Advanced Search
- All Databases (2,511)
- Decisions (1,094)
- Resources (1,417)
1,094 result(s)
-
351.
R. v. Pontes - [1995] 3 SCR 44 - 1995-09-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Criminal law
LaFave, Wayne R., and Austin W. Scott, Jr. Substantive Criminal Law, vol. 1. [...] Another way of formulating this exception is simply to say that ignorance of the law is an excuse if Parliament or a legislature has provided that it is an excuse (LaFave and Scott, supra, at p. 585, footnote 55). [...] (See also D. Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (3rd ed. 1995), at pp. 312-21, and Mewett & Manning on Criminal Law (3rd ed. 1994), at pp. 382-84; and for a summary of the American position, see LaFave and Scott, supra, at pp. 591-95.)
-
352.
National Bank of Greece (Canada) v. Katsikonouris - [1990] 2 SCR 1029 - 1990-10-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
I have elaborated (in dissent) on this principle in Scott v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1445, at pp. 1454‑55. [...] I alluded in Scott v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., supra, at p. 1459, to the burden that rests on an insurer when it is offering insurance on terms that can reasonably be supposed to defeat the very objective of the coverage sought by the purchaser of insurance. [...] In discussing the principles governing the construction of contracts of insurance in Scott v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., supra, at p. 1454, I adverted to the approach set out by this Court in Consolidated‑Bathurst Export Ltd. v. Mutual Boiler and Machinery Insurance Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888.
-
353.
Sabean v. Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co. - 2017 SCC 7 - [2017] 1 SCR 121 - 2017-01-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsScott R. Campbell and Scott C. Norton, Q.C., for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by
-
354.
Regional Municipality of Peel v. Mackenzie et al. - [1982] 2 SCR 9 - 1982-07-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Ian G. Scott, Q.C., for the respondents. E.G. Ewaschuk, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada. [...] Solicitors for the respondents: Stapells & Sewell, Toronto, and counsel for the respondents’ solicitors: Cameron, Brewin & Scott, Toronto.
-
355.
Carman Construction Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. - [1982] 1 SCR 958 - 1982-06-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Torts
Ian Scott, Q.C., and S.M. Grant, for the appellant. Katharine F. Braid, for the respondents. [...] Solicitors for the appellant: Cameron, Brewin & Scott, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondents: Katharine F. Braid, Toronto.
-
356.
Teamsters Union v. Massicotte - [1982] 1 SCR 710 - 1982-05-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsAdministrative law
Ian Scott, Q.C., and Ross Wells, for the respondent Canada Labour Relations Board. [...] Solicitors for the respondent Canada Labour Relations Board: Cameron, Brewin & Scott, Toronto.
-
357.
Bell v. R. - [1979] 2 SCR 212 - 1979-04-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
Re Howard v. City of Toronto (1927), 61 O.L.R. 563; Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 91; Scott v. Pilliner, [1904] 2 K.B. 855; Mixnam’s Properties Ltd. v. Chertsey Urban District Council, [1964] 1 Q.B. 214 applied.] [...] His Honour Judge Hogg accepted this submission, and in doing so considered several cases to which I shall refer hereafter, adopting the principle set out in Kruse v. Johnson[3], Scott v. Pilliner[4], as further considered in Mixnam’s Properties Ltd. v. Chertsey Urban District Council[5], and concluded:
-
358.
Moran v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd. - [1975] 1 SCR 393 - 1973-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
Scott L.J. found the affidavit filed in support of the application “gravely defective”. [...] Scott L.J. said, p. 437: I express no opinion whether, if an act were committed out of the jurisdiction which did not give rise to a cause of action in tort until something further had happened within the jurisdiction, the resultant damage could properly be regarded as flowing from a tort taking place within the
-
359.
Crighton v. Roman / Roman v. Toronto General Trusts Corp. et al. - [1960] SCR 858 - 1960-10-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsTrust
Williams v. Scott, [1900] A.C. 499, Brickenden v. London Loan and Savings Co., [1934] 3 D.L.R. 465, referred to. [...] The following passage in the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Williams v. Scott[1], appears to me to be applicable to the facts of the case at bar:
-
360.
Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada and Constantineau - [1954] SCR 725 - 1954-06-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
In Scott v. Pattison[10] the plaintiff served the defendant under a contract for service not to be performed within one year which was held not to be enforceable by reason of the Statute of Frauds. [...] While I respectfully agree with the result arrived at in Scott v. Pattison I do not think it is accurate to say that there was an implied promise.
-
361.
May, SS. v. The King - [1931] SCR 374 - 1931-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsFishery
In The Eleanor[1], Sir William Scott said: Real and irresistible distress must be at all times a sufficient passport for human beings under any such application of human laws. [...] “Nothing less,” says Sir William Scott, “than an uncontrollable necessity, which admits of no compromise, and cannot be resisted,” will be held a justification of the offence.
-
362.
Rural Municipality of Victory v. Saskatchewan Guarantee & Fidelity Co., Ltd. - [1928] SCR 264 - 1928-03-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsGuarantee and suretyship
As against Inkster’s evidence the jury had the testimony of W. T. Scott of the firm of Griggs & Co., chartered accountant, who made the special audit, and whose testimony was to the effect that Paisley had not accounted for all the moneys coming to his hands in 1921. [...] Notwithstanding that Inkster swore that in making the entries he had written them up as well as he knew how, W. T. Scott, in his evidence, stated that the books had never been properly kept from the first.
-
363.
McBratney v. McBratney - (1919) 59 SCR 550 - 1919-11-10
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
The second of these views was adopted by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Scott, the first prevailing with Mr. Justice Stuart who presided at the hearing of the application and Mr. Justice McCarthy and Mr. Justice Simmons in the Appellate Division. [...] On the whole I think the weight of argument favours the view of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Scott.
-
364.
Scheuerman v. Scheuerman - (1916) 52 SCR 625 - 1916-02-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
APPEAL from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta[1], whereby, on equal division of opinion among the judges, the judgment of Scott J., at the trial [2] stood affirmed. [...] It is true that as the respondent in this case does not ask to recover back the property on the ground only that it was property transferred for an illegal purpose which has not been carried out his position is not entirely the same as the position of the plaintiffs referred to in the judgment of Mr. Justice Scott.
-
365.
The Ship "North" v. The King - (1906) 37 SCR 385 - 1906-04-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsInternational law
pp. 292 to 302; Westlake International Law, pp. 172-4; The "Interpretation Act," R.S.C. ch. 1, sec. 7, par. 37; The "Marianna Flora"[16];" 59 Geo. III. ch. 38, sec. 2; Oppenheim International Law, p. 321; Hall International Law (5 ed.) 256; Cobbett's Leading Cases on International Law, p. 344; Reg. v. Scott[17]. [...] [16] Scott Cas. Int. Law, 874; 11 Wheaton 1. [17] 9 B. & C. 446. [18] 4 Q.B.D. 614.
-
366.
Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. - 2017 SCC 34 - [2017] 1 SCR 824 - 2017-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsWilliam C. McDowell, Marguerite F. Ethier and Scott M. J. Rollwagen, for the appellant. [...] [58] In Fourie, Lord Scott explained that “provided the court has in personam jurisdiction over the person against whom an injunction, whether interlocutory or final, is sought, the court has jurisdiction, in the strict sense, to grant it” (para. 30). [...] A court “will not according to its settled practice do so except in a certain way and under certain circumstances” (Lord Scott, at para. 25, quoting from Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Hannay & Co., [1915] 2 K.B. 536, at p. 563; see also Cartier International AG v. British Sky Broadcasting Ltd., [2014] EWHC 3354
-
367.
Galambos v. Perez - 2009 SCC 48 - [2009] 3 SCR 247 - 2009-10-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Scott, Austin W. “The Fiduciary Principle” (1949), 37 Cal. L. Rev. 539. [...] To the same effect, Professor Smith writes in his comment on Hodgkinson, at p. 717 (echoing Dickson J.’s comments in Guerin, at p. 384, and Austin W. Scott, “The Fiduciary Principle” (1949), 37 Cal. L. Rev. 539, at p. 540): [...] This was put slightly differently by Austin Scott, who said that “a fiduciary is a person who undertakes to act in the interest of another person.” [Emphasis in original.]
-
368.
R. v. Warsing - [1998] 3 SCR 579 - 1998-12-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
R. v. Mailloux, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1029; R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903; R. v. Laverty (1990), 80 C.R. (3d) 231; R. v. Barnes (1990), 54 C.C.C. (3d) 368, aff’d [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449; R. v. Maxwell (1990), 61 C.C.C. (3d) 289; R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; Reference re Regina v. Gorecki (No. 2) (1976), 32 C.C.C. (2d) 135. [...] William F. Ehrcke, Q.C., and W. J. Scott Bell, for the appellant. Manuel A. Azevedo and Albert C. Peeling, for the respondent. [...] 1, 1990, Victoria Registry V00270; see also R. v. Barnes (1990), 54 C.C.C. (3d) 368 (B.C.C.A.), aff’d [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449; R. v. Maxwell (1990), 61 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.), and R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979, per Sopinka J., at p. 1019, also per McLachlin J., at pp. 1017-18, both in dissent on another issue).
-
369.
Canada & Gulf Terminal Ry. Co. v. Levesque - [1928] SCR 340 - 1928-03-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
This seems to be involved in City of Montreal v. Watt & Scott[9]. We may now examine a little more closely from this point of view, the facts with which we have to deal. [...] Watt and Scott[12]. If there had been negligence on the defendant’s part it would have been liable under article 1053, but negligence is excluded by the findings; there was therefore, in that sense, no failure to adopt reasonable means, and I am in a frame of mind to question whether it does not appear to be unreasonable [...] en cuivre qu’il y avait ici, est la seule précaution raisonnable que l’on a suggérée comme pouvant être adoptée pour empêcher l’accident, par application du principe: “unable by reasonable means to prevent the damage complained of” posé par le Conseil Privé dans la cause de City of Montreal v. Watt and Scott Ltd.[13].
-
370.
Gauthier & Co. Ltd. v. The King - [1945] SCR 143 - 1945-02-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
After referring to the judgment of Erle C.J. in Scott v. London & St. Katherine Docks Co.[14], his Lordship proceeded: [...] For example, in Scott v. The London and St. Katherine Docks Co.[19], a case where a bag of flour fell on a man who was passing talong a quay in front of a warehouse, it would not have been sufficient to say that the flour bag might have fallen from a passing balloon.
-
371.
Butler v. Murphy & Co. - (1909) 41 SCR 618 - 1909-05-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
Anderson & Co. v. Beard[34]; Levitt v. Hamblet[35]; Ponsolle v. Webber[36]; Scott & Norton [...] W. Scott, Pro manager. The appellant denies that he ever received slip referred to, and it is not proven that any such slip was ever put in the letter.
-
372.
GMAC Commercial Credit Corporation - Canada v. T.C.T. Logistics Inc. - 2006 SCC 35 - [2006] 2 SCR 123 - 2006-07-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsBankruptcy and insolvency
Burton v. Kideckel (1999), 13 C.B.R. (4th) 9; Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Armitage (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 688; Vanderwoude v. Scott and Pichelli Ltd. (2001), 143 O.A.C. 195; Sam Lévy & Associés Inc. v. Azco Mining Inc., [2001] 3 S.C.R. 978, 2001 SCC 92; Lester (W.W.) (1978) Ltd. v. [...] Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Armitage (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 688 (C.A.), at para. 2; Vanderwoude v. Scott and Pichelli Ltd. (2001), 143 O.A.C. 195, at para. 22; Bennett on Bankruptcy (8th ed. 2005), at pp. 416-17; Bennett on Receiverships (2nd ed. 1999), at p. 223; and Houlden, Morawetz and Sarra, at p. 7-118.2. [...] R. 181, 2000 SKQB 460; Vanderwoude v. Scott & Pichelli Ltd. (2001), 25 C.B.R. (4th) 127 (Ont. C.A.); Caswan Environmental Services Inc., Re (2001), 24 C.B.R. (4th) 191, 2001 ABQB 240; K.D.N. Distribution & Warehousing Ltd., Re (2002), 33 C.B.R. (4th) 77 (Ont. S.C.J.); Canada 3000 Inc. (Re), [2002] O.J. No. 3266 (QL)
-
373.
Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General) - [1989] 2 SCR 1326 - 1989-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
v. Beare, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122; McPherson v. McPherson, [1936] A.C. 177; Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417; R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103. [...] The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council referred to Lord Halsbury's observation in Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417, at p. 440, that "every Court of justice is open to every subject of the King".
-
374.
R. v. Morin - [1988] 2 SCR 345 - 1988-11-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Criminal law
Evidence
It was during the examination of this witness by Crown counsel, Mr. Scott, that the evidence which gave rise to the second ground of appeal was elicited. [...] 45. The evidence referred to was elicited on the examination of Dr. Orchard by Mr. Scott, counsel for the Crown. [...] Q. [Mr. Scott] I take it by the very fact that you are capable of expressing an opinion on what condition this man would be in, in the event that he sexually assaulted ‑‑ raped and stabbed many times Christine Jessop, that you must be of the opinion that he has the psychological make‑up to commit such an offence.
-
375.
Carriss v. Buxton - [1958] SCR 441 - 1958-06-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
Torts
Scott v. The Fernie Lumber Company, Limited (1904), 11 B.C.R. 91 at 96; David Spencer Limited v. Field, [1939] S.C.R. 36 at 42, applied. [...] The rule in Scott v. The Fernie Lumber Company, Limited[23], as stated by Duff J. (as he then was) applies. [...] In saying this I do not question the decision in Scott v. The Fernie Lumber Company, Limited[30], or "the rule long established, which holds a litigant to a position deliberately assumed by his counsel at the trial", referred to by Davis J. in David Spencer Limited v. Field et al[31].; but that rule does not preclude