Advanced Search
- All Databases (1,254)
- Decisions (530)
- Resources (724)
530 result(s)
-
251.
The Queen v. Borg - [1969] SCR 551 - 1969-04-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Allen J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal. The respondent was tried before Milvain J., as he then was, and a jury.
-
252.
Ross, Banks and Dyson v. The Queen - [1968] SCR 786 - 1968-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
In re Betty Loeb Allen[10], Gibson C.J. said, at p. 281: The rules of the game of bridge, which have been established on an international basis, are set forth in encyclopedias and other texts, and we are satisfied from the rules and from the many publications on the subject that the game is predominantly one of skill. [...] On the basis that there must be some chance in every game, as Mr. Murray testified, I am of the opinion that the statements made in the Woolf case, in the D’Orio case, and in the Betty Loeb Allen case support the contention that the predominance of skill in the game of bridge should indicate that it is not properly [...] Indeed in the Betty Loeb Allen case a conviction for permitting an illegal game to be played was quashed by the Supreme Court of California for that exact reason.
-
253.
Kilgoran Hotels et al. v. Samek et al. - [1968] SCR 3 - 1967-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
Solicitors for the respondents: Starr, Allen & Weekes, Toronto.
-
254.
C. Beckett & Co. (Edm.) Ltd. et al. v. J.H. Ashdown Hardware Co. Ltd. - [1967] SCR 610 - 1967-10-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
CARTWRIGHT C.J. (Orally for the Court):—-We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasons of Mr. Justice Allen who gave the unanimous judgment of the Appellate Division.
-
255.
Dimensional Investments Limited v. The Queen - [1968] SCR 93 - 1967-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsState
Solicitors for the appellant: Starr, Allen & Weekes, Toronto. Solicitor for the respondent: D.S. Maxwell, Ottawa.
-
256.
Harris v. Toronto Transit Commission et al. - [1967] SCR 460 - 1967-06-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Ted Allen Harris, an infant, by his next friends, Armand Hall and Lillian Harris (Plaintiffs) Appellants;
-
257.
Farbwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning v. Commissioner of Patents - [1966] SCR 604 - 1966-04-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Intellectual property
In General Radio Co. v. Allen B. DuMont Laboratories, Inc.[12] , the Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, held that the failure of the patent applicants to foresee that the application was based upon an error of judgment by the patentee's solicitors in the drafting of the claims.
-
258.
Mann v. The Queen - [1966] SCR 238 - 1966-01-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Allen Mann (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen (Defendant) Respondent.
-
259.
Colpits v. The Queen - [1965] SCR 739 - 1965-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
The application of the subsection, as pointed out by the learned justice in appeal, has been considered frequently in this Court and I think it may be said that the decisions in Allen v. The King[12], Gouin v. The King[13], Brooks v. The King[14], Lizotte v. The King[15], and Schmidt v. The King[16], are authoritative. [...] The proposition in Allen v. The King as stated by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, C.J., at p. 339, in reference to the section of the Code then if effect, was:
-
260.
National Trust Co. Ltd. v. Fleury et al. - [1965] SCR 817 - 1965-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
Re Young (1928), 62 O.L.R. 275; Jones v. Colbeck (1802), 8 Ves. 38; Thompson v. Smith, supra; Hutchinson v. National Refuges for Homeless and Destitute Children, supra, discussed; Re Allen, [1939] O.W.N. 1; Re Campbell (1928), 63 O.L.R. 36; Re Hughson, [1955] O.W.N. 541; Re Jones, [1955] O.R. 837; Re Colby, [1957] O.W.N.
-
261.
Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada et al. v. Dalrymple - [1965] SCR 302 - 1965-03-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Solicitors for the plaintiff, respondent: Starr, Allen & Weekes, Toronto.
-
262.
Sukloff v. A.H. Rushforth & Co. - [1964] SCR 459 - 1964-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsBankruptcy and insolvency
Solicitors for the plaintiff, appellant: Allen, Hunter, Campbell & Regan, Toronto.
-
263.
Lehnert v. Stein - [1963] SCR 38 - 1962-11-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
Torts
F. D. Allen, for the defendant, appellant. J. F. O'Sullivan and S. I. Schwartz, for the plaintiff, respondent.
-
264.
Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Zambri - [1962] SCR 609 - 1962-06-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
To break a contract is an unlawful act, or, in the language of Lord Watson in Allen v. Flood, “a breach of contract is in itself a legal wrong”.
-
265.
Montreal Trust Company v. Minister of National Revenue - [1962] SCR 570 - 1962-06-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
Solicitors for the appellant: Allen, MacKimmie, Matthews, Wood, Phillips & Smith, Calgary.
-
266.
The Queen v. Cumming - [1962] SCR 507 - 1962-04-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Criminal law
These envelopes which had been prepared by the investigators, who had inserted the $1 bills after making a note of their serial numbers, were taken to the supervisor of the sortation unit in which the respondent worked by investigator Allen who gave certain instructions as a result of which the supervisor placed the [...] mail to be sorted and then saw to it that this tray was placed in front of the respondent who was kept under supervision while she sorted it, after which it was taken directly to the supervisor’s office where the same investigator, Allen, extracted the three envelopes and found that they had been opened and the $1 bills
-
267.
In Re Gage - [1962] SCR 241 - 1962-02-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
Solicitors for the appellants: Hume, Martin & Allen, Toronto. Solicitors for the respondents, Irene G. Griffith, Dianna Gage Tisdall, Gloria Gage Prusac, Carmen Irene Anglin and W. Gage Griffith: Wegenast & Hyndman, Toronto.
-
268.
Gagnon et al. v. Foundation Maritime Ltd. - [1961] SCR 435 - 1961-04-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
It is no more than Allen v. Flood14 over again with the added element of a statute which prevented a justification of the conduct complained of.
-
269.
Kruger v. Booker - [1961] SCR 231 - 1961-01-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
Laidlaw J.A. also referred to a judgment of the Court of Appeal in England in Allen v. Allen[8]. [...] This was the opinion which the same judge had expressed in Allen’s case. [...] Cohen L.J. referred to the decision in Allen’s case and said that apparently it had not been drawn to the attention of Wallington J. Upon the evidence he said there was no suggestion that the mother was promiscuous or a bad mother and accordingly considered that the child, a little girl, should be entrusted to her care
-
270.
O'Brien v. Procureur Général de la Province de Québec - [1961] SCR 184 - 1960-12-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Allen O'Brien (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Le Procureur Général de la Province de Québec (Defendant) Respondent.
-
271.
O'Grady v. Sparling - [1960] SCR 804 - 1960-10-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
(ii) It has been decided by this Court, notably in Provincial Secretary of P.E.I. v. Egan18 and in O'Brien v. Allen19, that the field of regulation of highway traffic within a province is wholly provincial.
-
272.
Texada Mines Ltd. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia - [1960] SCR 713 - 1960-06-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
It was shown by the evidence of Allen D. Christensen, the president of the appellant company, that the iron content of the ore in the appellant's mine was only sufficient to yield a very narrow margin of profit on the available export market.
-
273.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Therien - [1960] SCR 265 - 1960-01-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
As it was said by Lord Dunedin in Sorrell v. Smith[15], in summarizing what had been decided in Mogul Steamship Company v. M'Gregor[16], Allen v. Flood[17] and Quinn v. Leathem[18], even though the dominating motive in a certain course of action may be the furtherance of your own business or your own interests, you are not
-
274.
Canadian Admiral Corporation v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue - [1959] SCR 832 - 1959-11-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
Solicitors for the Canadian Electrical, Manufacturers Association: Hume, Martin & Allen, Toronto.
-
275.
Sommers and Gray v. The Queen - [1959] SCR 678 - 1959-06-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
The case of The Queen v. Allen[9] shows that the interpretation contended for by the appellants does not obtain in cases where, as in the present. it would, in the result, leave untouched a portion of the mischief aimed at by the enactment.