Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,301.
McGonegal et al. v. Gray et al. - [1952] 2 SCR 274 - 1952-06-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsEducation law
McDowall v. Great Western Ry. Co.[30]; Corby v. Foster[31]; Yachuk v. Blais[32]; Kelly v. Barton[33]; Williams v. Eady[34].
-
1,302.
Minister of National Revenue v. Wain-Town - [1952] 2 SCR 377 - 1952-06-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
A particularly useful judgment is that of the High Court of Australia in McCauley v. The Federal Commissioner of Taxation 7, where it is pointed out that in an agreement drawn in England the term "royalties" has been used to describe payments for removing furnace slag from land (Shingler v. P. Williams and Sons 8) and in an
-
1,303.
Industrial Acceptance Corp. v. Lalonde - [1952] 2 SCR 109 - 1952-06-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsBankruptcy and insolvency
Lalonde, after becoming bankrupt, was employed by The Sherwin-Williams Co. of Canada Limited at a salary of $390 per month. [...] Upon a date that the evidence does not fix accurately, but in the summer months, Lalonde left the employment of The Sherwin-Williams Co. of Canada Limited and accepted employment with his father at a salary of $50 per week.
-
1,304.
Smith v. Smith - [1952] 2 SCR 312 - 1952-05-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
In Williams v. Williams [50], Sir William Scott, after-wards Lord Stowell, said (pp. 299, 300) :-‑ [...] In Loveden v. Loveden [51], referred to in the judgment of Tucker L.J. on the appeal in Ginesi's case and by Lord MacDermott in the case of Preston-Jones, Sir William Scott employed the language so constantly referred to on the subject (pp. 2, 3) :‑ [...] In Shelford's work on the Law of Marriage and Divorce published in 1841, after referring to the fact that adultery can hardly be proved by any direct means, the learned author adopts the language employed by Lord Stowell in Williams v. Williams (supra) and Loveden v. Loveden (supra) as stating the general rule applicable as
-
1,305.
Vancouver General Hospital v. Fraser - [1952] 2 SCR 36 - 1952-05-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
I do not think this statement was intended to differ with what had been said by Willes, J. in Ryder v. Wombwell[23] , where, delivering the judgment of a court which included Byles, Blackburn, Montague Smith and Lush, JJ., he quoted with approval what was said by Williams, J. in Toomey v. London and Brighton Railway
-
1,306.
Bouck v. Minister of National Revenue - [1952] 2 SCR 17 - 1952-03-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
Here, to adapt the language of Sir William Meredith, at page 611 of 33 O.L.R., the appellant was entitled to receive the income, subject to an obligation on her part to maintain and educate the children out of it but leaving to her discretion the manner in and the extent to which provision should be made for any child, a
-
1,307.
Grossman et al. v. The King - [1952] 1 SCR 571 - 1952-02-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsAir law
Kerwin and Estey JJ. dissented, they both being of the opinion that one of these non-commissioned officers, one Williams, a sergeant major, owed a duty to the suppliant to prevent the men under his charge from firing and that, accordingly, the Crown was liable.
-
1,308.
The King v. Assessors of Sunny Brae (Town) - [1952] 2 SCR 76 - 1952-02-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
In Morice V. Bishop of Durham 43, Sir William Grant M.R. formulated the test as follows at p. 406: [...] There can be no doubt of the commercial nature of the appellant's laundry and drycleaning business, and a trust for the benefit of the appellant could not meet the test laid down by Sir William Grant. [...] See Woodfall's Law of Landlord & Tenant, 24th Ed., 303; Williams on Canadian Landlord & Tenant, 2nd Ed., 159.
-
1,309.
Kissick v. The King - [1952] 1 SCR 343 - 1952-01-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
John Kissick, Peter Kissick, William Kissick, Stella (Sally) Smallwood Appellants; [...] (McGrath v. R. 5, Thorne v. R. 6, Hyman Kurasch v. R. 7, Warren v. R. 8, Knox v. R. 9, Hullett v. R. 10, Allaway v. R. 11, William Ward v. R. 12, Mason v. R. 13, Weisz v. R. 14, Starkie v. R. 15, R. v. Mortimer 16, R. v. Hewitt 17, R. v. Dutt 18, R. v. McGerlymchie 19, R. v. Livock 20 and R. v. Robinson 21). [...] That they, the said John Kissick, Peter Kissick, William Kissick and Stella (Sally) Smallwood ... conspired with each other and with other persons unknown to commit an indictable offence, to wit: to unlawfully sell drugs, within the meaning of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929, and amendments thereto, without first
-
1,310.
Douglas v. Tucker - [1952] 1 SCR 275 - 1951-12-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
The other members of the Court, Littledale, Williams and Coleridge, JJ. concurred.
-
1,311.
World Marine and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Leger - [1952] 2 SCR 3 - 1951-12-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
86 Prince William St. Saint John, N.B. (It was explained that "cCc" are the initials of another company, not a fire insurance company).
-
1,312.
The King v. Uhlemann - [1952] 1 SCR 143 - 1951-12-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
The specification is dated the 28th day of February, 1938, and the patent was granted to William R. Uhlemann on the 16th day of May, 1939.
-
1,313.
C.P.R. v. City of Winnipeg - [1952] 1 SCR 424 - 1951-10-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
APPEAL by the city of Winnipeg, and a further appeal by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba 1 allowing in part an appeal by the city from a judgment of Williams C.J.K.B. 2 in favour of the C.P.R. in an action to enjoin the city of Winnipeg from imposing certain taxation. [...] According to Mr. William Manson, vice-president of the prairie region of the railway company, the railway uses the hotel services of this hotel extensively.
-
1,314.
Stanley v. Douglas - [1952] 1 SCR 260 - 1951-10-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
Walter Douglas, Executor of the last Will and Codicil of William F. Jardine, deceased Respondent. [...] The Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island sitting in banco, set aside the judgment of Palmer J. of the Court of Probate whereby he admitted to probate in solemn form the will and codicil of the late William Faulkner Jardine, and ordered a new trial before the Probate Court. [...] William F. Jardine died January 2, 1949, and on January 5 of that year the appellants filed a caveat in the Probate Court requiring proof of the will to be made before the Court per testes or in solemn form of law.
-
1,315.
Welstead v. Brown - [1952] 1 SCR 3 - 1951-10-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
In the same case Lord MacDermott states: “The evidence must no doubt be fair and satisfy beyond a mere balance of probabilities, and conclusive in the sense that it will satisfy what Lord Stowell, when Sir William Scott, described in Loveden v. Loveden[23], as “the guarded discretion of a reasonable and just man.”
-
1,316.
Williams v. Aristocratic Restaurants - [1951] SCR 762 - 1951-06-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
Williams v. Aristocratic Restaurants, [1951] SCR 762 Supreme Court of Canada [...] Williams v. Aristocratic Restaurants, [1951] S.C.R. 762 Date: 1951-06-27 [...] Williams and Morrison are respectively President and Secretary of local 28.
-
1,317.
Lucey v. Catholic Orphanage of Prince Albert - [1951] SCR 690 - 1951-06-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
It would, I think, involve a violent and unnatural construction to regard the words "Reverend William Bruck" or "Reverend William Bruck o.m.i." as an adjectival phrase descriptive of St. Patrick's Orphanage, and I do not think the testatrix so employed them. [...] This view is, in my opinion, somewhat strengthened by the use of the words "the said" in the sentence which follows "—and I appoint the said Reverend William Bruck sole executor of this my will".—The testatrix first gives her estate to Reverend William Bruck and then appoints "the said Reverend William Bruck" her executor. [...] Even if the words are read, as counsel for the respondent contends they should be, "unto Reverend William Bruck,
-
1,318.
Woods v. The King - [1951] SCR 504 - 1951-02-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
which compensation 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 3.
-
1,319.
Boucher v. the King - [1951] SCR 265 - 1950-12-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
I think the change that took place following the accession to the Throne of William and Mary in 1688 bears upon the present question. [...] While it was not so declared in the Bill of Rights, from the time William III came to the Throne the commissions of the judges were by their terms to endure during their good behaviour and not merely at the King's pleasure, and this was expressly provided by the "Act for the Limitation of the Crown and Better Securing the [...] The last of the Irish cases to which I have referred is The Queen v. McHugh[62], where the accused was charged with publishing a wicked, scandalous and malicious libel of and concerning the administration of justice, intending to bring it into contempt and to scandalize and vilify William Drennan Andrews (Andrews, J.) and,
-
1,320.
Canadian Wheat Board v. Nolan et al. - [1951] SCR 81 - 1950-11-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
At the same time price ceilings for all grades would be raised, in the case of barley to 93c and in the case of oats to 65c basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver. [...] payments were discontinued; support prices were fixed on the basis of No. 1 feed Canada Western barley 90c per bushel, basis Fort William; the maximum price of barley grown in Western Canada was raised to 93c per bushel, basis Fort William; and the export of barley was prohibited except by the Canadian Wheat Board. [...] the Government to continue to pay freight on grain for feeding purposes and millfeeds shipped East from Fort William/Port Arthur and West from Calgary and Edmonton into British Columbia until July 31, 1948.
-
1,321.
Hanson v. Bondholders' Re-Organization Committee - [1951] SCR 366 - 1950-11-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
The Canada Trust Company and William D. Glendinning, (Plaintiffs) Respondents;
-
1,322.
Noble et al. v. Alley - [1951] SCR 64 - 1950-11-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Court of Appeal for Ontario in a matter of procedure, Taschereau J. saying that the matter was but a question of practice and consequently one with which, in accordance with the jurisprudence, the court would not interfere and referring to O’Donnell v. Beatty[25]; Williams v. Leonard and Sons[26], and Price v. Fraser[27].
-
1,323.
Barrick v. Clark - [1951] SCR 177 - 1950-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Ralph Newcombe Barrick and Theresa May Florella Barrick, Executors of the Estate of Eli James Barrick, Deceased, and William Hohmann (Defendants) Appellants; [...] The appellant in his letter of the 12th of December, 1947, states that he "held the deal open for you until December 6th when I received an offer from William Hohmann." [...] In the meantime the appellant William Hohmann, also of Luseland, but without knowledge of Clark's correspondence, under date of November 28, inquired of Barrick with regard to this land and Barrick, on November 30, offered him the land for $15,000 cash.
-
1,324.
Cotter v. General Petroleums Ltd. - [1951] SCR 154 - 1950-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
William H. Cotter (Plaintiff) Appellant; and General Petroleums Limited And Superior Oils, Limited (Defendants) Respondents.
-
1,325.
Sauvageau v. The King - [1950] SCR 664 - 1950-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsState
William Morin, K.C., for the respondent. The Chief Justice (dissenting): Sa Majesté le Roi, par le moyen d'une Information, produite à la Cour de l'Échiquier 2, par le Procureur général du Canada, a réclamé des appelants la somme de $18,168.32 avec les intérêts légaux sur cette somme, à compter du 14 octobre 1941, et les [...] Solicitor for His Majesty the King: William Morin. 1 [1948] Ex. C.R. 534.