Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
2,369 result(s)
-
1,001.
R. v. Marshall - [1999] 3 SCR 533 - 1999-11-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsAboriginal law
Appeal
Written submissions by A. William Moreira, Q.C., for the applicant the West Nova Fishermen’s Coalition. [...] Here, we refer back to the guiding interpretive principle derived from Taylor and Williams and Guerin, supra.
-
1,002.
R. v. Lepage - [1995] 1 SCR 654 - 1995-02-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Blackstone, Sir William. Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV. By William Draper Lewis.
-
1,003.
Steele v. Mountain Institution - [1990] 2 SCR 1385 - 1990-11-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
This view was echoed by the Field Parole Officer William F. Foster: Although subject did fail on his last period at the Community Release Center I think it might be noted that his failure was more based on adjustment problems than indications of a tendency to repeat his previous type of offence. [...] Others who made this same point include: Dr. D. C. MacDonald, Deputy Warden W. H. Collins and Field Representative P. D. Redecopp in 1964; Dr. J. C. Bryce in 1968; Mr. Lee Pulos in 1970; Field Parole Officer William F. Foster and Mr. Pulos, again, in 1972; Dr. Milton H. Miller and Dr. A. Saad in 1974; and Dr. W. J. Ross in
-
1,004.
R. v. Miller - [1985] 2 SCR 613 - 1985-12-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsPrerogative writs
In dismissing the application Denman C.J., with whom Williams, Coleridge and Wightman JJ. concurred, said: "It is quite clear that we cannot entertain this application. [...] object of this remedy is the obtaining of liberty for the subject; R. v. Governor of Wandsworth Prison; Ex p. Silverman (1952), 96 Sol. Jo. 853 (Queen's Bench Div. Ct., Hilbery, Streatfeild and McNair JJ.); Ex parte Rogers (1843), 7 Jur. 992 (Court of Queen's Bench, Denman C.J., Williams, Coleridge and Wightman JJ.).
-
1,005.
Simon v. The Queen - [1985] 2 SCR 387 - 1985-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAboriginal law
Copage (1977), 24 N.S.R. (2d) 313; R. v. Batisse (1978), 19 O.R. (2d) 145; R. v. Taylor and Williams (1982), 34 O.R. (2d) 360; R. v. Moses (1969), 13 D.L.R. (3d) 50; R. v. Penasse and McLeod (1971), 8 C.C.C. (2d) 569; Cheeco v. The Queen, [1981] 3 C.N.L.R. 45, referred to; R. v. Mousseau, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 89, distinguished. [...] Ct.); R. v. Taylor and Williams (1982), 34 O.R. (2d) 360 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Moses (1969), 13 D.L.R. (3d) 50 (Ont. Dist.
-
1,006.
Dupond v. City of Montreal et al. - [1978] 2 SCR 770 - 1978-01-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
William Henkel, c.r., pour l’intervenant. Le jugement du juge en chef Laskin et des juges Spence et Dickson a été rendu par [...] Procureur de l’intervenant: William Henkel, Edmonton. [1] [1974] C.A. 402.
-
1,007.
The King v. Richardson - [1948] SCR 57 - 1948-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
that an action for loss of the services of a servant by the tortious act of a third party is available to the Crown as an employer as well as to a subject", but the dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Latham and Williams J., in The Commonwealth v. Quince 12, express the same conclusions as that at which I have arrived. [...] The opinion of Williams J. was to the same effect. Rich J., one of the majority, expressed no opinion, while Stark J., at page 246, says:—
-
1,008.
The King v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. - [1947] SCR 185 - 1947-02-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Kerwin J.—On January 15, 1942, Hubert William Christian a switchman in the employ of the National Harbours Board while engaged in the performance of his duties on the National Harbours Board Terminal Railway main line in the Province of British Columbia was injured as a result of the negligence of the servants of the [...] The appellant was the owner of a terminal railway, known as the National Harbours Board Terminal Railway running east and west and parallel to a spur track leading into the British Columbia Sugar Refinery, in the City. of Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia On the 15th of January, 1942, one Hubert William
-
1,009.
Hessler v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. - [1935] SCR 585 - 1935-11-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
In Groves v. Wimborne[17], Vaughan Williams, L.J., says:— Where a statute provides for the performance by certain persons of a particular duty, and some one belonging to a class of persons for whose benefit and protection the statute imposes the duty is injured by failure to perform it, prima facie, and, if there be [...] The above paragraph from the judgment of Vaughan Williams, L.J., in my opinion, lays down the principles applicable to the case at Bar.
-
1,010.
Miller v. Duggan - (1892) 21 SCR 33 - 1892-04-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
William Miller and Robert Miller (Plaintiffs) Appellants And Johanna Duggan, Patrick M. Duggan, and Charles Cogswell (Defendants) [...] Goff v. Lister[25]; Bethune v. Caulcutt[26]; Graham v. Chalmers[27]; Rice v. O'Connor[28]; Farrow v. Rees[29]; and Jones v. Williams[30] are all authorities to this effect.
-
1,011.
Merchants' Bank of Canada v. Smith - (1884) 8 SCR 512 - 1884-01-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Further, I cannot agree that William Snarr is to be considered as having been a warehouseman for the firm, the warehouse and wharf were really the leasehold of the firm and the nominal title only was in William Snarr.
-
1,012.
Trust and Loan Co. v. Lawrason et al - (1882) 10 SCR 679 - 1882-05-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
of the county court of the county of Brant, directed ‘to the said sheriff for the having of execution of a judgment of that court recovered by the defendants, William Burrill, John Heaton and Henry Wilson Darnley as executors of the last will and testament of George Wilson Darnley, deceased, in an action at their suit [...] The case of In re Stockton Iron Furnace Co.[35] is valuable for the observations which it contains, which traverse the whole ground of these attornment provisions, and no disapprobation is expressed by the judges, either in that case, or even in ex parte Williams[36], of
-
1,013.
Ryan v. Ryan - (1881) 5 SCR 387 - 1881-02-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
a new terminus a quo, Doe d. Perry v. Henderson[18]; Keffer v. Keffer[19]; Gray v, Richford[20]; Doe d. Baker v. Coombes[21]; Truesdell v. Cook[22]; Williams v. McDonald[23]; and especially Day v. Day[24]; Banning’s Limitation of Actions[25]; Foster v. Emerson[26] relied upon, is overruled by Truesdell v. Cook22. [...] See the observations on this head of Richards, C.J., in Williams v. McDonald[27]; also, the observations of Robinson, C.J., in Doe d. Henderson[28], which was a case in almost all respects resembling the present case, and in which it was held that the running of the statute was not interrupted by the fact that the father
-
1,014.
Phoenix Bulk Carriers Ltd. v. Kremikovtzi Trade - 2007 SCC 13 - [2007] 1 SCR 588 - 2007-03-16
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
Maritime law
Peter G. Pamel, Jean‑Marie Fontaine and Rick Williams, for the appellant.
-
1,015.
R. v. Smith - 2003 SCC 48 - [2003] 2 SCR 392 - 2003-09-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
William F. Ehrcke, Q.C., and Beverly MacLean, for the appellant. Joseph J. Blazina, for the respondent.
-
1,016.
R. v. Mitchell - 2003 SCC 49 - [2003] 2 SCR 396 - 2003-09-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
William F. Ehrcke, Q.C., and Beverly MacLean, for the appellant. Robert A. Mulligan, Q.C., for the respondent.
-
1,017.
Gilbert v. The King - (1907) 38 SCR 207 - 1907-02-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
by Sir William Ritchie C.J., in The Glengarry Election Case ([4]), at page 460.
-
1,018.
Allan v. Price - (1900) 30 SCR 536 - 1900-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
WILLIAM PRICE (DEFENDANT) Respondent. 1900: Oct 5; 1900: Oct 8 PRESENT:—Taschereau, Gwynne, Sedgewick, King and Girouard JJ.
-
1,019.
Smith v. The Saint John Railway Co. / Consolidated Electric Co. v. Atlantic Trust Co. / Consolidated Electric Co. v. Pratt - (1898) 28 SCR 603 - 1898-06-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Solicitor for the appellants: William Pugsley. Solicitor for the respondents, The St. John City Railway Company and others: Arthur I. Trueman.
-
1,020.
R. v. Manning - 2013 SCC 1 - [2013] 1 SCR 3 - 2013-01-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Written submissions only by Simon William and François Lacasse, for the intervener the Director of Public Prosecutions of Canada.
-
1,021.
R. v. Edgar - 2003 SCC 47 - [2003] 2 SCR 388 - 2003-09-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
William F. Ehrcke, Q.C., and Beverly MacLean, for the appellant. Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C., and James I. S. Sutherland, for the respondent.
-
1,022.
Milburn v. Wilson - (1901) 31 SCR 481 - 1901-11-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
William Arthur Wilson (Plaintiff) and The Highway Advertising Company of Canada (Defendant) Respondents.
-
1,023.
Halifax Election Cases (Roche v. Hetherington / Carney v. Hetherington) - (1907) 39 SCR 401 - 1907-11-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsElections
William Roche (Respondent) Appellant; and Frederic W. Hetherington (Petitioner) Respondent.
-
1,024.
O'Donohoe v. Bourne - (1897) 27 SCR 654 - 1897-10-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
See Maritime Bunk v. Stewart[7]; In re Cahan[8]; McGugan v. McGugan[9]; Williams v. Leonard[10].
-
1,025.
Benning v. The Atlantic & N.W. Ry Co. - (1891) 20 SCR 177 - 1891-11-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsExpropriation
The "plaintiffs are the executors of the late "William Moody, of Côte St. Antoine.