Advanced Search
- All Databases (2,511)
- Decisions (1,094)
- Resources (1,417)
1,094 result(s)
-
601.
Polai v. City of Toronto - [1973] SCR 38 - 1972-06-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
I.G. Scott, for the defendant, appellant. D.C. Lyons and M.J. Winer, for the plaintiff, respondent. [...] Solicitors for the defendant, appellant: Cameron, Brewin & Scott, Toronto.
-
602.
Woolaston v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration - [1973] SCR 102 - 1972-06-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsImmigration
Solicitors for the appellants: Cameron, Brewin & Scott, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: S.F. Froomkin, Ottawa.
-
603.
Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise v. Ferguson Industries Ltd. et al. - [1973] SCR 21 - 1972-05-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsCustoms and excise
They had been ordered with the winches from André Brusselle Limited (Brusselle) of Belgium, but the latter had in turn ordered them from Laurence Scott & Electromotors Limited of Norwich, England, and this firm made the shipment direct to the respondent while the winches were shipped separately by Brusselle from
-
604.
Corporation des Opticiens d’ordonnances du Québec v. Valentine et al. - [1972] SCR 478 - 1971-12-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Also inapplicable is Watt & Scott, Ltd. v. The City of Montreal[6], in which appellant had brought two separate suits against the City, and the Court, in accordance with art. 291 and 292 of the old Code of Civil Procedure—now 270 and 271 of the new Code—ordered that these suits be joined for purposes of evidence only. [...] In Watt & Scott, Ltd. v. City of Montreal[14], appellant had brought two separate actions in succession against the municipality for damages resulting from sewage system overflow on two different occasions. [...] The only difference between the present case and the Watt & Scott case is that here the Corporation itself joined the causes of action in the same suit, in accordance with art. 66 of the present Code of Procedure, instead of bringing them separately and then asking the Court to consolidate them.
-
605.
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.
-
606.
Minister of National Revenue v. Consolidated Holding Co. - [1974] SCR 419 - 1971-12-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
Solicitors for the respondent: Meredith, Marshall, McConnell & Scott, Vancouver.
-
607.
Culina v. Giuliani - [1972] SCR 343 - 1971-10-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTrust
Scott on Trusts, 3rd ed., vol. IV, at p. 2517, says: Where the release is given by the trustee in breach of trust and the obligor is not in the position of a bona fide purchaser, either because he gives no value for the release or because he has notice that the trustee is committing a breach of trust in giving him the
-
608.
The Queen v. Smith - [1972] SCR 359 - 1971-10-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
In my opinion there is here no delegation of lawmaking power, but rather the adoption by Parliament, in the exercise of its exclusive power, of the legislation of another body as it may from time to time exist, a course which has been held constitutionally valid by this Court in Attorney General for Ontario v. Scott, (1956)
-
609.
Phillips et al. v. Samilo et al. - [1972] SCR 201 - 1971-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
Solicitors for the defendants, appellants, Victoria Phillips and Kenneth Meredith: Meredith, Marshall, McConnell & Scott, Vancouver.
-
610.
Hellenius v. Lees - [1972] SCR 165 - 1971-04-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
The rule is conveniently and authoritatively stated in the judgment of Erle C.J., in Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks Co.[2], where it is said:
-
611.
R. v. Bagshaw - [1972] SCR 2 - 1971-04-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Criminal law
I must point out that even if the theft from such other unidentified firm had been perpetrated by this appellant he could not have been convicted on the offence as charged as the cans would not have been the property of Canada Packers Limited: Reg. v. Scott[14].
-
612.
Royal Trust Company v. Ford et al. - [1971] SCR 831 - 1971-04-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
D.M. Gordon, Q.C., and J. C. Scott-Harston, Q.C., for the plaintiff, appellant.
-
613.
Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Greater Winnipeg - [1971] SCR 957 - 1970-12-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
A. S. Dewar, Q.C., and R. J. Scott, for the defendant, respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by
-
614.
Attorney-General for Ontario v. Policyholders of Wentworth Insurance et al. - [1969] SCR 779 - 1969-06-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
F.W. Callaghan, Q.C., and R. Scott, for the appellant. H.H. Siegal, Q.C., for Policyholders of Wentworth Ins. and others claiming for losses.
-
615.
Minister of National Revenue v. Sissons - [1969] SCR 507 - 1969-03-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
cumstances takes on the character of a business, it is no longer an investment although all the mortgages are held to maturity: Scott v. Minister of National Revenue[6], Minister of National Revenue v. MacInnes[7].
-
616.
Wood v. M.N.R. - [1969] SCR 330 - 1969-01-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
In Scott v. Minister of National Revenue[4], Judson J., after reviewing a line of cases in the Exchequer Court dealing with this problem, in some of which it was held that the taxpayer was engaged in investment, and in others in a scheme for profit-making, said at p. 225:
-
617.
Kolnberger v. The Queen - [1969] SCR 213 - 1968-12-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Ian G. Scott, for the appellant. Brian Crane, for the respondent. Cartwright C.J. and Spence J. concurred with the judgment delivered by [...] Solicitors for the appellant: Cameron, Brewin & Scott, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General for Alberta.
-
618.
Lake v. The Queen - [1969] SCR 49 - 1968-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
R. v. Scott, 34 C.C.C. 180 and R. v. Castle, 68 C.C.C. 78. It was proper to amend the conviction as it appears that upon the evidence the appellant should only have been convicted of obtaining the amount of $56. [...] judgments in R. v. Scott[1], Ontario Court of Appeal, as confirmed in this Court[2] in the same volume at p. 187, where at p. 186 Magee J. said: [...] What the Crown set out to prove, as I venture to think, is that Scott’s employers had been defrauded out of $7,835, or some greater or less sum, by some act which amounted to theft.
-
619.
Minister of National Revenue v. Freud - [1969] SCR 75 - 1968-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
Obligations to pay money can be trading assets just like other things (Scott v. Minister of National Revenue[8]; Minister of National Revenue v. Maclnnes[9]; Minister of National Revenue v. Curlett[10]).
-
620.
DeClercq v. The Queen - [1968] SCR 902 - 1968-06-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
the maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare...has been described (by Coleridge J. in R. v. Scott, 1856, Dears & B. 47 at 61, 169 E.R. 909) as “a maxim of our law as settled, as important and as wise as almost any other in it”.
-
621.
Markling v. Ewaniuk et al. - [1968] SCR 776 - 1968-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
has been accepted in this Court in the cases of Ottawa Electric Co. v. Crepin, [1931] S.C.R. 407 at p. 411 and Parent v. Lapointe, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 376 at p. 381, in the terms in which it was stated by the Exchequer Chamber in Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Company, (1865), 3 H. & C. 596, where it was said:
-
622.
Ross, Banks and Dyson v. The Queen - [1968] SCR 786 - 1968-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
The question as to the true interpretation in this respect of s. 10 of the Gaming Act was considered and determined by this Court in Scott v. Jackson, [1911] N.Z.L.R. 1025.
-
623.
Walker v. Coates et al. - [1968] SCR 599 - 1968-04-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
McCulloch v. Murray, [1942] S.C.R. 141, applied; Ottawa Electric Co. v. Crepin, [1931] S.C.R. 407; Parent v. Lapointe, [1952] 1 S.C.R. 376; Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co. (1865), 3 H. & C. 596; Ball v. Kraft (1967), 60 D.L.R. (2d) 35; Kerr v. Cummings, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 846, affirmed, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 147; [...] The application of the rule which is usually referred to as res ipsa loquitur to cases of negligence has been accepted in this Court in the cases of Ottawa Electric Co. v. Crepin[2], at p. 411 and Parent v. Lapointe[3], at p. 381, in the terms in which it was stated by the Exchequer Chamber in Scott v. London and St.
-
624.
Coughlin v. The Ontario Highway Transport Board - [1968] SCR 569 - 1968-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
There is here no delegation of law‑making power, but rather the adoption by Parliament, in the exercise of its exclusive power, of the legislation of another body as it may from time to time exist, a course which has been held constitutionally valid by this Court in A.G. for Ontario v. Scott, [1956] S.C.R. 137, and by the [...] Il s’agit plutôt de l’adoption par le Parlement, dans l’exercice de son pouvoir exclusif, de la législation d’un autre corps telle qu’elle peut exister de temps à autre, ce qui a été jugé constitutionnellement valide par cette Cour dans A.G. for Ontario v. Scott, [1956] R.C.S. 137, et par la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario dans [...] The case of A.G. for Ontario v. Scott[14], has been cited in support of the validity of the legislation which is here in question, but in my view the question decided in that case was an entirely different one.
-
625.
McKenzie et al. v. Hiscock et al. - [1967] SCR 781 - 1967-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Contract
Meduk v. Soja, [1958] S.C.R. 167; British American Oil Co. Ltd. v. Kos, [1964] S.C.R. 167; Halldorson v. Holizki, [1919] 1 W.W.R. 472, affirmed [1919] 3 W.W.R. 86, applied; Scott and Sheppard v. Miller, [1922] 1 W.W.R. 1083, referred to. [...] In Scott and Sheppard v. Miller[6], the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan left open the question whether a husband could be held liable in damages for failure to perform an agreement by him to sell the homestead when his wife refused to consent to the sale; but the reasoning of Lamont J., with whom Haultain C.J.S. agreed,