Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
451.
R. v. Ménard - [1998] 2 SCR 109 - 1998-07-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
These various samples were analysed by a forensic geologist, William Graves, who also examined some debris brushed from Ménard’s boots. [...] He asserted that the trial judge erred by allowing an out-of-court examination of William Graves, the Crown’s expert soil analyst, to be introduced at trial in lieu of Graves’s testimony. [...] 32 The remaining grounds for appeal in this case concern the admissibility of the out-of-court statements of William Graves, the admissibility of evidence relating to the appellant’s military background, the propriety of the Crown’s cross-examination of the appellant regarding his criminal record, and the sufficiency of the
-
452.
Eadie v. Brantford (Township) - [1967] SCR 573 - 1967-06-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
William Eadie (Plaintiff) Appellant; and The Corporation of the Township of Brantford (Defendant) Respondent. [...] Confirming the writer’s telephone conversation with your Mr. Biggar today, we will undertake to pay to the Corporation of the Township of Brantford the sum of $800.00 severance fee upon the completion of the sale from William Eadie to John Patrick Gibbons and Hilda May Gibbons of part of Blocks 1 and 2 in the Kerr Tract [...] “The Conveyance William Eadie to John Gibbons, being part of blocks 1 and 2, Kerr Tract, be approved for registration, provided a daylight corner at the junction of Highway #53 and Forced Road be included in the 17’ strip of land being dedicated to the Township of Brantford.”
-
453.
Eisenberg (formerly Walton) v. Bank of Nova Scotia and Ridout et al. - [1965] SCR 681 - 1965-05-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsCommercial law
William Eisenberg (formerly William L. Walton), Trustee of the Estate of Ridout Real Estate Limited, a bankrupt, (Plaintiff) Appellant; [...] Since I have come to the decision that the doctrine of estoppel operates in favour of the defendant it follows that I also take the view that the defendant comes within the protection of the principle of The Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856), 6 E1 & B1. 327, and William Augustus Mahony v. The East Holyford Mining
-
454.
Newell v. Barker - [1950] SCR 385 - 1950-02-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
William Newell (Plaintiff) Appellant; and H. Barker and John W. Bruce (Defendants) Respondents. [...] Local Union No. 1562, United Mine Workers of America v. Williams and Rees, 59 Can. S.C.R. 240 at 247 referred to; Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] A.C. 495 and Lumley v. Gye, (1853) 2 E. & B. 216, applied. [...] Local Union No. 1562, United Mine Workers of America v. Williams and Rees[5].
-
455.
Delco Appliance Corp. v. Selby - [1934] SCR 684 - 1934-06-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
William Dunbar Selby and Others (Plaintiffs) Respondents. 1934: May 15; 1934: June 15. [...] And in further consideration the said party of the second part binds and obliges himself to pay to the said William Dunbar Selby et al. at the office of Frank H. Hopkins in the city of Montreal as the said William Dunbar Selby et al. may indicate in writing, an annual rent of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000.00) until the
-
456.
Git v. Forbes - (1921) 62 SCR 1 - 1921-03-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
I prefer to anything else I have seen the interpretation of same decision and text which appears in the case of Williams v. Hathaway[2], at page 549 et seq., and applied with due discrimination in Watling v. Lewis[3], as safe guides. [...] Again, Sir George Jessel, who afterwards in Re Bywater[11], at pages 19-20, described the converse rule governing the construction of wills as a mere rule of thumb, laid down in Williams v. Hathaway[12], at page 549, that the rule now under consideration “by no means applies” where the proviso limits the liability under the [...] In the latter case the cardinal rule of construction, that you must give effect to every part of a document if you can, must undoubtedly prevail; Elderslie SS. Co. v. Borthwick[15]; Williams v. Hathaway[16]; in the former the rule stated in Shepard’s Touchstone at p. 38 (No. 7),
-
457.
McGregor v. Canada Investment and Agency Co. - (1892) 21 SCR 499 - 1892-12-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
J. Devlin sa mère James Thomas Craig, et les représentants de feu William Quinn, auteurs de Thomas Craig, alléguant qu'il ignorait alors la vente de Devlin à Craig, et demandant par cette action que tous les actes et procédés allégués par i’ intimée dans son plaidoyer fussent annulés. [...] “4 A deed of sale of 25th October, 1876, from William Quinn to Helen Mahers of no. 16, being part of the lot in question, and a deed of sale of 14th January, 1870 from James Thomas to Helen Mahers of no. 17, the other part of said lot." [...] 15th October, 1866, from Helen Mahers, acting as aforesaid, to William Quinn of lot no 16."
-
458.
R. v. Baldree - 2013 SCC 35 - [2013] 2 SCR 520 - 2013-06-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Distinguished: R. v. Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787; referred to: R. v. Hawkins, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1043; R. v. Owad (1951), 102 C.C.C. 155; R. v. Fialkow, [1963] 2 C.C.C. 42; R. v. Cook (1978), 46 C.C.C. (2d) 318; R. v. Edwards (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 239; R. v. Nguyen, 2003 BCCA 556, 188 B.C.A.C. 218; R. v. Williams [...] (Ont. C.A.); Edwards; Wilson; R. v. Lucia, 2010 ONCA 533 (CanLII); R. v. Cook (1978), 10 B.C.L.R. 84 (C.A.); R. v. Nguyen, 2003 BCCA 556, 188 B.C.A.C. 218; R. v. Parchment, 2004 BCSC 1806 (CanLII); R. v. Williams, 2009 BCCA 284, 273 B.C.A.C. 86; R. v. Graham, 2013 BCCA 75 (CanLII); R. v. Ramsum, 2003 ABQB 45, 329 A.R. 370. [...] See, e.g., R. v. Owad (1951), 102 C.C.C. 155 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Fialkow, [1963] 2 C.C.C. 42 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Cook (1978), 46 C.C.C. (2d) 318 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Edwards (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 239 (C.A.); R. v. Nguyen, 2003 BCCA 556, 188 B.C.A.C. 218; R. v. Williams, 2009 BCCA 284, 273 B.C.A.C. 86; R. v. Lucia, 2010 ONCA 533
-
459.
G. (L.) v. B. (G.) - [1995] 3 SCR 370 - 1995-09-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
to: Corkum v. Corkum (1988), 14 R.F.L. (3d) 275; Snyder v. Snyder (1987), 10 R.F.L. (3d) 144; Schroeder v. Schroeder (1987), 11 R.F.L. (3d) 413; Williams v. Williams (1988), 13 R.F.L. (3d) 321; Willms v. Willms (1988), 14 R.F.L. (3d) 162; Droit de la famille‑‑382 (1988), 16 R.F.L. (3d) 379; Brody v. Brody (1990), 25 [...] 28 Some courts adopted this approach, not without some hesitation in certain cases (Corkum v. Corkum (1988), 14 R.F.L. (3d) 275 (Ont. H.C.)), but more resolutely in others: Snyder v. Snyder (1987), 10 R.F.L. (3d) 144 (N.S.C.A.); Schroeder v. Schroeder (1987), 11 R.F.L. (3d) 413 (Man. Q.B.); Williams v. Williams (1988), 13
-
460.
G.M. (Canada) v. Naken - [1983] 1 SCR 72 - 1983-02-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Helen Naken, Stephen Cranson, William J. Pearce and Roberto Bandiera suing on behalf of themselves and suing on behalf of all other persons who have purchased new 1971 and 1972 Firenza motor vehicles in Ontario (Plaintiffs-Appellants) Respondents; [...] Vaughan Williams L.J. was concerned at pp. 1029-30 with the fact that: [...] In reaching this conclusion he did reiterate, however, at p. 1040, some of the thoughts quoted above with reference to the judgment of Vaughan Williams L.J.:
-
461.
Minister of National Revenue v. McCool - [1950] SCR 80 - 1949-12-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
In his examination for discovery Mr. Williams was referred to the recommendation of the Timber Committee, which reads as follows: [...] No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Crown but the respondent read into the record the examination for discovery of Mr, Williams, Director General of the Corporation Assessments Branch of the Taxation Division, Department of National Revenue, in which Mr. Williams deposed that "an allowance for depletion is made in [...] Mr. Williams did not know whether the department had any idea of the value of the limits and deposed that he "would consider that the company was McCool's company, that he would have control as to the price to be fixed on any assets that were purchased from himself, and consequently that that was not a transaction as
-
462.
City of Vancouver v. McPhalen - (1911) 45 SCR 194 - 1911-11-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
William A. McPhalen (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1911: May 2; 1911: November 6. [...] In Maguire v. Liverpool Corporation[41], at page 782, Vaughan Williams L.J. said:— [...] Local Board[53], Vaughan Williams L.J. thus discusses it at pages 784 and 785:—
-
463.
Church v. Abell - (1877) 1 SCR 442 - 1877-01-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
See Marzetti v. Williams[15]; Doan v. Warren[16]; McLeod v. Boulton[17]; Mayne on Damages[18]. [...] This proposition is too elementary to require any authority, for it forms the first of the celebrated rules laid down by Sergeant Williams in his note to the leading case of Pordage v. Cole[48]. [...] [48] 1 Williams Notes to Sanders, 551; and see 2 Smith’s L.C. (Ed. 7) p. 14.
-
464.
Johnston v. Canadian Credit Men's Trust Association - [1932] SCR 219 - 1931-03-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsStatutes
W. E. Williams K.C. for the respondent. The judgment of the court was delivered by [...] Solicitors for the respondent: Williams, Manson, Gonzales & Taylor. [1] (1931) 44 B.C.R. 354; [1931] 3 W.W.R. 33; [1931] 4 D.L.R. 569.
-
465.
Ashbridge v. Shaver - [1925] SCR 694 - 1925-06-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
By the material filed in support of the motion, it appears that the appellants claim to be cousins and the heirs at law and first of kin of the late William Henry Hill, of Toronto, who died on the 30th January, 1923. [...] They had lodged a caveat; and, upon their motion, an order was made, removing the case from the Surrogate Court into the Supreme Court of Ontario and nominating the respondent Shaver, the sole executor named in the last will and testament of the late William Henry Hill, as plaintiff, and all others interested as defendants.
-
466.
Western Bank of Canada v. McGill - (1902) 32 SCR 581 - 1902-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Dora Stuart Leslie McGill, Administratrix of the Estate of the Late William McGill, (Defendant) Respondent. [...] Williams v. Bayley[1]. I concur in the conclusion reached by a majority of the Court of Appeal.
-
467.
Cinar Corporation v. Robinson - 2013 SCC 73 - [2013] 3 SCR 1168 - 2013-12-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsIntellectual property
William Brock and Cara Cameron, for the appellants (34466)/respondents (34469) Cinar Corporation and Les Films Cinar inc. and for the respondent (34469) 3918203 Canada Inc. [...] “Whether a part is substantial must be decided by its quality rather than its quantity”: Ladbroke (Football), Ltd. v. William Hill (Football), Ltd., [1964] 1 All E.R. 465 (H.L.), at p. 481, per Lord Pearce. [...] (Designers Guild Ltd. v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd., [2001] 1 All E.R. 700, at p. 706, per Lord Hoffmann; see also Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930), per Learned Hand J.)
-
468.
E.B. v. Order of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate in the Province of British Columbia - 2005 SCC 60 - [2005] 3 SCR 45 - 2005-10-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
95 The Court of Appeal also found that another adult staff member, Barney Williams, sometimes shared Mr. Saxey’s upstairs quarters. [...] The Court of Appeal’s finding contradicts that of the trial judge that there was insufficient evidence to support Mr. Williams’ residence there. [...] [T]he defendant Williams’ testimony about Mr. Barney Williams sharing Saxey’s living quarters was by way of an affirmative answer to a leading question in cross‑examination, and . . . there was no other evidence on this point from any source, nor an indication of where the factual or evidentiary foundation for the leading
-
469.
Pappajohn v. The Queen - [1980] 2 SCR 120 - 1980-05-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
(Glanville Williams, Criminal Law, The General Part, at p. 141). (Emphasis added.) [...] Glanville Williams notes [Page 149] (Criminal Law, The General Part, p. 173, para. 65): [...] be found in the scholarly writings: Glanville Williams (Criminal Law, The General Part, para. 70, at p. 201): "The idea that a mistake, to be a defence, must be reasonable, though lurking in some of the cases, is certainly not true as a general proposition"; Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, at p. 100; Howard,
-
470.
Attorney General of Canada et al. v. Canard - [1976] 1 SCR 170 - 1975-01-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Courts
The Attorney General of Canada and William Barber Rees (Defendants) Appellants; [...] (a) A Declaratory Judgment declaring the Defendant, William Barber Rees, to be the lawful Administrator of the estate of Alexander Canard, deceased; [...] Solicitor for the plaintiff, respondent: William Rachman, Winnipeg. [1] [1972] 5 W.W.R. 678, 30 D.L.R. (3d) 9.
-
471.
Lockhart v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. - [1941] SCR 278 - 1941-04-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
I shall refer first to Williams v. Jones[39]. The plaintiff was the owner of a building which the defendant had the liberty of using with his servants as a carpentry shop. [...] The analogy between Williams v. Jones39 and the present case entirely fails in my view. [...] The difficulty of deciding in any particular case was clearly envisaged by the Chief Justice, as he referred also to two other decisions that are generally compared, Williams v. Jones[56], and Jefferson v. Derbyshire Farmers Ltd.[57].
-
472.
National Trust Co., Limited v. Miller/Schmidt v. Miller - (1912) 46 SCR 45 - 1912-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsMines and minerals
William Miller and William D. Dickson and The Eastern Construction Company, Limited (Defendants) Respondents. [...] William Miller and William D. Dickson and The Eastern Construction Company, Limited (Defendants) Respondents. [...] Nuttall v. Bracewell[43]; Jeffries v. Williams[44]; Bibby v. Carter[45]; Smith’s L.C. (11 ed.), vol. 1, pp. 358-60.
-
473.
Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corp. v. DBDC Spadina Ltd. - 2019 SCC 30 - [2019] 2 SCR 530 - 2019-05-14
Supreme Court Judgments1 William Morgan Drive, Toronto, Ontario, 324 Prince Edward Drive, Toronto, Ontario, [...] 1 William Morgan Drive, Toronto, Ontario, 324 Prince Edward Drive, Toronto, Ontario,
-
474.
R. v. Skalbania - [1997] 3 SCR 995 - 1997-11-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Criminal law
Referred to: Lafrance v. The Queen, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201; R. v. Williams, [1953] 1 Q.B. 660. [...] We agree with Rowles J.A. in the British Columbia Court of Appeal that an intentional misappropriation, without mistake, suffices to establish mens rea under s. 332(1) : see Lafrance v. The Queen, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 201; R. v. Williams, [1953] 1 Q.B. 660 (C.A.).
-
475.
Hyde v. Lindsay - (1898) 29 SCR 99 - 1898-11-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
See Hurtubise v. Desmarteau[1]; Couture v. Bouchard[2]; Williams v. Irvine[3]; Cowen v. Evans[4]. [...] In the case of Williams v. Irvine[7], the action had been instituted in 1890, tried in June, 1891, and judgment reserved, subsequently given on the 17th November, 1891.