for New South Wales (1894) A.C. 57, at p. 70. [...] Where, apart from the evidence held inadmissible, there is evidence from which the jury may find the accused guilty a new trial was directed: Allen v. The King (' 2).
-
947.
Welstead v. Brown - [1952] 1 SCR 3 - 1951-10-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
Allen v. Allen and Bell [1894] p. 248 at 255, Laffin v. Laffin [1945] 3 D.L.R. 595 and Waugh v. Waugh [1946] 2 D.L.R. 133, distinguished. [...] This is supported by the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Allen v. Allen and Bell[36], where Lindley L.J. says:—
-
948.
Boucher v. the King - [1951] SCR 265 - 1950-12-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Where, apart from the evidence held inadmissible, there is evidence from which the jury may find the accused guilty a new trial was directed: Allen v. The King[48].
-
949.
Lizotte v. The King - [1951] SCR 115 - 1950-12-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Gouin v. The King (1926) S.C.R. 539, at p. 543; Allen v. The King (1911) 44 Can. SCR. 331, at p. 339; Makin v. Att.-Gen. for New South Wales (1894) A.C. 57, at p. 70.
-
950.
Sauvageau v. The King - [1950] SCR 664 - 1950-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsState
...Now, before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood (1898 A.C. 1) and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be