Advanced Search
- All Databases (1,254)
- Decisions (530)
- Resources (724)
530 result(s)
-
276.
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.
-
277.
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.
-
278.
Vancouver Milling and Grain Co. v. C.C. Ranch Co. - [1924] SCR 671 - 1924-11-19
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
The case at bar is distinguishable from Blackburn Bobbin Co. v. T. W. Allen & Sons Ltd.[15], relied on by Mr. Bennett.
-
279.
Andrews v. Calori - (1907) 38 SCR 588 - 1907-05-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsSale
Allen v. Bennett[77]; Western v. Russel[78] ; Warner v. Willington[79] ; Baumann v. James[80] ; Studds v. Watson[81] ; Oliver v. Hunting[82].
-
280.
Lafferty v. Lincoln - (1907) 38 SCR 620 - 1907-05-07
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
J. A. Allen, for the respondent. The Chief Justice.—The appeal is allowed with costs.
-
281.
Dempster v. Lewis - (1903) 33 SCR 292 - 1903-04-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
Even where an appeal is taken from the concurrent findings of facts by two Courts, whilst the general rule laid down in such cases as for instance, Allen v. The Quebec Warehouse Co.[20]; Hay v. Gordon[21]; McIntyre Bros. v. McGavin[22] cannot be disregarded, yet, it
-
282.
Hobbs v. Guardian Assurance Co. - (1886) 12 SCR 631 - 1886-04-09
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
See also Citizens’ Ins. Co. v. Parsons[10] Exception must be strong to relieve the insurance company, Harper v. New York Ins. Co.[11]; Barbat v. Allen[12]
-
283.
Theal v. The Queen - (1882) 7 SCR 397 - 1882-12-04
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Chief Justice Allen, before whom the prisoner was tried, reserved the following case under the statute[2] for the consideration of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick:
-
284.
Chesley v. Murdoch - (1877) 2 SCR 48 - 1877-06-28
Supreme Court JudgmentsStatutes
[6] 3 Allen (Mass.) 243-4. [7] C. 131, sec. 4. [8] 4th series, ch. 94, sec. 104.
-
285.
R. v. Moyer - [1994] 2 SCR 899 - 1994-09-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Criminal law
Edited by R. E. Allen. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Dictionnaire Quillet de la langue française.
-
286.
Caron v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission) - [1991] 1 SCR 48 - 1991-01-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Léon Labrie, Denis Fortin, Marc Bélanger, Allen Morrissette, Michel Dubé, Daniel Roy, Réjean Joubert,
-
287.
R. v. O’Brien - [1978] 1 SCR 591 - 1977-06-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
If it may be construed for his interest or against it (Massey v. Allen) or may only be against his interest in certain future events (ex parte Edwards) it is inadmissible.
-
288.
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
-
289.
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.
-
290.
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.
-
291.
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.
-
292.
Hochberger v. Rittenberg - (1916) 54 SCR 480 - 1916-12-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
The present case is clearly distinguishable from Langley v. Van Allen[16], relied on by the appellant.
-
293.
Miller v. Robertson - (1904) 35 SCR 80 - 1904-04-27
Supreme Court JudgmentsCourts
[11] 5 Allen (N. B.) 121. [12] 150 U. S. R., 597. [13] 4 Can. S. C. R. 609.
-
294.
Wilson v. Canadian Development Co. - (1903) 33 SCR 432 - 1903-05-18
Supreme Court JudgmentsContract
We may be bound by ordinary terms as to carriage in the bill of lading; but we deny that a clause in it can effect an alteration of our rights under the original contract, See Rodoconachi v. Milburn Bros.[4], at page 319; Gledstanes v. Allen,[5], and Wagstaff v. Anderson, [6], per Bramwell LJ., at page 177, and in Sewell v.
-
295.
Allan et al. v. Evans et vir. - (1900) 30 SCR 416 - 1900-06-12
Supreme Court JudgmentsEstates
[6] 4 Allen (Mass.) 466. [7] L. R. 4 Eq. 171. [8] 11 Moo. P. C. 526.
-
296.
Scott v. The Bank of New Brunswick - (1893) 23 SCR 277 - 1893-02-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsAgency
[16] 4 Allen (Mass.) 447. [17] 104 Mass. 341. [18] 121 Mass. 159.
-
297.
City of London Fire Insurance Co. v. Smith - (1888) 15 SCR 69 - 1888-03-15
Supreme Court JudgmentsInsurance
Metropolitan Ry. Co. v. Wright[14]; Allen v. Quebec Warehouse Co.[15]; Eureka Woollen Mills Co. v. Moss[16]; and Bickford v. Howard[17]; Black v Walker[18].
-
298.
Jonas v. Gilbert - (1881) 5 SCR 356 - 1881-02-11
Supreme Court JudgmentsMunicipal law
Solicitors for appellant:— W. Watson Allen. Solicitors for respondent:— W. W. Tuck.
-
299.
R. v. Sinclair - 2010 SCC 35 - [2010] 2 SCR 310 - 2010-10-08
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
Allen, Ronald J. “Miranda’s Hollow Core” (2006), 100 Nw. U. L. Rev. 71. [...] This has led some authors to assert that Miranda provides only illusory protections to the vast majority of individuals who are subjected to custodial interrogation: see C. D. Weisselberg, “Mourning Miranda” (2008), 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1519; R. J. Allen, “Miranda’s Hollow Core” (2006), 100 Nw. U. L. Rev. 71; M. A. Godsey, [...] As Ronald J. Allen explains: If the atmosphere of the jail house is so compelling, if it is powerful enough to overbear the will to compel confessions to serious felonies by even innocent people, why will it not compel waivers of the abstract legal rights contained in the Miranda warnings?
-
300.
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...”.