Advanced Search
- All Databases (1,254)
- Decisions (530)
- Resources (724)
530 result(s)
-
301.
Saumur v. City of Quebec - [1953] 2 SCR 299 - 1953-10-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
The judgments of this Court in O'Brien v. Allen[54] and in Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan[55], establish that the use of highways in the province is a subject matter within the provincial power. [...] In O'Brien v. Allen (supra) at page 342, Sedgewick J., delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court said:— [...] It appears to me to follow from the judgments in O'Brien v. Allen (supra) and Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan (supra) that the legislative authority to permit, forbid or regulate the use of the highways for purposes other than that of passing and repassing belongs to the Province.
-
302.
Kloepfer Wholesale Hardware v. Roy - [1952] 2 SCR 465 - 1952-06-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Miller v. Allen[5]. The Court of Appeal relies upon Roberto v. Bumb[6].
-
303.
Smith v. Smith - [1952] 2 SCR 312 - 1952-05-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
law in Stuart v. Stuart where a number of authorities bearing on the issue were considered-Loveden v. Loveden[12] ; Allen v. Allen and Bell [13] ; FitzRandolph v. FitzRandolph[14]; L. v. L. and K.[15] ; Churchman v. Churchman, supra; Ginesi v. Ginesi [16] [...] While in Allen v. Allen [34], Lopes L.J., delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in a case where the evidence was circumstantial, had said in part (p. 252) :‑
-
304.
Bouck v. Minister of National Revenue - [1952] 2 SCR 17 - 1952-03-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
The learned Chief Justice thus viewed the decision of the Court of Appeal in Allen v. Furnes 27. [...] In Allen's case, the gift was to a father for life "for the support and maintenance of himself and children." [...] Solicitors for the appellant: Porter, Allen & MacKimmie. Solicitor for the respondent: H. W. Riley.
-
305.
Welstead v. Brown - [1952] 1 SCR 3 - 1951-10-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsEvidence
Allen v. Allen and Bell [1894] p. 248 at 255, Laffin v. Laffin [1945] 3 D.L.R. 595 and Waugh v. Waugh [1946] 2 D.L.R. 133, distinguished. [...] This is supported by the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Allen v. Allen and Bell[36], where Lindley L.J. says:—
-
306.
Boucher v. the King - [1951] SCR 265 - 1950-12-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Where, apart from the evidence held inadmissible, there is evidence from which the jury may find the accused guilty a new trial was directed: Allen v. The King[48].
-
307.
Lizotte v. The King - [1951] SCR 115 - 1950-12-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Gouin v. The King (1926) S.C.R. 539, at p. 543; Allen v. The King (1911) 44 Can. SCR. 331, at p. 339; Makin v. Att.-Gen. for New South Wales (1894) A.C. 57, at p. 70.
-
308.
Sauvageau v. The King - [1950] SCR 664 - 1950-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsState
...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
-
309.
McKee v. McKee - [1950] SCR 700 - 1950-06-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
Allen v. Allen[10], the wife commenced an action for divorce in the Supreme Court of Illinois in which the husband appeared. [...] In any event, it was pointed out by Rose J., as he then was, in Re Allen[32], after the statute had taken its present form, that the amendments of 1923 left untouched the provisions of section 3, namely, [...] [30] (1862) 4 Allen (Mass.) 321. [31] (1915) 8 O.W.N. 567. [32] (1928) 35 O.W.N. 101
-
310.
Newell v. Barker - [1950] SCR 385 - 1950-02-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
In the analysis made by Viscount Simon, in particular, of such and similar purposes as they have been exemplified in the leading cases from Mogul S.S. Company v. McGregor, Gow & Co.[11], Allen v. Flood[12], and Quinn v. Leatham[13], to Sorrell v. Smith[14], the purpose of malice, as meaning either malevolence or a
-
311.
The King v. Schmidt - [1948] SCR 333 - 1948-06-25
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
H.W. Allen for the respondent. The judgment of the Chief Justice and of Kerwin J. was delivered by
-
312.
Meyer v. Capital Trust Corp. Ltd. - [1948] SCR 329 - 1948-04-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
W.J. Green K.C. and T.K. Allen for the widow appellant. W.E. Haughton K.C. and Charles F. Scott for different groups of beneficiaries, respondents. [...] Solicitor for the appellant: T.K. Allen. Solicitor for the respondents Brethour and Meyer: Duncan A. McIlraith.
-
313.
Shook v. Munro et al. - [1948] SCR 539 - 1948-04-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsAction
The parties did not intend to have their rights determined outside of the ordinary jurisdiction of the court; Pickard v. Allen and Dewar[10].
-
314.
Northey v. The King - [1948] SCR 135 - 1948-03-23
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
I have not overlooked the decision in Allen v. The King[7] , but each case must depend on its own facts. [...] In Allen v. Rex[10] , Chief Justice Sir Charles Fitzpatrick said at page 336:— [...] In this Court, after commenting upon Allen v. The King[27] , my lord The Chief Justice (then Rinfret, J.) in writing the judgment of the Court stated at p. 544:
-
315.
Central Jewish Institute v. City of Toronto - [1948] SCR 101 - 1948-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
J.R. Cartwright K.C. and S. Allen for the appellant. F.A.A. Campbell K.C. and J.N. Herapath for the respondent.
-
316.
Dominion Atlantic Ry. Co. v. Halifax and South Western Ry. Co. - [1947] SCR 107 - 1946-12-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
There was also some evidence that from time to time the appellant placed a car on the siding for the convenience of a man by the name of Allen.
-
317.
Attorney-General for Canada v. Jackson - [1946] SCR 489 - 1946-03-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsState
R. H. Allen, for the respondent at the hearing of the appeal. A. B. Gilbert K.C. for the respondent at the re-hearing ordered by the Court. [...] Solicitors for the respondent: Allen & Allen. [1] (1945) 18 M.P.R. 138; [1945] 2 D.L.R. 438.
-
318.
In re Withycombe Estate / Attorney-General of Alberta v. Royal Trust Co. - [1945] SCR 267 - 1945-02-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
It appears that by lease dated the 8th of June, 1918, the deceased granted this property to Allen Brothers for a term of thirty-five years from the 2nd day of November, 1918, the principal material terms of the lease being:— [...] The first dealing of which we are informed is a lease made by Mr. Withycombe to Allen Brothers, Theatre Proprietors, in 1918. [...] By an agreement in writing dated June 8th, 1918, the late Mr. A. G. Withycombe as owner leased this property to Allen Brothers for a period of thirty-five years from the 2nd day of November, 1918.
-
319.
Lister v. McAnulty - [1944] SCR 317 - 1944-06-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsInternational law
As it has been said by Sir Lyman Duff, in Allen v. Hay[3], 64 S.C.R. at page 81: [...] This was expressly stated in the case of Allen v. Hay[8]. For the present law, he largely relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court of that State reported as Feneff v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co.[9], which was decided in 1909.
-
320.
F.W. Pirie Company Ltd. v. Canadian National Ry. Co. and Simmons - [1943] SCR 275 - 1943-04-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Solicitor for the respondent, Canadian National Railway Company: T. J. Allen.
-
321.
Gach v. The King - [1943] SCR 250 - 1943-04-02
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Solicitor for the respondent: John Allen. [1] [1914] A. C. 599, at 609.
-
322.
Canadian National Ry. Co. v. Canadian Industries Ltd. - [1941] SCR 591 - 1941-10-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsTransportation
same as Allen v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co.[4], which was binding on him, and that under the circumstances here the defendants were not entitled to rely upon the terms of a standard bill of lading.
-
323.
Provincial Secretary of Prince Edward Island v. Egan - [1941] SCR 396 - 1941-04-22
Supreme Court JudgmentsMotor vehicles
The right of building highways and of operating them within a province, whether under direct authority of the Government, or by means of independent companies or municipalities, is wholly within the purview of the province (O'Brien v. Allen ([15])), and so is the right to provide for the safety of circulation and traffic on
-
324.
Ripstein v. Trower & Sons. Ltd. - [1942] SCR 107 - 1941-02-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
or not; and it was the evident intention of the legislature of Quebec, as expressed in that article, to grant to the Quebec courts jurisdiction over aliens or parties outside the province, if the whole cause of action arose therein (Fraser v. Beyers-Allen Lumber Company[3]; Gosset v. Robin[4]; Árchambault v. Bolduc[5].)
-
325.
Sershall v. Toronto Transportation Commission - [1939] SCR 287 - 1939-06-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
3. Was the deceased Allen Sershall guilty of any negligence that caused or contributed to the collision? [...] 3. Was the deceased Allen Sershall guilty of any negligence that caused or contributed to the collision?