Advanced Search
- All Databases (1,254)
- Decisions (530)
- Resources (724)
530 result(s)
-
226.
Jumaga v. R. - [1977] 1 SCR 486 - 1976-05-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Prowse J.A., speaking for himself and Allen J.A. said (at p. 492) that “prejudice [to the accused] must be inferred when [he] is not permitted to communicate confidentially with his counsel...”.
-
227.
Lamb v. Canadian Reserve Oil & Gas Ltd. - [1977] 1 SCR 517 - 1976-05-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsMines and minerals
Allen J.A., in Caswell v. Alexandra Petroleums Ltd.[2], held that the presiding judge ought not lightly to disturb the findings of the Board of Arbitration, but that it requires cogent evidence to establish where the Board was wrong and why its award should be varied or revised upward or downward. [...] The former accepted the views expressed by Allen J.A., who delivered the reasons of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta, with reference to a similar situation, in the Caswell case, at p. 728: [...] The District Court judge made reference to the remarks of Allen J.A. in Copithorne v. Shell
-
228.
Montreal v. Vaillancourt - [1977] 2 SCR 849 - 1976-05-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
Allen Feldman, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by
-
229.
Scotia Square Hotel Ltd. v. City of Halifax - [1977] 2 SCR 490 - 1976-04-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
Ronald J. Downie, Q.C., and Barry S. Allen, for the respondent. The judgment of Laskin C.J. and Spence and Beetz JJ. was delivered by
-
230.
Winnipeg Teachers’ Association v. Winnipeg School Division No. 1. - [1976] 2 SCR 695 - 1975-10-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
F.D. Allen, Q.C. and R.T. Willis, for the defendant, appellant. H.B. Parker and J.L. Condra, for the plaintiff, respondent.
-
231.
Harrison v. Carswell - [1976] 2 SCR 200 - 1975-06-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
(1972), pp. 49-90; and Allen, Law in the Making, 7th ed. (1964), pp. 302-11.)
-
232.
Rilling v. The Queen - [1976] 2 SCR 183 - 1975-06-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Allen J.A., in his reasons for judgment for the Appellate Division, stated that he did not think it fair to assume that members of the public who were not showing visible signs of impairment would be harassed.
-
233.
Little and Wolski v. R. - [1976] 1 SCR 20 - 1974-12-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
In R. v. Emmons[10], Allen J.A. of the Appellate Division of the Alberta Supreme Court reviewed many of the authorities.
-
234.
Parkland (County of) v. Stetar et al. - [1975] 2 SCR 884 - 1974-10-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Transportation
The majority in the Appellate Division (Allen and Sinclair JJ.A.) held: (a) that Stetar was 75 per cent at fault and the County of Parkland 25 per cent at fault; (b) that the Stetars and the Woodrows were entitled to recover from the county 25 per cent of any damages awarded to them; (c) as the action of the Poiriers and
-
235.
Calgary Power Ltd. v. City of Camrose - [1975] 2 SCR 465 - 1974-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsPublic utilities
The issues before the Appellate Division were stated by Allen J.A. as follows: [...] With respect to the first issue stated by Allen J.A., in para. (a), I am in agreement with the reasons of Johnson J.A. and Allen J.A. for holding that the Board properly included the $300, 000 item referred to in that paragraph. [...] Allen J.A. says: Although I can find no express statement in any case to that effect it seems to me that there is a difference in concept of values in such cases.
-
236.
Linton Construction Ltd. v. C.N.R. - [1975] 2 SCR 678 - 1974-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
In the same connection, Mr. Justice Allen observed, in the course of his reasons for judgment (p. 432 of 24 D.L.R. (3d)): [...] For all these reasons, as well as for those set forth in the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice Allen, I would dismiss this appeal with costs. [...] Allen J.A., in giving reasons for the majority in the Appellate Division, said:
-
237.
Canada Labour Relations Board et al. v. C.N.R. - [1975] 1 SCR 786 - 1974-04-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
Allen J.A. dissented. Sections 53(g) and 54 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act read as follows:
-
238.
Ocean Harvesters Ltd. v. Quinlan Brothers Ltd. - [1975] 1 SCR 684 - 1974-03-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
Lynes v. Snaith, [1899] 1 Q.B. 486; Errington v. Errington, [1952] 1 All E.R. 149; Cobb v. Lane, [1952] 1 All E.R. 1199; Gray v. Richford (1878), 2 S.C.R. 431; Smith v. Lloyd (1854), 9 Ex. 562, 156 E.R. 240; Allen v. England (1862), 3 F. & F. 49; Radiach v. Smith (1959), 101 C.L.R. 209; Wills v. Steer (1907), 9 Nfld. [...] The same thought had been expressed a few years earlier by Erle C.J. in Allen v. England[7], in these words:
-
239.
Doré v. Attorney General of Canada - [1975] 1 SCR 756 - 1974-02-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Now, before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood (1898) A.C. 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed
-
240.
Workmen’s Compensation Board et al. v. Greer - [1975] 1 SCR 347 - 1973-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
James Allen Greer (Defendant) Respondent. 1973: November 7, 8; 1973: December 21.
-
241.
Zacks v. Zacks - [1973] SCR 891 - 1973-05-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Family law
Allen J.A., who delivered the majority decision, said that “the silence of the decree nisi on the subject of maintenance bars further proceedings in this action for that relief”.
-
242.
Drew Brown Ltd. v. The ‘Orient Trader’ - [1974] SCR 1286 - 1972-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
International law
[Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. v. Pickford and Black Ltd., [1972] S.C.R. 52 applied; Livesley v. Horst, [1924] S.C.R. 605; Allen v. Hay (1922), 64 S.C.R. 76, Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Eisenerz-G.m.b.H. [1974] S.C.R. 1225, referred to] [...] Duff J., as he then was, adopted a similar view in Allen v. Hay[1], at pp. 80-81: [...] At the most, I may look to his sources to see if his reliance on them is borne out: see Allen v. Hay[17], at p. 81.
-
243.
Manuge v. Dominion Atlantic Railway Co. - [1973] SCR 232 - 1972-10-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
Transportation
[Allen v. Gen. Mgr. C.N. Railways (1924), 57 N.S.R. 252; Reynolds v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. (1926), 59 O.L.R. 396, applied; Commissioner for Railways v. McDermott, [1967] 1 A.C. 169, distinguished; Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Babudro and Sdraulig, [1969] S.C.R. 698; Lake Erie and Detroit River Ry. Co. v. Barclay [...] tion, Mr. Justice Cooper cites the judgment of Mr. Justice Rogers, speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, en banc, in Allen v. General Manager C.N. Railways[3], where he says at pp. 255 and 256:
-
244.
Dziwenka et al. v. R. et al. - [1972] SCR 419 - 1971-10-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
In setting aside this judgment, Mr. Justice Allen, whose reasons for judgment were adopted by the other members of the Appellate Division, concluded that the appellant’s “momentary inattention was ‘the sole author of his injury’” and that his action should accordingly be dismissed. [...] I agree with Mr. Justice Allen that on the basis of the authorities cited by him and many other authorities, it is well established that an appellate court is in as good a position as a trial judge to draw the proper inferences from primary facts. [...] For all these reasons, as well as for those so fully set forth in the reasons for judgment of Allen J.A. in the Appellate Division, I would dismiss this appeal with costs.
-
245.
Avon v. R. - [1971] SCR 650 - 1971-02-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
”. I note that as early as in Allen v. [Page 668] The King[18], Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J., in reasons expressly concurred in by Duff J., as he then was, said at pp. 339 and 340:
-
246.
Highway Properties Ltd. v. Kelly, Douglas and Co. Ltd. - [1971] SCR 562 - 1971-02-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsLease
# 1403. One of the terms of the lease in Bel-Boys Buildings Ltd. v. Clark[5] was in the nature of such a covenant applicable to a guarantor, and the dissenting judgment of Allen J.A. of the Alberta Appellate Division recognized the enforceability of the guarantee notwithstanding the termination of the obligation to pay
-
247.
John v. R. - [1971] SCR 781 - 1970-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
The proper application of that paragraph of the Code had been determined in this Court in a series of cases from Allen v. The King[15] to Colpitts v. The Queen[16] and, in the latter decision at p. 755, the words of the judgment in Brooks v. The King[17] are adopted:
-
248.
Ares v. Venner - [1970] SCR 608 - 1970-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
Johnson J.A., with whom McDermid and Allen JJ.A. concurred, in dealing with these records said:
-
249.
Waisman and Ross et al. v. Crown Trust Company - [1970] SCR 553 - 1970-03-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
The unanimous judgment of the Appellate Division was delivered by Allen J.A. The basis of the decision is found in the following passages in his reasons: [...] Allen J.A. relied on the following passage from the unanimous judgment of this Court delivered by my brother Ritchie in Clarkson Co. Ltd. et al. v. Ace Lumber Ltd. et al.[2], at p. 114: [...] It is quite true, as pointed out by Allen J.A., that a firm as such is not a legal entity, but the use of the firm name is a convenient and usual way of describing the individual members who collectively make up the firm, and, in my view, in the circumstances of this case its use was equivalent to naming the partners.
-
250.
Breckenridge Speedway Ltd. et al. v. R. - [1970] SCR 175 - 1969-10-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
For the reasons given by Allen J.A., which were approved by Smith C.J.A., Johnson J.A., and Kane J.A., I would hold that these three transfers were given by way of security. [...] Porter and Allen JJ.A., in separate judgments, held The Treasury Branches Act to be ultra vires. [...] but I differ from him and agree with Allen J.A. as to the three properties transferred as payment