Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,026.
Judson v. Governors of University of Toronto - [1972] SCR 553 - 1971-12-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
Pierre Genest, Q.C., and William G. Scott, for the respondent. JUDSON J. (dissenting in part)—I agree with and would adopt the majority reasons delivered in the Court of Appeal on both the issues involved in this appeal—the disallowance of additional compensation and the disallowance of interest.
-
1,027.
Basarsky v. Quinlan - [1972] SCR 380 - 1971-10-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Tannas v. Mosser, [1930] 1 W.W.R. 738; Pontin v. Wood, [1962] 1 All E.R. 294; Hall v. Meyrick, [1957] 2 All E.R. 722; Cooper v. Williams, [1963] 2 All E.R. 282; Fitzpatrick v. Schram, [1928] 1 W.W.R. 751, referred to. [...] Act at the same time as he was putting forward the claim under The Trustee Act. The omission of the appellant to give particulars of those on whose behalf an action under The Fatal Accidents Act could be taken is not in itself fatal and neither is the failure to refer to the latter Act specifically: Cooper v. Williams[6]. [...] This point was dealt with in Alberta in Fitzpatrick v. Schram[7], and in this regard also note should be taken of the judgment of Lord Denning M.R. in Cooper v. Williams (supra).
-
1,028.
Dziwenka et al. v. R. et al. - [1972] SCR 419 - 1971-10-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
This standard was adopted in the Court of Appeal in England in Williams v. Eady[2], and was recently held to be applicable by this Court in McKay v. Board of Govan School Unit No. 29 of Saskatchewan[3]. [...] But I cannot myself, therefore, conclude that any lack of care within the scope of the obligation which was laid down by Lord Esher in Williams v. Eady ...was established.
-
1,029.
Minister of National Revenue v. Panko - [1972] SCR 319 - 1971-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
William Panko Respondent. 1971: June 8; 1971: June 28. Present: Abbott, Judson, Ritchie, Pigeon and Laskin JJ. [...] JUDSON J.—During each of the years 1960 to 1965 inclusive, the respondent, William Panko, suppressed income in the total amount of $165,801.70.
-
1,030.
R. v. Appleby - [1972] SCR 303 - 1971-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Criminal law
William F. Appleby Respondent. 1971: May 18, 19; 1971: June 28. Present: Fauteux C.J. and Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Hall, Spence, Pigeon and Laskin JJ. [...] 3. Evidence upon the proceedings questioned was heard before me on the 9th day of March, A.D. 1970, and I reserved decision until the 15th day of April, A.D. 1970, whereupon I found the said William F. Appleby guilty, as charged.
-
1,031.
McConkey v. Thorn - [1972] SCR 61 - 1971-05-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
Cora Cecilia McConkey in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate of William McConkey, deceased (Plaintiff) Appellant; [...] HALL J.—This is an appeal from the dismissal by the Court of Appeal for Ontario of an appeal by one William McConkey, now deceased, from the dismissal of his action against the respondent by Moorhouse J. William McConkey died after an appeal had been taken to this Court but before the appeal was heard. [...] On being sued, the respondent took third party proceedings against Daniel and Simon Sorensen claiming contribution and relief over against these parties for all moneys and costs that the respondent might have to pay to William McConkey.
-
1,032.
R. v. Boisjoly - [1972] SCR 42 - 1971-04-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
An Act to allow Quakers and Moravians to make Affirmation in all Cases where an Oath is or shall be required—(1833) 3 &4 William IV, c. 49, see s. II. [...] In 1769, in the 4th volume of his Commentaries on the Laws of England (cf. p. 137 of the reprint made in 1966 of the first edition), Sir William Blackstone writes: [...] Legislation was introduced to put an end to the practice: see the Imperial statute, (1835) 5-6 William IV, c. 62, s. XIII, and the Canadian statute (1874) 37 Victoria, c. 37, ss. 1 and 2.
-
1,033.
Confederation Broadcasting (Ottawa) Ltd. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission - [1971] SCR 906 - 1971-04-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommunications law
No question of bona fides was raised in the present case in respect of the period of renewal, and hence I put aside the applicability of cases involving alleged colourable exercises of discretion such as Williams v. Giddy[5] where a board, empowered to grant to an entitled retired civil servant a gratuity to a fixed amount
-
1,034.
Bell v. Ontario Human Rights Com'n. - [1971] SCR 756 - 1971-02-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsAdministrative law
In the meantime, there had been correspondence between the Commission staff and the appellant and his solicitor, William C. Cuttell. [...] A number of Scottish cases have been quoted me to the same effect including The Trustees' of the late William Cotton, Appellants, Richard Farmer, Surveyor of Taxes (Edinburgh) Respondents, (1912-13) Scottish Session Cases page 1131; Speevack and Robson, (1949) S.L.T. notes of recent decisions on page 39; The Assets Company, [...] Solicitor for the appellant: William C. Cuttell, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: F. W. Callaghan, Toronto.
-
1,035.
British Columbia Telephone Company and Others v. Marpole Towing Ltd. - [1971] SCR 321 - 1970-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
The kind of evidence necessary to establish neglect of a proper precaution was considered in Morton v. William Dixon Ld. 1909 S.C. 807 by Lord President Dunedin. [...] occasioned by the faulty navigation of the Chugaway II on the part of Captain Forsyth and I adopt one succinct statement to be found in the judgment of Mr. Justice Judson, who was then sitting at trial as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario, in the case of Fort William v. McNamara Construction Co.[6], where he said:
-
1,036.
Frank v. Alpert et al. - [1971] SCR 637 - 1970-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
William Kleiman, trading as Kleiman’s Electric Service, and Walter Dziadus (Third Parties) Respondents. [...] Solicitors for the third party, respondent, William Kleiman: Bowman & Crawford, Winnipeg.
-
1,037.
Ruptash et al. v. Goyan - [1971] SCR 553 - 1970-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
Property law
The offer to purchase made between the parties was signed by William C. Lumsden only as vendor.
-
1,038.
Silver’s Garage Ltd. v. Town of Bridgewater - [1971] SCR 577 - 1970-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
The short distance between that case and the present one, under their respective facts, is manifest in the observation of Vaughan Williams L.J. at p. 783 that “a contract to pay has been implied, after consideration executed and benefit accepted, in a variety of cases in which there has been no contract under seal”.
-
1,039.
Asbestos Eastern Transport Inc. v. Maurice et al. - [1971] SCR 90 - 1970-12-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
This action, which was contested, was dismissed as ill-founded after proof and hearing by Judge William Mitchell of the Superior Court.
-
1,040.
City of Halifax v. Bauditz - [1971] SCR 170 - 1970-10-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
for land taken was to be awarded was the same as the law of England at that time and the judgment delivered by Lord Dunedin expressly approved the statement of these principles contained in the judgments of Vaughan‑Williams and Fletcher-Moulton, LL. JJ. in Re Lucas and Chesterfield Gas and Water Board [1909] 1 K.B. 16.
-
1,041.
Parna v. G. & S. Properties Ltd. - [1971] SCR 306 - 1970-10-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
G. & S. Properties Limited, and Frank Albert and William Harvie (Defendants) Respondents. [...] G. & S. Properties Limited, a respondent, is a company owned and controlled by the other respondents, Frank Albert and William Harvie, who were, respectively, its president and secretary. [...] William Harvie [Page 314] Within an hour after receipt of that document, Mr. Miller testified, the appellants August and Reta Parna attended him.
-
1,042.
Vander-Beek and Albright v. The Queen - [1971] SCR 260 - 1970-10-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Henry Joseph Vander-Beek and William Fergus Albright Appellants; and
-
1,043.
Rickard v. R. - [1970] SCR 1022 - 1970-06-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
The words “mutatis mutandis” as they occur in s. 727(1) are, in my opinion, to be taken as meaning “with the necessary changes in points of detail” (see Regina v. Ferris[5], per Williams C.J.), and I do not think that they in any way assist the matter when the application of the provisions of one of the sections to which
-
1,044.
Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. v. Pickford & Black Ltd. - [1971] SCR 41 - 1970-06-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Donald D. Anderson and William M. Kydd, for the defendant, respondent.
-
1,045.
Wilson et al. v. Rowswell - [1970] SCR 865 - 1970-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsProfessional law
In the interesting case of Chaplin v. Hicks[2], Vaughan Williams L.J. said at p. 791:
-
1,046.
Frankel Steel Construction v. Metro Toronto - [1970] SCR 726 - 1970-03-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
Evidence as to that conference was given by Mr. William J.H. Disher, the executive assistant to the president of the claimant company, and by Carson F. Morrison and Joseph M. Millman, two of the officers of the aforesaid consulting engineering
-
1,047.
Webb & Knapp (Canada) Limited et al. v. City of Edmonton - [1970] SCR 588 - 1970-03-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
In Chaplin v. Hicks, Vaughan Williams L.J. said at p. 792: In early days when it was necessary to assess damages, no rules were laid down by the Courts to guide juries in the assessment of damages for breach of contract; it was left to the jury absolutely.
-
1,048.
Patterson v. R. - [1970] SCR 409 - 1970-01-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Culliton J.A., in so deciding, quoted and accepted the judgment of Williams C.J.Q.B., in R. v. Schellenberg[9], where the learned Chief Justice said at p. 134:
-
1,049.
United Steelworkers of America v. Gaspé Copper Mines Limited - [1970] SCR 362 - 1970-01-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
On his return to Murdochville, Gagné produced an inaccurate doctor’s certificate which he gave to the General Manager of the plant, William G. Brissenden, in an attempt to justify his absence.
-
1,050.
Child v. Vancouver General Hospital et al. - [1970] SCR 477 - 1969-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
It was again cited by Rinfret J. in Coca-Cola Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Forbes[4], and by Hall J. in Byron v. Williams[5].