Advanced Search
- All Databases (1,254)
- Decisions (530)
- Resources (724)
530 result(s)
-
276.
Molner v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. et al. - [1959] SCR 592 - 1959-04-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsPriorities and hypothecs
Solicitors for respondents, Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. and Rempel Construction Co.: Allen, MacKimmie, Matthews, Wood, Phillips & Smith, Calgary.
-
277.
Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia v. Canadian National Railway et al. - [1959] SCR 229 - 1959-01-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
Solicitors for the Alberta Wheat Pool and United Grain Growers Limited, respondents: Allen, MacKimmie, Matthews & Wood, Calgary.
-
278.
Roncarelli v. Duplessis - [1959] SCR 121 - 1959-01-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsState
In Allen v. Flood, the actor was a labour leader and the victims non-union workmen who were lawfully dismissed by their employer to avoid a strike involving no breach of contract or law. [...] In Allen v. Flood there were no such elements. Nor is it necessary to examine the question whether on the basis of an improper revocation the appellant could have compelled the issue of a new permit or whether the purported revocation was a void act. [...] It is the application to such a privilege of the proposition urged but rejected in Allen v. Flood in the case of a private employment.
-
279.
The Attorney-General for Manitoba v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company et al. - [1958] SCR 744 - 1958-11-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
A. E. Hoskin, Q.C., J. Allen, Q.C., and J. H. Stitt, Q.C., for the appellant. [...] Solicitors for the appellant: A. E. Hoskin and J. Allen, Winnipeg. Solicitors for the respondent: H. A. V. Green and H. M. Pickard, Winnipeg.
-
280.
Minerals Limited v. The Minister of National Revenue - [1958] SCR 490 - 1958-06-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
Solicitors for the appellant: Allen, MacKimmie, Matthews & Wood, Calgary.
-
281.
The Municipality of the City and County of Saint-John et al. v. Fraser-Brace Overseas Corporation et al. - [1958] SCR 263 - 1958-04-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsInternational law
Taxation
(11 Allen) 157. 20 (1812), 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116. 21 (1880), 5 P.D. 197.
-
282.
Midcon Oil & Gas Limited v. New British Dominion Oil Company Limited and Thomas L. Brook - [1958] SCR 314 - 1958-02-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
Trust
Solicitors for the defendant, respondent: Allen, MacKimmie, Matthews & Wood, Calgary.
-
283.
Robert v. Marquis and Lussier - [1958] SCR 20 - 1957-11-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
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 to be
-
284.
Monarch Towing & Trading Co. Ltd. v. British Columbia Cement Co. Ltd. - [1957] SCR 816 - 1957-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
8. That during the course of the said voyage, the tug "Protective" was under command of one James Stuart Allen, Master.
-
285.
The Queen v. Neil - [1957] SCR 685 - 1957-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Had the matter been one for determination by a jury it would be my opinion that the improper admission of this evidence would have necessitated a rehearing for the reasons stated by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. in Allen v. The King 1, and by Lord Herschell L.C. in Makin et ux. v. The Attorney-General for New South Wales 2.
-
286.
Marshall and Van Allen v. Crown Assets Disposal Corp. - [1957] SCR 656 - 1957-09-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Marshall and Van Allen v. Crown Assets Disposal Corp., [1957] SCR 656 [...] Marshall and Van Allen v. Crown Assets Disposal Corp., [1957] S.C.R. 656 [...] Maynard Boyce Marshall and Harry Alvin Van Allen (Plaintiffs) Appellants;
-
287.
Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bell - [1957] SCR 581 - 1957-06-26
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
In an action brought against John Milley and George Stewart Nash, administrator ad litem of the estate of Murley Milley, deceased, damages were awarded to the respondent Florence Bell in the sum of $6,000 and to the respondent Allen Bell in the sum of $48,228.05.
-
288.
Orchard v. Tunney - [1957] SCR 436 - 1957-05-13
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
We have examples which are clear in legal features, such as marriage, but the difficulty of bringing them under a general conception or principle is demonstrated in the comprehensive exposition given the subject by Dr. Carleton K. Allen in (1930), 46 L.Q.R. 277.
-
289.
Parkes v. The Queen - [1956] SCR 768 - 1956-10-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
As to this, I refer to what was said by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J., with whom Duff J. (as he then was) agreed, in Allen v. The King[12]:— [...] While the trial referred to in Allen’s Case was before a jury, these remarks, in my opinion, apply with equal force to a hearing such as this before a single judge where the reasons delivered indicate that he relied, at least in part, upon evidence which was not properly before him.
-
290.
English and Laing v. Richmond et al. - [1956] SCR 383 - 1956-03-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
Solicitors for the appellants: Allen, Weekes & Lawson. Solicitors for the respondents: Fennell, McLean & Seed.
-
291.
Reference re Regina v. Coffin - [1956] SCR 191 - 1956-01-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
(Makin v. A.G. for New South Wales [1894] A.C. 57 and Allen v. The King 44 S.C.R. 331 followed). [...] Allen v. The King 10. Les circonstances établies, ne laissaient aucune alternative au jury. [...] The meaning of the language quoted is indistinguishable from that of the section 1019 considered in Allen's Case.
-
292.
Lewkowicz v. Korzewich - [1956] SCR 170 - 1955-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
The second marriage need not be shown to have been such as to constitute a valid marriage but for the first; Reg. v. Brierly[17] at 537; Reg. v. Allen[18]; R. v. Robinson[19].
-
293.
Semanczuk v. Semanczyk - [1955] SCR 658 - 1955-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Had she admitted that she had committed adultery, the effect of the section would not have been to render the evidence inadmissible (Allen v. Allen 5 : Welstead v. Brown 6).
-
294.
Hebert v. The Queen - [1955] SCR 120 - 1954-12-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
This case is quite distinguishable from Allen v. The King 14, where counsel for the Crown sought, through cross-examination, to place in evidence that given by a witness at the preliminary who was not called at the trial.
-
295.
Boucher v. The Queen - [1955] SCR 16 - 1954-12-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
The infringement of these rights was, in my opinion, a substantial wrong, within the meaning of section 1014 (2) of the Criminal Code, and accordingly that provision has no application to this case: Makin v. Attorney General for New South Wales[22]; Allen v. The King[23]; Northey v. The King[24]. [...] a character that the appellant was deprived of his right to the verdict of a jury following a trial according to law and such deprivation is of necessity 'a substantial wrong, an argument which would have required a 'careful examination of the judgments in such cases as Allen v. The King[31] and Northey v. The King[32].
-
296.
Hamilton (City) v. Hamilton Children's Aid Society - [1954] SCR 569 - 1954-10-05
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
In Re Van Allen [1953] O.R. 569 approved. Decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal [1953] O.W.N. 699, affirmed. [...] There is only one possible ground of distinction between the facts in the case at bar and those in Re Van Allen. [...] As was held in Re Van Allen, it was not a new “case” that came before the judge on February 25, 1953.
-
297.
The Queen v. Snider - [1954] SCR 479 - 1954-06-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
...Now, before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood 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 to be proved, since the
-
298.
C.P.R. v. Turta - [1954] SCR 427 - 1954-05-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
It was urged by Mr. Nolan that as Anton Turta had purchased the land for farming purposes only he could not be said to be a purchaser for value of the petroleum rights, and Pleasance v. Allen 23 was cited as an authority against him.
-
299.
District Registrar of Portage La Prairie v. Canadian Superior Oil of California Ltd. - [1954] SCR 321 - 1954-05-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
A. E. Hoskin, Q.C. and John Allen, Q.C. for the appellant. J. G. Cowan, Q.C. for the Attorney General of Manitoba. [...] Solicitors for the appellant: A. E. Hoskin and John Allen. Solicitors for the respondents: Maclnnes, Burbidge, Hetherington, Allison, Campbell & Findlay.
-
300.
Taylor v. Silver Giant Mines Ltd. - [1954] SCR 280 - 1954-05-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
Wheeler and Allen, one of the directors of the Silver Giant Company who was also present at the meeting, said that at this time Taylor told them that the Hedley Mascot Company was declining to pay him any commission, which was apparently his reason for demanding a larger amount from Silver Giant.