Advanced Search
- All Databases (2,511)
- Decisions (1,094)
- Resources (1,417)
1,094 result(s)
-
226.
Goodwin v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) - 2015 SCC 46 - [2015] 3 SCR 250 - 2015-10-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Scott Roberts Respondent And between: British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and [...] Scott Roberts Respondent ‑ and ‑ British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and [...] Jamie Chisholm, Carol Beam and Scott Roberts provided a breath sample into an ASD and registered a “fail”.
-
227.
Wood v. Schaeffer - 2013 SCC 71 - [2013] 3 SCR 1053 - 2013-12-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsStatutes
Ruth Schaeffer, Evelyn Minty, Diane Pinder and Ian Scott, Director of the Special Investigations Unit [...] Diane Pinder and Ian Scott, Director of the Special Investigations Unit Respondents/Appellants on cross‑appeal [...] [13] On October 14, 2009, Mr. Scott, the Director of the SIU (the “SIU Director”), provided his report on the incident to the Attorney General.
-
228.
R. v. Khan - 2000 SCC 63 - [2000] 2 SCR 915 - 2000-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
7 I note that the transcript was offered to Chief Justice Scott of the Manitoba Court of Appeal on October 22, 1998 during the Crown’s unsuccessful effort to have the Court of Appeal review the chambers order of Twaddle J.A. granting the appellant judicial interim release pending the hearing of his appeal against [...] In his reasons for judgment, Scott C.J.M. stated: I wish to make it clear, as I did to counsel during argument, that I have not had regard to para. 7 of the affidavit of Ms. Lord which adverts to the interview between the trial judge and two jurors concerning the effect of the disclosure to the jury of inadmissible
-
229.
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.
-
230.
Magdall v. The King - [1921] 62 SCR 88 - 1914-02-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
W. L. Scott for the respondent. THE CHIEF JUSTICE.—This was an appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta which, on an equal division of opinion, refused to quash a conviction against the appellant prisoner under section 212 of the Criminal Code for having, under promise of marriage, [...] After hearing Mr. O'Connor, counsel for the appellant, on the question of corroboration, we were unanimously of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence of corroboration, and Mr. Scott was not called on to reply on that point.
-
231.
Glen Falls Insurance Company v. Adams - (1916) 54 SCR 88 - 1916-12-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
W.L. Scott for the motion referred to Bennett v. Havelock Electric Light Co.[1]; Stephens v. Gerth[2]; Bain v. Anderson & Co.[3] [...] Leighton McCarthy K.C. contra cited Robinson, Little & Co. v. Scott & Son.[4]
-
232.
Consolidated Plate Glass Co. of Canada v. Caston - (1899) 29 SCR 624 - 1899-06-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
On the day in question the defendant had procured a horse, waggon and driver from The Cobban Company, under the above arrangement, and had requested the driver to deliver some glass at the office of Scott & Walmsley on the west side of Church Street, in the said city. [...] and accordingly the defendant’s foreman asked the driver to take him to the shop of one Phillips, on Church Street, above King Street, where he could procure a ladder and place it on said waggon and have it delivered at said office of Scott & Walmsley, and it was whilst going for such ladder that the accident occurred.
-
233.
Patrick Joseph Burns, et al. v. Homer Street Development Limited Partnership, formerly Cressey (Homer) Limited Partnership, et al. - 2017-06-15
Applications for LeaveHomer Street Development Limited Partnership, formerly Cressey (Homer) Limited Partnership, Trilogy Robson Development Limited Partnership, 455322 British Columbia Ltd. individually, and together doing business as The Grand Development Partnership, Cressey Development Corporation, Norman Cressey, Joan Cressey, Scott [...] Columbia Ltd. individuellement et faisant affaire ensemble sous le nom de The Grand Development Partnership, Cressey Development Corporation, Norman Cressey, Joan Cressey, Scott Cressey, 511953 British Columbia Ltd., anciennement Trilogy Pacific Enterprises Corporation, John de C. Evans, Jonathon Wener et Douglas Pascal
-
234.
Clergue v. Murray - (1902) 32 SCR 450 - 1902-05-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Solicitors for the respondents: Scott & Scott. [1] L.R. 5 H.L. 395.
-
235.
Gallagher v. Murphy and Gilroy - [1929] SCR 288 - 1929-02-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
of negotiation, and that plaintiff could recover against him only if he was a holder in due course) that G.’s. endorsement on the note before T. Co. took it had the effect of an “aval”, and made G. liable to T. Co. and its assignee, the plaintiff—Robinson v. Mann, 31 Can. S.C.R. 484; Grant v. Scott, 59 Can. S.C.R. 227. [...] The principle in Robinson v. Mann[13] was unanimously reasserted in Grant v. Scott, a later decision of this Court[14], where it was referred to in this way by Sir Louis Davies, the then Chief Justice:— [...] It is the addition of the concluding words of s. 131 which distinguishes the Dominion from the corresponding English section and makes clear the intention to introduce into our law the principle of the “aval.” That we understand to have been the view taken in this court both in Robinson v. Mann13 and Grant v. Scott14; and,
-
236.
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Smith - (1921) 62 SCR 134 - 1921-06-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
It was hired by them, although Scott was the one who acted for his companions as well as for himself in hiring it. [...] It was they who entrusted the driving to Scott. In my opinion, the Bernina case[8] has no application if Scott in driving the motor-car was acting as the agent or servant of his companions.
-
237.
Town of St. Stephen v. The County of Charlotte - (1895) 24 SCR 329 - 1895-05-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
sum has also been paid out for the purposes of and connected with its enforcement; all sums collected under the said Act within the town have been put into the town treasury to the credit of a special fund called the Scott Act Fund, and there now remains a balance of such fund unexpended in the treasury of the said town. [...] The question to be determined by the court is whether under the above statement of facts the town of Saint Stephen is liable to pay over to the municipality of the county of Charlotte the said balance of Scott Act funds, and if it shall be of opinion that the town is so liable then judgment is to be rendered for [...] In the treasury of the town of St. Stephen there is a sum of money collected within the town as and for fines inflicted upon persons prosecuted within the town for breach of the Canada Temperance Act which sums have been paid into the said treasury to the credit of a special fund called the Scott Act fund; it is admitted
-
238.
Flieger v. New Brunswick - [1993] 2 SCR 651 - 1993-06-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
Transport Guilbault Inc. v. Scott, F.C.A., No. A‑618‑85, May 21, 1986, unreported; Mudarth v. Canada (Minister of Public Works) (1990), 113 N.R. 159 (F.C.A.), aff'g [1989] 3 F.C. 371 (T.D.); Gallagher v. New Brunswick (Board of Management) (1990), 105 N.B.R. (2d) 181; Canada (Attorney General) v. Public Service Alliance of [...] In Transport Guilbault Inc. v. Scott, an unreported decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, No. A-618-85, May 21, 1986 (leave to appeal refused, January 29, 1987, [1987] 1 S.C.R. xiii), Pratte J.A. wrote at p. 2: [...] Hints of this underlying fear and concern are present in Transport Guilbault Inc. v. Scott, F.C.A., No. A-618-85, May 21, 1986, where Pratte J.A. at p. 2 expresses his belief that an alternative interpretation of discontinuance of function could have the effect of "unduly limiting the employer's freedom to plan and organize
-
239.
Re Manitoba Language Rights Order - [1990] 3 SCR 1417 - 1990-12-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Stephen A. Scott and Victoria Percival‑Hilton, for Alliance Québec. D. Martin Low, Q.C., and Warren J. Newman, for the Attorney General of Canada. [...] Solicitors for Alliance Québec: Stephen A. Scott and Victoria Percival‑Hilton, Montréal.
-
240.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Named Person - 2024 SCC 21 - 2024-06-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
General), 2011 SCC 2, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 19; Denis v. Côté, 2019 SCC 44, [2019] 3 S.C.R. 482; Khuja v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [2017] UKSC 49, [2019] A.C. 161; Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417; R. v. Brassington, 2018 SCC 37, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 616; R. v. Named Person B, 2013 SCC 9, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 405; R. v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51, [...] Scott Dawson and Catherine George, for the interveners Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association, Postmedia Network Inc., Global News, a division of Corus Television Limited Partnership, Torstar Corporation and Glacier Media Inc. [...] These exceptions, which may be either statutory or judicial in nature, are predicated on the idea that openness cannot prevail if the ends of justice, or the interests that openness is meant to protect, would be better served in some other way (see Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417 (H.L.); MacIntyre; Edmonton Journal; C.B.C.
-
241.
A. (L.L.) v. B. (A.) - [1995] 4 SCR 536 - 1995-12-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
Criminal law
Stone, Scott N., and Robert K. Taylor. Testimonial Privileges, 2nd ed. [...] Sheena Scott and David Mikelberg, for the intervener the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law. [...] See Scott N. Stone and Robert K. Taylor, in Testimonial Privileges (2nd ed. 1993), for a more detailed compilation of the statutes granting such privilege in the United States as well as the degree and the extent of confidentiality it affords to such communications.
-
242.
Interprovincial Co-operatives Ltd. et al. v. R. - [1976] 1 SCR 477 - 1975-03-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
This issue was touched upon, in a situation different from the present one, in Attorney General of Ontario v. Scott[2], and there is slight reference to it in C.P.R. v. Parent[3], a judgment of the Privy Council reversing a judgment of this Court[4]. [...] Nor do I think that there is anything in Attorney General of Ontario v. Scott[18], which supports the position of the appellants. [...] The authoritative character of this decision rendered when the Privy Council was the Court of ultimate jurisdiction for this country does not depend on approval by this Court, and it is of no importance that only four of the judges of this Court who gave judgment in Attorney General of Ontario v. Scott[21] expressly
-
243.
Craig Melanson, et al. v. Province of New Brunswick, as represented by The Honourable Bradley Green, Attorney Superintendent of Pensions for the Province of New Brunswick, et al. - 2007-09-20
Applications for LeaveReinhart, Donald Robart, Gerald Robbins, Ronald Robichaud, Keith Rodgers, Ronald Roy, Sydney Ryan, Charles Schriver, Donald Schriver, Wayne Schriver, Earl Scott, M. Shannon, David Sharp, Glen Sloat, Irene St. Michael, Kenneth St. Michael, Archie Stairs, Paul Stairs, John Stewart, Donnie Stone, Gerald Stone, Thomas [...] Reinhart, Donald Robart, Gerald Robbins, Ronald Robichaud, Keith Rodgers, Ronald Roy, Sydney Ryan, Charles Schriver, Donald Schriver, Wayne Schriver, Earl Scott, M. Shannon, David Sharp, Glen Sloat, Irene St. Michael, Kenneth St. Michael, Archie Stairs, Paul Stairs, John Stewart, Donnie Stone, Gerald Stone, Thomas
-
244.
Makins v. Piggott & Inglis - (1898) 29 SCR 188 - 1898-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Co.[1]; Williams v. Eady[2]; Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks Co.[3] at page 601; Broom’s Legal Maxims 298; Snyder v. Wheeling Electrical Company[4]; Beven on Negligence, 561; Pollock on Texts, (5 ed.) pp. 21-41; Clark v. Chambers[5]; Consolidated Traction Co. v. Scott[6]; Jewson v. Gatti[7]; Dixon v. Bell[8]
-
245.
Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd. - 2013 SCC 26 - [2013] 2 SCR 227 - 2013-05-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsCivil procedure
2003 SCC 63, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; R. v. Power, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 481, rev’d 2002 SCC 63, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307. [...] Perell, Paul M. “A Survey of Abuse of Process”, in Todd L. Archibald and Randall Scott Echlin, eds., Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2007. [...] In addition to proceedings that are oppressive or vexatious and that violate the principles of justice, McLachlin J. (as she then was) said in her dissent in R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979, at p. 1007, that the doctrine of abuse of process evokes the “public interest in a fair and just trial process and the proper
-
246.
Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Securities Commission) - 2000 SCC 21 - [2000] 1 SCR 494 - 2000-04-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Referred to: Attorney General for Ontario v. Scott, [1956] S.C.R. 137; Re McCarthy and Menin and United States Securities and Exchange Commission (1963), 38 D.L.R. (2d) 660; Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124; General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; R. v. [...] 13 Newbury J.A. distinguished Attorney General for Ontario v. Scott, [1956] S.C.R. 137, which upheld the validity of a provincial statute giving the courts discretion to enforce spousal support orders made in England. [...] In her opinion, the law upheld in Scott merely enforced existing property rights.
-
247.
R. v. Docherty - [1989] 2 SCR 941 - 1989-10-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
& P.E.I.R. 232, dismissing an appeal from acquittal by Scott Prov. Ct. C.J. Appeal dismissed. [...] At his trial for the s. 666(1) offence, the respondent testified before Chief Judge Scott of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland that at the time he committed the offence under s. 236 he was unaware that he was breaking the law because he believed that the car could not be started. [...] In the course of his oral reasons, Chief Judge Scott stated: There are a great many people and you may be one who feel that because a vehicle cannot start and might have something mechanically wrong with it, that you are not breaching the law.
-
248.
Walsh v. Trebilcock - (1894) 23 SCR 695 - 1894-10-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
See also Scott v. Brown[7]. Aylesworth Q.C. and McKillop for the respondent. [...] In Scott v. Brown[28] Lord Justice Lindley says: Ex turpi causâ non oritur actio. [...] I pass by numerous cases since; Pearce v. Brooks[43]; Rex v. Dr. Berenger[44]; Reg. v. Aspinall[45]; and refer particularly to Scott v. Brown[46] decided by the court of Appeal in August last, where the court refused to enforce a contract held to be an illegal transaction and subjecting the parties to indictment for
-
249.
Anchor Marine Insurance Co. v. Corbett - (1882) 9 SCR 73 - 1882-03-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
That is entirely consistent with the case of Scott v. Avery in the House of Lords[15]. [...] That case was followed in Scott v. Corporation of Liverpool[16], where the surveyor was to determine the amount payable, and until he had made that determination there was no sum which could be sued for. [...] Whether the case of Scott v. Avery[17] is to be considered as determining that such a condition precedent is valid as regards all questions, those of liability as well as of amount of damage, or whether it is only binding as to the amount of debt or damage, and is illegal as tending to oust the jurisdiction of the courts
-
250.
La Presse inc. v. Quebec - 2023 SCC 22 - 2023-10-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
14; R. v. Evening Standard Co. Ld., [1954] 1 Q.B. 578; St. James’s Evening Post Case (1742), 2 Atk. 469, 26 E.R. 683; R. v. Jansen, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 277; Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417; R. v. Clement (1821), 4 B. & Ald. 218, 106 E.R. 918; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC [...] Eventually, it became the practice for courts to issue publication bans as an exercise of their inherent jurisdiction (see, e.g., R. v. Jansen, [1976] 4 W.W.R. 277 (B.C.S.C.); Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417 (H.L.); R. v. Clement (1821), 4 B. & Ald. 218, 106 E.R. 918).