Advanced Search
- All Databases (2,511)
- Decisions (1,094)
- Resources (1,417)
1,094 result(s)
-
551.
Shajoo Ram v. The King - (1915) 51 SCR 392 - 1915-03-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
W. L. Scott for the appellant. J. A. Ritchie for the respondent. THE CHIEF JUSTICE.—This appeal should be dismissed.
-
552.
David v. Swift - (1910) 44 SCR 179 - 1910-12-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
It is unnecessary to refer to authorities from Scott v. Avery[2], down to date, as the answer to the question depends in each case upon the language the parties have used in their contract.
-
553.
County of Carleton v. City Ottawa - (1909) 41 SCR 552 - 1909-04-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
W. L. Scott for the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. The Chief Justice and Duff and Anglin JJ. concurred in the judgment of Mr. Justice Davies.
-
554.
Lamothe v. Daveluy - (1908) 41 SCR 80 - 1908-12-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
The Bank of Toronto v. Le Curé et les Marguilliers de L'Œuvre et Fabrique de la Paroisse de la Nativité de la Sainte Vierge[10]; Toussignant v. County of Nicolet[11]; Leroux v. Parish of Ste. Justine[12]; Noel v. Chevrefils[13]; Waters v. Manigault[14]; Cully v. Ferdais[15]; City of Hull v. Scott & Walters[16]; Jermyn
-
555.
St. Laurent v. Mercier - (1903) 33 SCR 314 - 1903-04-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsMines and minerals
Reference is made to Osborne v. Morgan ([6]); Williams v. Morgan ([7]); Scott v. Henderson ([8]); and to Williams on Real Property, (18th ed.) p. 540.
-
556.
Migner v. Goulet - (1900) 31 SCR 26 - 1900-11-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsCivil law
Mc-Kibbin v. McCone ([3]); Wilson v. Strugnell ([4]); Her-man v. Jeucner ([5]); Munt v. Stokes ([6]); Collins v. Blantern ([7]), per Wilmot L. C. J. at page 360; Scott v. Brown ([8]); Taylor v. Bowers ([9]); Goodall v. Lowndes ([10]).
-
557.
The Northern Pacific Express Company v. Martin - (1896) 26 SCR 135 - 1896-03-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
Scott v. Avery ([17]); Dawson v. Fitzgerald ([18]); Central Vermont v. Soper ([19]).
-
558.
Couture v. Bouchard - (1892) 21 SCR 281 - 1892-11-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
[9] 4.Scott 486. [10] 9 Q. B. 47. [11] 54 & 55 Vic. ch. 25 sec. 3.
-
559.
Foot v. Foot - (1888) 15 SCR 699 - 1888-12-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
Graham Q.C. for respondents referred to Re Grey's Settlements, Acason v. Greenwood[8]; D'Oechsner v. Scott[9]; Doolan v. Blake[10]; Freeman v. Flood[11].
-
560.
Shelburne Election Case - (1887) 14 SCR 258 - 1887-02-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsElections
R. W. Scott Q.C. for appellant contended that a copy of the petition was not served in time within five days after its presentation; that the order of the honorable the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia made in chambers,
-
561.
R. v. Latimer - 2001 SCC 1 - [2001] 1 SCR 3 - 2001-01-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Criminal law
LaFave, Wayne R., and Austin W. Scott, Jr. Substantive Criminal Law, vol. 1. [...] The American Model Penal Code proposes that the defence of necessity would be available for homicide: American Law Institute, Model Penal Code and Commentaries (1985), Part I, vol. 2, at § 3.02, pp. 14-15; see also W. R. LaFave and A. W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law (1986), vol. 1, at p. 634.
-
562.
Arndt v. Smith - [1997] 2 SCR 539 - 1997-06-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
v. Northern Territory of Australia (1992), 107 F.L.R. 264; Bernard v. Char, 903 P.2d 667 (1995); Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554 (1979); Smith v. Reisig, 686 P.2d 285 (1984); Arena v. Gingrich, 733 P.2d 75 (1987); Cobbs v. Grant, 502 P.2d 1 (1972); Martin v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1979), 13 B.C.L.R. 163. [...] 49 Other states expressly apply a subjective test: see Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554 (Okla. 1979); Smith v. Reisig, 686 P.2d 285 (Okla. 1984); Arena v. Gingrich, 733 P.2d 75 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
-
563.
Hunt v. T&N plc - [1993] 4 SCR 289 - 1993-11-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Courts
International law
for Ontario v. Scott, [1956] S.C.R. 137; Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 2; Black v. Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 591; Indyka v. Indyka, [1969] 1 A.C. 33; Boxer v. Reesor (1983), 43 B.C.L.R. 352; Cie Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co. (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55. [...] For this, they cite Attorney General for Ontario v. Scott, [1956] S.C.R. 137, upholding the power of a province to enforce judgments of other countries pursuant to reciprocal enforcement arrangements.
-
564.
Morier and Boily v. Rivard - [1985] 2 SCR 716 - 1985-12-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
146; Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121; Chartier v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 474; Haggard v. Pélicier Frères, [1892] A.C. 61; Scott v. Stansfield (1868), L.R. 3 Ex. 220; Stark v. Auerbach (1979), 98 D.L.R. (3d) 583; Unterreiner v. Wilson (1982), 40 O.R. (2d) 197; Ringrose v. Stevenson [...] ‑‑ Scott v. Stansfield (1868), L.R. 3 Ex. 220. 116. In the case at bar, the motions to dismiss were an appropriate proceeding in my opinion and I conclude that they were valid.
-
565.
Begley v. Imperial Bank of Canada - [1935] SCR 89 - 1934-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
In Scott v. Bank of New Brunswick[20] this court held: If payment is obtained from a debtor by one who falsely represents that he is an agent of the creditor, upon whom a fraud is thereby committed, if the creditor ratifies and confirms the payment he adopts the agency of the person receiving the money and makes the payment [...] Chief Justice Strong, in the same case of Scott v. The Bank of New Brunswick[22], said that the distinction between ratification and estoppel is well pointed out in a case of Forsyth v. Day[23], where it is said:
-
566.
Clarke v. Baillie - (1911) 45 SCR 50 - 1911-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsSecurities
[55] 4 Man. & Gr. 295 at pages 303-4, 325; 5 Scott, N.R. 1, 26. [56] H.L. Cas. 28, at pp. 35-6. [...] [69] 4 M. & Gr. 295, at pp. 303-4, 325; 5 Scott N.R. 1, at p. 26. [70] [1908] 2 K.B. 514.
-
567.
Dominion Telegraph Company. v. Silver - (1882) 10 SCR 238 - 1882-03-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
In Scott & Janrigan's law of Telegraphs[36], it is said: A side from the statutory and common law duty of good faith in the transmission of messages for the public, there is another sense in which telegraph companies may become responsible for mala fides and malicious use of its functions. [...] [39] 8 Scott, 471. [40] Brown v. Smith 13 C.B. 596; Odgers on Slander and Libel, p. 78, and cases there cited.
-
568.
Bickford v. Grand Junction Railway Co. - (1878) 1 SCR 696 - 1878-01-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Scott v. Colburn[16]; Anglo-Australian Ass. Co. v. British Prov. Ass. Co.[17]; In re Electric Telegraph Co. of Ireland; Troup’s case[18]. [...] Ashbury Carriage Co. v. Riche[79]; Re Patent File Company[80]; Scott v. Colbourn[81]; McCormack v. Perry[82]; Pennock v. Coe[83]; Dunham v. Railway[84]; Galveston Railway Co. v. Cowdry[85]; Australian Steamship Co. v. Mounsay[86].
-
569.
Olympic Towers Ltd. v. Sherman et al. - [1979] 1 SCR 883 - 1978-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Solicitors for Robert A. Lalonde: Cameron, Brewing & Scott, Toronto.
-
570.
Ladouceur v. Howarth - [1974] SCR 1111 - 1973-08-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
D.W. Scott, for the plaintiff, appellant. D.G. Casey and K.G. Evans, for the defendant, respondent.
-
571.
Bogue Electric of Canada Limited v. Crothers Manufacturing Limited - [1961] SCR 108 - 1960-12-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
P.B.C. Pepper, Q.C., Miss Janet Scott and W. Herridge, for the defendant, respondent.
-
572.
Metalliflex Limited v. Rodi & Wienenberger Aktiengesellschaft - [1961] SCR 117 - 1960-12-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
The learned trial judge dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs, cancelled and annulled the interlocutory injunction previously granted by Associate Chief Justice W.B. Scott.
-
573.
Lingle v. Knox Bros Ltd. - [1925] SCR 659 - 1925-10-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
H. J. Scott, K.C. for the respondent. Idington, J.—Accepting, as this court is accustomed to do, the finding of fact by two concurrent courts below, unless some strong reason put forward for doubting the accuracy thereof, I have considered the relevant law applicable thereto, and see no reason for doubting the accurate
-
574.
St. Paul Lumber Co. v. British Crown Assurance Corporation - [1923] SCR 515 - 1923-05-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
I concur in the reasons for the judgment of the Appellate Division delivered by Mr. Justice Hyndman and concurred in by Chief Justice Scott, which clearly express my own views.
-
575.
Henderson v. The Bank of Hamilton - (1894) 23 SCR 716 - 1894-10-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
Solicitors for respondents: Scott, Lees & Hobson. [1] 20 Ont. App. R. 646.