Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
976.
Hawrelak v. City of Edmonton - [1976] 1 SCR 387 - 1975-03-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
William Hawrelak (Defendant) Appellant; and The City of Edmonton (Plaintiff) Respondent. [...] The respondent, the City of Edmonton, had sued the appellant, William Hawrelak, for profits which he had obtained upon the sale of certain shares in the Sun-Alta Builders Limited and for damages. [...] The appellant then left the city and during his absence, and without any instructions from him, so the appellant testified, the document was executed on behalf of the city by William Mitchell, the acting mayor.
-
977.
Attorney General of Canada et al. v. Canard - [1976] 1 SCR 170 - 1975-01-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Courts
The Attorney General of Canada and William Barber Rees (Defendants) Appellants; [...] (a) A Declaratory Judgment declaring the Defendant, William Barber Rees, to be the lawful Administrator of the estate of Alexander Canard, deceased; [...] Solicitor for the plaintiff, respondent: William Rachman, Winnipeg. [1] [1972] 5 W.W.R. 678, 30 D.L.R. (3d) 9.
-
978.
Jackson v. Millar - [1976] 1 SCR 225 - 1975-01-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
William Millar, an Infant Under the Age of Twenty-one Years, by His Guardian ad litem, Murray Millar, and the Said Murray Millar (Defendants) Respondents. [...] Mr. Justice Osler had found that the negligence of the defendant William Millar was gross negligence and that the infant plaintiff, Bradley Charles Jackson, had, by his negligence to the extent of ten per cent contributed to his injuries, and he therefore gave judgment for the infant plaintiff for $223,785.07 and for the [...] Three youths, the infant plaintiff Bradley Charles Jackson, the infant defendant William Millar, and a third, Ross T. Sanders, were, at the time of the accident, riding in an automobile owned by the adult defendant, Murray Millar, and driven by the infant defendant, William Millar.
-
979.
O’Neill et al. v. O’Neill et al. - [1976] 1 SCR 588 - 1975-01-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
(2) William Patrick O’Neill was also the father of Thomas John O’Neill, who was the father of defendant-respondents; [...] From this appellants conclude that this difference between the texts represents a difference of intent, and that the right Thomas O’Neill conferred on his legatee William Patrick, to choose between his children, was not conferred on the said William Patrick by Bridget Martin O’Neill. [...] If so, her trust was justified in the case of her son William Patrick, who left the property to one of his sons.
-
980.
Penvidic v. International Nickel - [1976] 1 SCR 267 - 1975-01-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Torts
‘If in the contract one finds the time limited within which the builder is to do the work, that means, not only that he is to do it within that time, but it means also that he is to have that time within which to do it.’ (Per Vaughan Williams L.J. in Wells v. Army & Navy Co‑operative Society (1902) 86 L.T. 764; Hudson’s
-
981.
Hatchwell v. R. - [1976] 1 SCR 39 - 1974-12-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Robert William Hatchwell Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. [...] DICKSON J.—This is an appeal from a majority judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (Robertson and Bull JJ.A.) dismissing an appeal by Robert William Hatchwell from a sentence of preventive detention imposed by Judge Johnson on May 22, 1973, at the City of Vancouver, pursuant to s. 688 of the Criminal Code, in
-
982.
Little and Wolski v. R. - [1976] 1 SCR 20 - 1974-12-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Robert Gary Little and Richard William Wolski Appellants; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. [...] That the said Richard William Wolski, and Robert Gary Little, on or about the 22nd day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventy-two, at or near the City of Winnipeg in the Eastern Judicial District in the Province of Manitoba, did unlawfully
-
983.
O'Rourke et al. v. Schacht - [1976] 1 SCR 53 - 1974-12-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
Professional law
William Thackery, a constable on the Police Force of the Town of Harriston, was informed of this accident by a motorist very shortly after 12:30 a.m., or even perhaps a few moments before. [...] The first Ontario Provincial Police constable arrived at the scene at about 1:15 or 1:20 a.m. and Corporal William Johnston, who was in charge of the police work, arrived at 1:44 a.m. Thackery remained at the scene until 2:30 a.m. and Corporal Johnston and his fellow Ontario Provincial Police constables were engaged in
-
984.
Cotroni v. Attorney General of Canada - [1976] 1 SCR 219 - 1974-10-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Kenneth C. Binks, Q.C., and William J. Simpson, for the appellant. L.P. Landry, Q.C., for the respondent.
-
985.
Canadian Long Island Petroleums Ltd. et al. v. Irving Industries Ltd. - [1975] 2 SCR 715 - 1974-10-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Manchester case and says (at p. 361) that: “It has not been suggested that there is any subsequent authority or statute which weakens the force of what Vaughan Williams L.J. said.” Vaughan Williams L.J. delivered the judgment of the Court.
-
986.
Auld et al. v. Wallace’s Moving Storage Ltd. et al. - [1975] 2 SCR 820 - 1974-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Criminal law
Robert William Auld and Mae Gertrude Auld (Plaintiffs) Appellants; and [...] Solicitors for the third parties, respondents: William J. Grant, Truro.
-
987.
Eady v. Tenderenda - [1975] 2 SCR 599 - 1974-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsProfessional law
Res ipsa loquitur was applied recently in a medical case, namely in William Gordon Finlay and Nancy Jean Finlay v. Benson Auld[6].
-
988.
Honan v. Gerhold et al. - [1975] 2 SCR 866 - 1974-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
Torts
She was taken to Victoria Hospital under the care of Dr. William George Jamieson a specialist in surgery.
-
989.
R. v. Dobberthien - [1975] 2 SCR 560 - 1974-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Michael William Dobberthien Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent. [...] I quote the learned trial judge’s comments when admitting the evidence of Sergeant John William Fitzpatrick: [...] He was therefore in the same position as Sergeant John William Fitzpatrick as to whom the Court had made the remark which I have quoted above in reference to the weighing of his evidence.
-
990.
R. v. Maroney - [1975] 2 SCR 306 - 1974-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
William James Maroney (Defendant) Respondent. 1974: April 29; 1974: October 1. [...] JUDSON J.—The respondent in this appeal, William James Maroney, was convicted after trial before a judge and jury on the following count: [...] WILLIAM JAMES MARONEY on or about the 29th day of July, in the year 1971, at the City of St. Catharines in the Judicial District of Niagara North in the Province of Ontario, unlawfully did have in his possession a quantity of merchandise having a total value exceeding Fifty Dollars ($50.00) knowing it to have been obtained
-
991.
Goldsworthy v. Thompson - [1975] 2 SCR 271 - 1974-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
William Maurice Thompson Respondent. 1974: June 12; 1974: June 28.
-
992.
R. v. Nabis - [1975] 2 SCR 485 - 1974-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
In this regard, appellant’s counsel urged that mere words cannot, under s. 244, amount to an assault, a proposition which is generally accepted though it may sometimes be disputed: Glanville Williams, “Assault and Words”, [1957] Crim.
-
993.
McLeod v. Egan - [1975] 1 SCR 517 - 1974-05-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsArbitration
Labour law
William McLeod and George McPherson (Plaintiffs) Appellants; and Rory F. Egan and Galt Metal Industries Limited (Defendants) Respondents.
-
994.
Brunswick Construction Ltée v. Nowlan - [1975] 2 SCR 523 - 1974-04-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
See Thompson v. The London County Council [1899] 1 Q.B. 840 C.A. and see Glanville Williams on Joint Torts and Contributory Negligence 1951, page 2.
-
995.
Porteous v. Dorn et al. - [1975] 2 SCR 37 - 1974-04-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
Enterprise of Thursday, December 22, 1949, in which Mr. and Mrs. F. Rosenmeyer announced the engagement of their daughter, Frances, to Mr. William Lee Porteous; (iii) a Saskatchewan Hospital Services Plan slip recording the stay of “Mrs. M. Rosenmeyer” in Yorkton General Hospital from November 16 to December 4, 1950.
-
996.
Seafarers’ International Union of Canada et al. v. Glasgow et al. - [1975] 1 SCR 164 - 1974-04-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsPrerogative writs
William Glasgow et al. Respondents; and Leonard J. McLaughlin and [...] William Glasgow et al. Respondents. and The Seafarers’ International Union of Canada and John Royce.
-
997.
Côté v. R. - [1975] 1 SCR 303 - 1974-04-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
[Regina v. Fennell (1961), 130 C.C.C. 66; Regina v. Hogg, [1958] O.R. 723; Regina v. St. Jean (1971), 15 C.R.n.s. 194; Regina v. Siggins, [1960] O.R. 284; 32 C.R. 306; Regina v. Van Dorn (1957), 25 C.R. 151; Milanovich v. U.S. (1960), 365 U.S. 551; People v. Tatum (1962), 209 C.A. (2d) 179; People v. Williams (1967), 253 [...] This negative dictum was made the basis of an affirmative approach by the same court in People v. Williams[22], at p. 958 where this was said:
-
998.
Sisters of St. Joseph v. Villeneuve - [1975] 1 SCR 285 - 1974-04-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsProfessional law
Dr. William A. Keech, Dr. Gordon T. Ross, Dr. Kenneth B. Brown, Dr. R.M. Jackson and Dr. D.T.M. Paine Defendants. [...] The infant plaintiff, born on August 21, 1963, was taken by his mother to his physician, the defendant Dr. William A. Keech, who had been the family doctor for many years.
-
999.
Attorney General of Ontario v. Walker - [1975] 1 SCR 78 - 1974-01-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
William H. Walker II, Ruth V. Stockton, Robert S. Stockton, Charlotte Worral Corey and Mary Elizabeth Letchworth (Defendants) Respondents.
-
1,000.
Stewart et al. v. Routhier - [1975] 1 SCR 566 - 1974-01-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
(1867), L.R. 2 C.P. 311; Morton v. William Dixon, Ltd., [1909] S.C. 807; Paris v. Stetney Borough Council, [1951] 1 All E.R. 42; Noddin v. Laskey, [1956] S.C.R. 577 referred to.] [...] Hughes J.A., in giving reasons for the Court of Appeal, adopted the statement made by Lord Dunedin in Morton v. William Dixon, Ltd.[6], which had been also adopted in the House of Lords in Paris v. Stepney Borough Council[7], and restated by Rand J. in this Court in Noddin v. Laskey[8], at p. 585.