os – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Si la soumission de Kaufmann pouvait être retirée avant son acceptation (comme dans l’affaire Hamilton Bd. Ed., [[1960] O.R. 594]), alors sa soumission a été retirée et il n’y a eu formation d’aucun contrat.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	If Kaufmann’s tender could be withdrawn before acceptance (as occurred in Hamilton Bd. Ed. case [[1960] O.R. 594]), then Kauffman’s [sic] tender was so withdrawn, and no contract came into existence. If it could not be withdrawn for 60 days, it nevertheless could not be accepted, for the reason already stated, and hence no contract came into existence.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Ltd. c. Sous-ministre du Revenu national pour les douanes et l'ac­cise, [1977] 1 R.C.S. 456; Jeffs v. New Zealand Dairy Production and Marketing Bd. , [1967] 1 A.C. 551; R. v. Architects' Registration Tribunal, Ex p.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

Errington v. Ministry of Health, [1935] 1 K.B. 249; Re Brook and Delcomyn (1864), 16 C.B.R. (N.S.) 403; Re an Arbi­tration between Gregson and Armstrong (1894), 70 L.T. 106; R. v. Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner, Ex p. Jones, [1962] 2 Q.B. 677; Pfizer Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 456; Jeffs v. New Zealand Dairy Production and Marketing Bd., [1967] 1 A.C. 551; R. v. Architects' Registration Tribunal, Ex p. Jaggar (1945), 6I T.L.R. 445, referred to.]

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

60 L’absence de preuve de risques liés au port du kirpan a été également constatée par une commission d’enquête de la Commission ontarienne des droits de la personne qui a fait, en 1990, une étude approfondie de la présence du kirpan dans les écoles dans l’affaire Pandori c. Peel Bd.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

60 The lack of evidence of risks related to the wearing of kirpans was also noted in 1990 by a board of inquiry of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which considered the presence of kirpans in schools in great depth in Pandori v. Peel Bd. of Education (1990), 12 C.H.R.R. D/364; its decision was affirmed by the Ontario Divisional Court in Peel Board of Education v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (1991), 3 O.R. (3d) 531, and leave to appeal was refused by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The board of inquiry allowed kirpans to be worn in Ontario schools under conditions similar to the ones imposed by Grenier J. of the Quebec Superior Court.  The board noted that there had been no incidents involving kirpans in Canadian schools (at para. 176):

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

En attendant, l'art. 55 laisse la question à la discrétion absolue de la commission, libre des principes qui contrôlent nécessairement le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'un tribunal ou d'un juge. Voir Local Government Bd. v.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

Proceedings before the board belong to a different category and are necessarily dealt with from a point of view that has no place in litigation between parties. The status and risks of suitors in an action are fixed by practice and authority. No rule has been laid down by the board that persons appearing by counsel before the board shall, subject to the board's discretion, have costs in event of their success or pay costs in event of their failure. Whether such a rule should be adopted or not is a matter wholly for the board. In the meantime, the matter is left by s. 55 in the board's absolute discretion, untrammelled by the principles which necessarily control the discretion of the Court or a Judge. See Local Government Bd. v. Arlidge [1915] A.C. 120.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Union Oil Co. of Canada (1955), 16 W.W.R. 225 (C.S.C.‑B.), Wilson v. Rudolph Werlitzer Co., 194 N.E. 441 (1934) (C.A. Ohio), Kern v. City of Long Beach, 179 P.2d 799 (1947), et Police Pension and Relief Bd. of City and County of Denver v.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

Other cases were cited where courts found implied terms which supported claims for wrongful dismissal.  They include Ashford v. Laing Construction and Equipment Ltd. (see B.C.S.C., Gould J., Vancouver Registry No. C770710, December 14, 1978, unreported) where the event giving rise to the pension claim -- an abandonment of the employer's operations -- was neither contemplated by the parties nor provided for in the pension agreement.   In the absence of any provision to the contrary the employer's pension contribution was awarded to the employee.  The situation at bar, however, is not one in which a term must be implied to cover a situation not within the contemplation of the parties, but rather one where the parties made specific provision for the events which occurred.  The appellant cited further cases such as Sloan v. Union Oil Co. of Canada (1955), 16 W.W.R. 225 (B.C.S.C.),  Wilson v. Rudolph Werlitzer Co., 194 N.E. 441 (1934) (Ohio C.A.), Kern v. City of Long Beach, 179 P.2d 799 (1947), and Police Pension and Relief Bd. of City and County of Denver v. Bills, 366 P.2d 581 (1961).

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Air Canada (1983), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1311 (Trib. Can.); De Jong c. Horlacher Holdings Ltd. (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6283 (H.R.C. C.-B.); Matlock c. Canora Holdings Ltd. (1983), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1576 (Bd. Inq. C.-B.); St. Thomas c.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

48 Whatever the wording of the definitions used in human rights legislation, Canadian courts tend to consider not only the objective basis for certain exclusionary practices (i.e. the actual existence of functional limitations), but also the subjective and erroneous perceptions regarding the existence of such limitations. Thus, tribunals and courts have recognized that even though they do not result in functional limitations, various ailments such as congenital physical malformations, asthma, speech impediments, obesity, acne and, more recently, being HIV positive, may constitute grounds of discrimination: Labelle v. Air Canada (1983), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1311 (Can. Trib.); De Jong v. Horlacher Holdings Ltd. (1989), 10 C.H.R.R. D/6283 (B.C.H.R.C.); Matlock v. Canora Holdings Ltd. (1983), 4 C.H.R.R. D/1576 (B.C. Bd. Inq.); St. Thomas v. Canada (Armed Forces) (1991), 14 C.H.R.R. D/301 (Can. Trib.); Davison v. St. Paul Lutheran Home of Melville, Saskatchewan (1992), 15 C.H.R.R. D/81 (Sask. H.R.C.); Thwaites v. Canada (Armed Forces) (1993), 19 C.H.R.R. D/259 (Can. Trib.).

  document  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

\àw\uZ*S[ Eßà|wM Àà ÞÎ%Ê@ñmöïµ8[q«Â7-› "ßü Ô¬½Äoò gî¨õØ ¸@ûJ£«þðJù·I»Õ¾ ãdè‰N!¾ê Å H¥ ¹»‘á Æ„ Ü » µ(† Š~} @–r ”1ÑEøïõíÚÀ3ŽŠë å4àÞõ[jïn‡Ðp5ôÉ K/êÐšç ; U6­¦Mypþ”D­ @e:¼)¤µAØÄŸøW h&ÅþhP X … 7Š Rã ŒYÒâ @:IŒV¨ 8s² ·¬´°èÓW|LImÙC` §ïØÎ ¢§{sî8 J ï ´ H¡Sd æY rZ¸ÊO7Òó«TtÊ ‰™}³f¦FúàJ‚uùsñ%” ú)l>A…Uë‹k‚ ύþ ¤.ý.=• "à'„è|3U Þýæ1丌k¯]:ÝÂY´Œ2¯N $ yÁ( uø èÜ µ &òf¼ì˧U­ür}• Šx¨# 7Ü&*ƒæ BD]}©Än € # É U N É % 0 : N W o Y o È ^ 7 w C 4 G [ 0 V j À m  0 c Ù 0 Û 1 ‰ 1 u 7 2 0 w G 0 Š ¾ 0 H 0 ´ è 0 Ç œ N c 0 ï e 0 V T X ª 0 D U N F 0 C ” B * × B B B ; N X 0 U Z 0 Ý ¯ 0 ¿ Œ 0 ¹ K 0 ³ 0 ­ · 0 § d 0 V 0 ¡ a 0 › 0 ¿  0⠐ \ A ± ì 0 V  0 K ó 0 Ë > D + ! 0 ­ 4! 0 § á! 0 ¡ ˆ" 0 › )# i Ä# 0 • ã# 0  x$ N % 0 ‡ % 0 ¼ % 0 È L& 0 ª ' 0 ¤ ¾' Æ b( Æ () Æ î) Æ ´* 0 ž z+ B , 0 ˜ 5, 0 ’ Í, 0 Œ _- 0 „ ë- A « o. B / D 3 7/ B 7 j/ @ ¡/ o ì ·/ B £G p *t ÀG D 5 ê» a ¼ ¼ ¼ A Ÿ 3¼ 3¼ f Ò¼ Ò¼ a Ô¼ Ô¼ f è¼ 0 V ê¼ 0 V @½ @½ @½ @½ D 3 –½ A S ɽ Æ ¾ 0 D â¾ D 3 &¿ &¿ D 3 Y¿ Y¿ D / Œ¿ D 3 »¿ »¿ D 3 î¿ B * !

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

€ # É U N É % 0 : N W o Y o È ^ 7 w C 4 G [ 0 V j À m Â Æ Ù Æ Ÿ Æ e Æ + \ ñ 0 c M 0 Û ° 1 ‰ ‹ 1 u 7 2 ‰ N » 0 U ½ 0 V 0 Ý h 0 ¿ E 0 w 0 ¹ { 0 Š 4 0 ³ ¾ 0   q 0 ´ 0 ­ Å 0 § r 0 ¡ 0 › º 0 ¿ U 0 Ë 0 C ß 0 ­ " 0 V Ï 0 Ç % 0 § ì 0 ¡ “ 0⠐ 4! 0 › Ä! 0 V _" 0 • µ" 0  J# 0 ‡ Ù# 0 ¼ `$ 0 È % 0 ª ä% 0 ¤ Ž& 0 ž 2' 0 ˜ Ð' 0 ’ h( 0 Œ ú( 0 „ †) N * 0 ï * 0 D û* X ?, U N —, B * å, B - U > ,- B j- B ‡- B ¤- N Á- A « Ã- A ± n. 0 K / D + j/ i •/ N ´/ B ¶/ D 3 Ó/ B 0 B 7 #0 D 5 Z0 @ 0 o ì ¥0 p *t ‘H A Ÿ »¼ f Z½ a \½ \½ f p½ a r½ r½ 0 V †½ 0 V ܽ ܽ ܽ ܽ D 3 2¾ A S e¾ Æ ¸¾ 0 D ~¿ D 3 ¿ ¿ D 3 õ¿ õ¿ D / (À D 3 WÀ WÀ D 3 ŠÀ B * ½À ½À ½À ½À D 3 çÀ B * Á D 3 DÁ B * wÁ D 3 ¡Á › Æ ÔÁ B 7 šÂ D 3 Ñ Ñ D 5 à D - 9à ˜\ \ s c c p r i n t \ h p i v _ l i b _ c e a s t È È È È È È È È 0 ( Ö Ã 9 Z ‹ 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X ( ö\$ ¡ ¡ Ô CEUS. , Ô e Ý ƒ ½g' ÝÔ CEUS. , ÔÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÓ Ó„€Ú Ú1Ú Ú€„ e Ý ƒ ½g' ÝÔ CEUS. , ÔÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÓ Ó„€Ú Ú1Ú Ú€„WªN6Þ äu36¸^R0ê:i ¢× +00 3| x ( . 3½g$ § § Ý ƒ ö\! ÝÔ CEUS. , ÔÝ Ý ÿU ‹ÿ ÀÀÀ L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 ‚ L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 „ L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 … L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e v e l 5 C : \ d a t a \ w p w i n 1 0 \ t e m p l a t e \ J U D G A S S T \ R E A S E N G . W P T ( ; 3£$ ´ ´ Ô2 # ÔÚ Ú0Ú Ú.Ô3 Ôà0 à ( ³ Àô$ º º à0 àà0 ` (# (# àà0 ¸ ` (#` (# àà0 ¸ (#¸ (# àà0 h (# (# àà0 À h (#h (# àÔ2 # ÔÚ Ú0Ú Ú)Ô3 Ôà0 À (#À (# à " # - @ xéï G a e i m q u y } B u l l e t L i s t B u l l e t s L i s t 3# 3 7 = C I Q Y a g ­ ­ 1 . a . i . ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) 1 ) a ) i ) * + ÿÿ( _ 2 6 Ô2 ÔÔ3 Ôà . . à ( . 3½g$ © © Ý ƒ ö\! ÝÔ CEUS. , ÔÝ Ý * D + D ÿÿ( _ 2 5 Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ , " Œ Œ ä ” ì D œ ô L ¤ , ÓÔ2 ÔÔ3 Ôà . . àÓ , " Œ Œ ä ” ì D œ ô L ¤ , ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó * 5 + 5 ÿÿ( _ 2 4 Ó ÓÓ ) ä ä ” ì D œ ô L ¤ ) ÓÔ2 ÔÔ3 Ôà . . àÓ ) ä ä ” ì D œ ô L ¤ ) ÓÓ Ó ( O é;$ µ µ à0 àÔ2 # ÔÚ ÚaÚ Ú.Ô3 Ôà0 ` (# (# à * 2 + 2 ÿÿ( _ 2 3 Ó ` ÓÓ &

  document  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

0 Õ 7@ 0 Ò A 0 Ï ÞA 0 Ì ­B 0 É yC 0 Æ BD 0 à E 0 ËE D + ÕF 0 0 G 0 0G 0 ¾ lG 0 > *H 0 v hH B ÞH 0 ` ûH 0 ` [I 0 ` »I 0 ` J 0 ` {J 0 8 ÛJ 0 Ò K 0 2 åK 0 ü L 0 : M B MM jM m lM 0 j ƒM 0 „ íN B * qP D / ›P ›P ›P 0 „ ÊP D / NR 0 Î }R 0 6 KS 0 S 0 : ‰T 0 ^ ÃT 0 !U U 6 ]U U > “U U * ÑU ÑU ÑU ÑU U N ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU ûU y Æ IV 0 s W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 0 @ ‚W 0 X ÂW 0 ` X 0 b zX 0 x ÜX 0 d TY 0 V ¸Y 0 V Z 0 b dZ 0 V ÆZ 0 V [ 0 r r[ 0 ˆ ä[ 0 Œ l\ 0 Š ø\ 0  ‚] 0 d ^ 0 H v^ 0 ˜ ¾^ 0 Š V_ 0 „ à_ 0 V d` 0 š º` 0 v Ta 0 ˜ Êa 0 œ bb 0 z þb 0 ˜ xc 0 † d 0 œ –d 0 Ž 2e 0 Z Àe 0 V f 0 T pf 0 H Äf 0 j g 0 Z vg 0 h Ðg 0 „ 8h 0 Ž ¼h 0 x Ji 0 b Âi 0 d $j 0 T ˆj 0 h Üj 0 Œ Dk 0 † Ðk 0 x Vl 0 ˜ Îl 0 n fm 0 € Ôm Ôm 0 t Tn 0 r Èn 0 X :o 0 ` ’o 0 n òo 0 ‚ `p 0 j âp 0 t Lq 0 r Àq 0 j 2r 0 f œr 0 d s 0 Œ fs 0 p òs 0 p bt 0 ” Òt 0 ” fu 0 j úu 0 l dv 0 l Ðv 0 p 0 r ¬w 0 j x 0 l ˆx 0 l ôx 0 p `y 0 r Ðy 0 t Bz 0 z ¶z 0 | 0{ 0 ~ ¬{ 0 t *| 0 z ž| 0 | } 0 ~ ”} 0 P ~ 0 H b~ 0 b ª~ 0 `  0 ` l 0 b Ì ( È h H Z ‹ 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X ( 1 É4$ ¡ ¡ Ô € X ]ú X X X ÔÔ CFUS. , Ô ˜\ \ S C C P R I N T \ h p i v _ L I B _ L O U I S E , ü , , , , , ü 0 g : \ w i n 3 2 a p p \ w p 8 \ t e m p l a t e \ R E P O R T S \ H E A D F R E . W P T ÏF..WV%&G,Lq Backup 3| x € a s s u r a n c e - v i e t r a n s a m e r i c a € C S C M c L a c h l i n H e u r e u x - D u b ) G o n t h i e r I a c o b u c c i B a s t a r a c h e B i n n i e A r b o u r q u ) b e c € a s s u r a n c e - v i e € a s s u r a n c e - v i e € C .

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

õrAg÷[g …ÿécOAzLs›5°ó‚8ø ¿¼ÛM¡ž¬ ##[— N ynúf Îã L ò_uV«u =-§ê {X.J ¥ÂG ãÍ 5•ïOšû—æVÂÐ2œâIÏ—¨e±·˜ BI¾_ Ð ìAE V6ýD £6ÿC ;ë $ +ððdËb gç;ü þÚ3º>Žt…L²–Í=}ÕSUíwô+g;‚Þ“P | U N È % 0 x # ! ” \ µ ^ w 4 ! 5 D ½ F 0 ” m — ® 0 c Ì N / 0¯  1 M Á 1 u Å 0 w : 0 s ± 0 Š $ 0   ® 0 = N 0 ´ ‹ 0 Ç ? 0 ” 0 Û š 0 ï u 1 ‰ d 0 I í 0 Ô 6 0 J 0 Ö T U N * 0 À x 0 À 8 0 m ø 0 À e 0 À % 0 E å 0 è * 0 > e P 0 Q U N Y 0 F § U N í 0 ‘ ; U N Ì 0 k U N … 0 Ó 0 w é 0 ¡ `" B * $ D 3 +$ D + ^$ 0 ¡ ‰$ 0 õ *& 0 > ' 0 ´ ]' 0 F ( 0 t W( 0 Z Ë( Æ %) 0 “ ë) 0 ( ~* A M ¦* U 6 ó* B )+ U > F+ U * „+ „+ „+ „+ N ®+ ®+ N °+ °+ ²+ B ¸+ ¸+ ¸+ 7 2 Õ+ 0 î , 0 ë õ, 0 è à- 0 å È. 0 â ­/ 0 ß 0 0 Ü n1 0 Ù J2 0 Ö #3 0 Ü ù3 0 Ù Õ4 0 Ö ®5 0 Ó „6 0 Ð W7 0 Í '8 0 Ê ô8 0 Ç ¾9 0 Ä …: 0 Û I; 0 Ø $ 0 Õ ü 0 Ò Ñ= 0 Ï £> 0 Ì r? 0 É >@ 0 Æ A 0 à ÍA 0 8 B D / ÈB D / ÷B 0 Î &C 0 6 ôC 0 *D 0 2E U 6 nE y Æ ¤E U > jF ( È h H Z ‹ 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X ( P ¶$ ¡ ¡ Ô € # X Í¥ X X X ÔÔ € # X Í¥ X X # X Í¥ ÔÔ CFUS. , Ô ˜\ \ S C C P R I N T \ h p i v _ L I B _ L O U I S E , ü , , , , , ü 0 G : \ W I N 3 2 A P P \ W P 8 \ T E M P L A T E \ J U D G A S S T \ R E A S F R E . W P T "Œ.c ÏF..WV%&Œ&­– €Winnt 3| x ³ Ý ƒ LI' ÝÔ € # X MÊ X X X ÔÔ € # X MÊ X X # X MÊ ÔÔ CFUS. , ÔÝ ÝÔ_ ÔÓ ÓÔ_ Ô„€Ú Ú1Ú Ú€„ ( l 3LI$ § § Ý ƒ ¶! ÝÔ € # X MÊ X X X ÔÔ € # X MÊ X X # X MÊ ÔÔ CFUS. , ÔÝ Ý ÿU ‹ÿ ÀÀÀ W e i n b e r g ( ; 3£$ ´ ´ Ô2 # ÔÚ Ú0Ú Ú.Ô3 Ôà0 à F J Ñý6 1 , 2 , 3 , A N u m b e r s à X àÚ ƒ z Ú1Ú ÚÛ € z Ûà ° à 3# 3 7 = C I Q Y a g ­ ­ 1 . a . i . ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) 1 ) a ) ( O é;$ µ µ à0 àÔ2 # ÔÚ ÚaÚ Ú.Ô3 Ôà0 ` (# (# à B 1 sf2 1 , 2 , 3 , N u m b e r s Ú ƒ z ÚÚ Ú.Û € z Ûà0 à ( b ·¤$ ¶ ¶ à0 àà0 ` (# (# àÔ2 # ÔÚ ÚÚ Ú.Ô3 Ôà0 ¸ ` (#` (# à ( x ir$ · · à0 àà0 ` (# (# àà0 ¸ ` (#` (# àÔ2 # Ô(Ú Ú0Ú Ú)Ô3 Ôà0 ¸ (#¸ (# à 0 ÿÿ. N o r m a l ( Œ Ü $ ¸ ¸ à0 àà0 ` (# (# àà0 ¸ ` (#` (# àà0 ¸ (#¸ (# àÔ2 # Ô(Ú ÚaÚ Ú)Ô3 Ôà0 h (# (# à ( Ÿ F$ ¹ ¹ à0 àà0 ` (# (# àà0 ¸ ` (#` (# àà0 ¸ (#¸ (# àà0 h (# (# àÔ2 # Ô(Ú ÚÚ Ú)Ô3 Ôà0 À h (#h (# à ( l 3LI$ © © Ý ƒ ¶! ÝÔ € # X MÊ X X X ÔÔ € # X MÊ X X # X MÊ ÔÔ CFUS. , ÔÝ Ý ( ³ Àô$ º º à0 àà0 ` (# (# àà0 ¸ ` (#` (# àà0 ¸ (#¸ (# àà0 h (# (# àà0 À h (#h (# àÔ2 # ÔÚ Ú0Ú Ú)Ô3 Ôà0 À (#À (# à ( Ç µ{$ » » à0 àà0 ` (# (# àà0 ¸ ` (#` (# àà0 ¸ (#¸ (# àà0 h (# (# àà0 À h (#h (# àà0 À (#À (# àÔ2 # ÔÚ ÚaÚ Ú)Ô3 Ôà0 p (# (# à xª­ G a e i m q u y } B u l l e t L i s t B u l l e t s L i s t ÿÿ: D e f i n i t i o n T G P ÿÿ: D e f i n i t i o n L Ó , ÓÓ ; 1 P $ P | Ô , „ Ü 4 Œ ä ” ì D œ"; Ó Ó ÓÓ 8 . $ $ | Ô , „ Ü 4 Œ ä ” ì D

  document  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Ðle€Canada€modifie€le€ò òCode€criminel€ó óen€y€ajoutant€la€partie€XII.2€(Produits€de€laÐ Ô)D"+ Ðcriminalit )€:€L.R.C.€1985,€ch.€42€(4ò òeó ó€suppl.)€(anciennement€L.C.€1988,€ch.€51),€art.2ò òó ó.€LesÐ l+Ü#- Ðnouvelles€dispositionsÔ # † X ð X X X ð 9b # ÔÔ ‡ X ð X X X ð Ô€permettent€ €la€poursuite€dð ðavoir€recours€ €des€outils€dð ðenqu teÐ -t%/ Ðnouveaux€(art.€462.32)Ô # † X ð X X X ð Ûf # ÔÔ ‡ X ð X X X ð Ô,€cr ent€de€nouvelles€infractions€(par.€462.31(1))€et€pr voient€desÐ œ. '1 Ðr gles€particuli res€en€mati re€de€d termination€de€la€peine€(par.€462.31(2)€et€art.€462.37).Ð 40¤(3 ÐComme€le€dit€Ô # † X ð X X X ð g # ÔÔ ‡ X ð X X X ð Ôavec€raisonÔ # † X ð X X X ð ¨h # ÔÔ ‡ X ð X X X ð Ô€lð ðauteur€P.€M.€German,€au„del €du€contrevenant€lui„m me,€leÐ  Ðl gislateur€vise€les€produits€de€la€criminalit €(ò òÔ # † X ð X X X ð õh # ÔÔ ‡ X ð X X X ð ÔProceeds€of€Crime:€The€Criminal€Law,Ð ( ˜ ÐRelated€Statutes,€Regulations€and€Agreements€ó ó( d.€feuilles€mobiles),€p.3„4)Ô # † X ð X X X ð ¿i # ÔÔ ‡ X ð X X X ð Ô€:Ý ƒ 0 ÑýGd bd ݌РÀ 0 ÐŒÝ ÝÌÓ Óà0 Q àà ­ à[ò òtraductionó ó]Ô # † X ð X X X ð Šj # ÔÔ ‡ X ð X X X ð Ô€La€partie€XII.2€va€beaucoup€plus€loin€que€les€autresÐ ð ` Ðinitiatives€de€lutte€contre€la€criminalit .€€Elle€repr sente€un€changementÐ ¼ , Ðparadigmatique,€o €lð ðon€d laisse€la€structure€traditionnelle€du€droit€criminelÐ ˆ ø Ðfamili re€aux€Canadiens€Ô_ Ôð" ð€Ô_ ÔÔ_ Ô Ô_ Ô€savoir€celle€ax e€sur€lð ðindividu€et€une€op rationÐ T Ä Ðunique€Ô_ Ôð" ð€Ô_ ÔÔ_ ÔauÔ_ Ô€profit€dð ðune€structure€bas e€ €la€fois€sur€les€biens€concern s€etÐ  Ðles€multiples€op rations€effectu es€par€les€organisations€criminelles.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

Ðfrom€trafficking€in€cannabis,€and€on€another€count€of€committing€indictable€offences€forÐ  Ðthe€benefit€of€a€criminal€organization.€€The€sentence€imposed€for€an€offence€underÐ ( ˜ ÐPartXII.2€of€the€ò òCriminal€Code€ó óon€proceeds€of€crime€consists€of€two€elements:theÐ À 0 Ðpenalty€for€committing€a€designated€offence,€and€forfeiture€of€any€property€that€isÐ X È Ðproceeds€of€crime;€where€forfeiture€is€not€practicable,€the€court€ð ðmayð ð€impose€a€ð ðfine€inÐ ð ` Ðan€amount€equal€to€the€value€of€that€propertyð ð€instead€of€making€a€forfeiture€orderÐ ˆ ø Ð(s.462.37(3)).€€The€trial€judge€sentenced€the€accused€to€imprisonment€for€19€months€forÐ  Ðthe€offences€he€had€committed.€€Regarding€the€fine€instead€of€a€forfeiture€order,€he€foundÐ ¸ ( Ðthat€the€accused€had€received€at€least€$150,000€from€the€crimes€in€question€but€that€heÐ P À Ðwas€no€longer€in€possession€of€that€amount,€as€he€had€squandered€a€large€part€of€it.€Ð è X ÐTaking€the€ability€of€the€accused€to€pay€into€consideration,€the€judge€found€that€aÐ € ð Ð$20,000fine€was€justified.€€The€prosecution€appealed€in€respect€of€the€amount€of€theÐ ˆ Ðfine.€€The€Court€of€Appeal€dismissed€the€appeal.Ð ° ÐÌà œ àò òHeldó ó:The€appeal€should€be€allowed.Ð à P ÐÌà œ àThe€trial€judge€should€have€imposed€a€fine€of€$150,000.€€In€imposing€a€fineÐ !€ Ðinstead€of€forfeiture,€a€court€has€a€discretion€that€is€limited€both€by€the€words€ofÐ ¨" " Ðs.462.37(3)€and€by€its€context.€€The€clear€words€of€s.462.37(3)€provide€that€the€fine€isÐ @$° $ Ðð ðequal€to€the€value€of€[the]€propertyð ð.€€For€the€substitution€to€be€genuine,€the€amount€ofÐ Ø%H & Ðthe€fine€must€be€equal€to€the€value€of€the€property€being€replaced.€€The€courtð ðs€discretionÐ p'à ( Ðapplies€both€to€the€decision€whether€or€not€to€impose€a€fine€and€to€the€determination€ofÐ )x!* Ðthe€value€of€the€property.€€It€must€be€exercised€in€light€of€the€evidence,€and€once€thisÐ  * #, Ðprocess€has€been€completed,€the€court€may€not€take€the€offenderð ðs€ability€to€pay€intoÐ 8,¨$. Ðconsideration€as€a€basis€for€deciding€either€to€impose€no€fine€or€to€reduce€the€amount€ofÐ Ð-@&0 Ðthe€fine.€€The€provisions€relating€to€proceeds€of€crime€are€specific€rules€that€partiallyÐ h/Ø'2 Ðpreclude€the€application€of€the€general€rules€on€sentencing.€€Taking€the€ability€of€theÐ  Ðaccused€to€pay€into€consideration€is€not€compatible€with€the€objectives€of€these€specificÐ ( ˜ Ðprovisions,€which€are€intended€to€deprive€the€offender€and€the€criminal€organization€ofÐ À 0 Ðthe€proceeds€of€their€

  document  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Á(index or rÀ) Àpert.) (no v. or c. inside) ‘ ’ ûÿ 2 šd X :c X ’c X êc X Bd
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Ápar. 9.5pt ex.: [ind][ind]1.[ind] `- Ä„ Š» РРX  X ` `  X ¸ ¸ ÂÆ(#¸ Æ Ð Ðûÿ 2 —F a  7D b ˜ ÄD c £ \E d ˜ ÿE

  document  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

8A CA D (D )D +D bD €D ¡H ¦H nI sI J J (K >K L žL ŸL ¡L ¹M ÌM ÍM ÏM N N ™Q ¬Q ­Q ¿Q ÀQ ÁQ ÃQ ]T iT »T ÞT ßT áT ÔU îU ïU ñU D[ O[ Ž\ Ã\ Ä\ Æ\ x] Ì] Í] Î] «^ Á^ Â^ Ä^ ©_ º_ ùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùéùéùñùñùñùñÜñùñùñùñùñùñùñÜñùñÜñùñùñùñùÜñùñùñÜñùñÜñùñùñÜñùñÜñùñÜñùñ j h9 h2D‘ 0J U h9 h2D‘ H* h9 h2D‘ 6  h9 h2D‘ W¿F ôG J 1J êJ êK ƒL ¬M O O UQ ŽR šU þU ;W FW X ðX kY ™Y [Z Ï] t_ _ Ì` (e ¸e vh h ú õ ú õ õ ú ú ú ð õ ú ú ú õ ð ú õ õ õ õ ú ú ð ú ú ú õ ð gd2D‘ gd2D‘ gd2D‘ º_ ed md ue še bi i ck gk Ák Ók 3l >l $n .n ®t ¯t y 5y ¬ É € ¶€ s ‘ s‚ Œ‚ Ñ‚ ÿ‚ ²ƒ ă àƒ „ å„ ÷„ Ë… Ý… ‡ %‡ (‡ ;‡ A‡ `‡ ˆ .ˆ 0‰ 8‰ ©‰ Ɖ KŠ ^Š ´Š »Š ˆ‹ ¥‹ Ê‹ Ñ‹ H f ’ ¤ А #‘ $‘ %‘ &‘ 7‘ 8‘ 9‘ U‘ ùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùéùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùñùÞÓÆ¿´°Æ¿ h2D‘ hù+ h2D‘ mH sH hù+ h2D‘ j hù+ h2D‘ 0J U hËcD h²gË mH sH hËcD h2D‘ mH sH h9 h2D‘ H* h9 h2D‘ 6  h9 h2D‘ Eh €i îk ªn q ‰r òr ýr ês Rt nu ‰x ¯{ º{ } D ç€ [„ f„ Á‡ !

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

ÐÏ à¡± á > þÿ ‡ ‰ þÿÿÿ … † ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á @ ñ ¿ ƒˆ bjbjqäqä 4ž Ž Ž ƒ ò ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ˆ Ú Ú Ú : , @ @ @ T Ø Ø Ø 8 $ 4 , T À5 ¶ l l l l l G G G ?5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 A5 $ v6 R È8 | e5 @ Ð G G Ð Ð e5 @ @ l l Û z5 @" @" @" Ð è @ l @ l ?5 @" Ð ?5 @" @" R Ó* * @ @ ]1 l ` ÐGµ9ãÒÈ Ø ¸ À ý0 ?5 5 0 À5 1 B D9 x! d D9 ]1 " T T @ @ @ @ D9 @ 1 À G I ¸ @" ” • ; G G G e5 e5 T T „ Ø Ü! d T T Ø Supreme Court of Canada Minister of National Revenue v. Coopers and Lybrand, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 495 Date: 1978-11-21 The Minister of National Revenue Appellant; and Coopers and Lybrand Respondent. 1978: June 23; 1978: November 21. Present: Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Income tax—Jurisdiction—Authorization for entry, search and seizure approved by judge of a superior or a county court—Review by Federal Court of Appeal—Income Tax Act, s. 231(4)(5)—Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10—B.N.A. Act, 1867, s. 96. Coopers and Lybrand, chartered accountants, brought a s. 28 application to the Federal Court of Appeal for an order reviewing and setting aside the decision or order of the Director General, Special Investigations Directorate, Department of National Revenue, Taxation, and Carl Zalev, Co. Ct. J., authorizing the entry and search of the Coopers and Lybrand offices and the seizure of certain documents in their possession. Section 231 of the Income Tax Act in subs. (4) and (5), prescribes two prerequisites for authorization of any such entry, search or seizure, namely (i) belief by the Minister of National Revenue on reasonable and probable grounds that a violation of the Income Tax Act, or a regulation thereunder, has been committed, or is likely to be committed; and (ii) approval by a judge of a superior or county court upon an application (which may be ex parte), supported by evidence on oath establishing the facts on which the application is based. The supporting affidavits indicated that a client company of Coopers and Lybrand, Collavino, had built a private residence for B the President of

  document  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

ÐÏ à¡± á > þÿ T V þÿÿÿ Q R S ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á @ ñ ¿ «Ó bjbjqäqä 4 Ž Ž lÅ 1 ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ˆ Ú Ú Ú î È ¤ n n n „ ÌJ ÌJ ÌJ 8 K T XK Œ „ Ao ¶ ðK ðK ðK ðK ðK ËL ËL ËL Àn Ân Ân Ân Ân Ân Ân $ ÷o R Ir z æn n ËL ËL ËL ËL ËL æn n n ðK ðK Û ûn Ï[ Ï[ Ï[ ËL T n ðK n ðK Àn Ï[ ËL Àn Ï[ Ï[ R bd * n n ìj ðK äK ÈEËàÝÈ ÌJ Z Œj Àn o 0 Ao ªj B Ãr 1[ d Ãr ìj ‚ – î l € î n n Ãr n k ¼ ËL ËL Ï[ ËL ËL ËL ËL ËL æn æn „ „ ä7 hJ d •[ : „ „ hJ Cour suprême du Canada Covert et autres c. Ministre des Finances de la Nouvelle-Écosse, [1980] 2 R.C.S. 774 Date: 1980-07-18 Frank M. Covert, c.r., John S. Jodrey et The Canada Permanent Trust Company, exécuteurs testamentaires de feu Roy A. Jodrey (Demandeurs) Appelants; et Le ministre des Finances de la province de la Nouvelle-Écosse (Défendeur) Intimé; et Le procureur général de la Colombie-Britannique et le procureur général du Québec Intervenants. 1979: 22 novembre; 1980: 18 juillet. Présents: Les juges Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre et Chouinard. EN APPEL DE LA DIVISION D’APPEL DE LA COUR SUPRÊME DE LA NOUVELLE-ÉCOSSE Droit fiscal—Droit constitutionnel—Droits successoraux—Compagnie non résidante—«Droit à titre bénéficiaire»—Les actionnaires résidants d’une compagnie mère non résidante sont-ils imposables sur la succession qui revient à une filiale non résidante?

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

ÐÏ à¡± á > þÿ F H þÿÿÿ C D E ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á @ ñ ¿ ½ bjbjqäqä 4ò Ž Ž ‰® ƒ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ˆ Ú Ú Ú î È ¤ l l l € H@ H@ H@ 8 €@ D Ä@ Œ € ] ¶ \A \A \A \A \A 7B 7B 7B „\ †\ †\ †\ †\ †\ †\ $ »] R ` | ª\ l ¯G 7B 7B ¯G ¯G ª\ l l \A \A Û ¿\ ™I ™I ™I ¯G ² l \A l \A „\ ™I ¯G „\ ™I ™I R ,R * l l ¶X \A PA €Ä¨ JÕÈ H@ aH v VX „\ Õ\ 0 ] tX B ‰` ×H ‚ ‰` ¶X € € l l l l ‰` l ÄX À 7B r ©C ™I ±D Ô …E * 7B 7B 7B ª\ ª\ € € d7 ä? d YI @ € € ä? Supreme Court of Canada Covert et al. v. Minister of Finance of Nova Scotia, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 774 Date: 1980-07-18 Frank M. Covert, Q.C., John S. Jodrey and The Canada Permanent Trust Company, Executors under the Will of the late Roy A. Jodrey (Plaintiffs) Appellants; and The Minister of Finance of the Province of Nova Scotia (Defendant) Respondent; and The Attorney General of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Quebec Interveners. 1979: November 22; 1980: July 18. Present: Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, McIntyre and Chouinard JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA, APPEAL DIVISION Taxation—Constitutional law—Succession duties—Non-resident corporation—“Beneficially entitled”—Whether resident shareholders of non-resident parent company assessable on estate bequeathed to non-resident subsidiary—In personam tax on resident successor—Legislation intra vires of Provincial Legislature—An Act Respecting Succession Duties, 1972 (N.S.).c. 17, ss. 1(ae), 2(5), 8, 9. The deceased, Roy A. Jodrey, was resident and domiciled in Nova Scotia at the time of his death. He had twelve grandchildren, all of whom were then resident in Nova Scotia. In view of An Act Respecting Succession Duties, 1972 (N.S.), c. 17, which imposed succession duties on all property of a deceased situated within the province at the time of his death, as well as on property situated outside the province, passing to resident “successors”, it became apparent that, unless something was done, Mr. Jodrey’s grandchildren, heirs of his estate under his will, would be liable to succession duties. Accordingly, a rather elaborate scheme was devised, by which it w

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Inglis, [1958] R.C.S. 535; Evans v. Employment Standards Bd. (1983), 46 B.C.L.R. 198; Re Telegram Publishing Co. and Zwelling (1973), 41 D.L.R. (3d) 176, infirmé en partie pour d'autres motifs (1975), 67 D.L.R. (3d) 404; Attorney General of British Columbia v.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

Applied:  Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1979, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714; considered:  Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan v. John East Iron Works, Ld., [1949] A.C. 134; Re B.C. Family Relations Act, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 62; Attorney General of Quebec v. Grondin, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 364; disapproved:  Asselin v. Industries Abex Ltée, [1985] C.A. 72, 22 D.L.R. (4th) 212; distinguished:  Attorney General of Quebec v. Farrah, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 638; Crevier v. Attorney General of Quebec, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220; referred to:  The Adoption Reference, [1938] S.C.R. 398; Tomko v. Labour Relations Board (Nova Scotia), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 112; Massey-Ferguson Industries Ltd. v. Saskatchewan, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 413; Séminaire de Chicoutimi v. Cité de Chicoutimi, [1973] S.C.R. 681; Re Cour de Magistrat de Québec, [1965] S.C.R. 772; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Quebec Police Commission, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 618; Dupont v. Inglis, [1958] S.C.R. 535; Evans v. Employment Standards Bd. (1983), 46 B.C.L.R. 198; Re Telegram Publishing Co. and Zwelling (1973), 41 D.L.R. (3d) 176, reversed in part on other grounds (1975), 67 D.L.R. (3d) 404; Attorney General of British Columbia v. McKenzie, [1965] S.C.R. 490; Jones v. Edmonton Catholic School District No. 7, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 872; Reference Re Proposed Legislation Concerning Leased Premises and Tenancy Agreements (1978), 89 D.L.R. (3d) 460; Re Pepita and Doukas (1979), 101 D.L.R. (3d) 577; Re Fort Massey Realties and Rent Review Commission (1982), 132 D.L.R. (3d) 516; Robinson v. Hindman (1800), 3 Esp. 235, 170 E.R. 599; Emmens v. Elderton (1853), 13 C.B. 495, 138 E.R. 1292; Beckham v. Drake (1849), 2 H.L.C. 579, 9 E.R. 1213; Wilkinson v. Gaston (1846), 9 Q.B. 137, 115 E.R. 1227; Hartley v. Harman (1840), 11 Ad. & E. 798, 113 E.R. 617; Smith v. Thompson (1849), 8 C.B. 44, 137 E.R. 424; Re Mitchell and Employment Standards Division, Department of Labour (1977), 82 D.L.R. (3d) 339; Central Canadian Structures Ltd. v. Director of Employment Standards Division, [1984] 4 W.W.R. 182.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Le commentaire publié par Janisch sur l'affaire Nfld. Light & Power Co. v. P.U.C. (Bd.) (1987), 25 Admin. L.R. 196, se révèle à la fois très pertinent et fort utile. Il y fait remarquer que les membres des commissions de services publics, à la différence des juges, n'ont pas à appliquer des principes juridiques abstraits dans le règlement de litiges (à la p. 196).

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

Janisch published a very apt and useful Case Comment on Nfld. Light & Power Co. v. P.U.C. (Bd.) (1987), 25 Admin. L.R. 196.  He observed that Public Utilities Commissioners, unlike judges, do not have to apply abstract legal principles to resolve disputes.  As a result, no useful purpose would be served by holding them to a standard of judicial neutrality.  In fact to do so might undermine the legislature's goal of regulating utilities since it would encourage the appointment of those who had never been actively involved in the field.  This would, Janisch wrote at p. 198, result in the appointment of "the main line party faithful and bland civil servants".  Certainly there appears to be great merit in appointing to boards representatives of interested sectors of society including those who are dedicated to forwarding the interest of consumers.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Union Oil Co. of Canada (1955), 16 W.W.R. 225 (C.S.C.-B.); Wilson v. Rudolph Werlitzer Co., 194 N.E. 441 (1934); Kern v. City of Long Beach, 179 P.2d 799 (1947); Police Pension and Relief Bd. of City and County of Denver v.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

Considered:  Addis v. Gramophone Co., [1909] A.C. 488; Peso Silver Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) v. Cropper, [1966] S.C.R. 673, aff'g (1965), 56 D.L.R. (2d) 117; distinguished:  Gillespie v. Bulkley Valley Forest Industries Ltd., [1973] 6 W.W.R. 551; Ashford v. Laing Construction and Equipment Ltd., B.C.S.C., Gould J., Vancouver Registry No. C770710, December 14, 1978, unreported; Sloan v. Union Oil Co. of Canada (1955), 16 W.W.R. 225 (B.C.S.C.); Wilson v. Rudolph Werlitzer Co., 194 N.E. 441 (1934); Kern v. City of Long Beach, 179 P.2d 799 (1947); Police Pension and Relief Bd. of City and County of Denver v. Bills, 366 P.2d 581 (1961); referred to:  London Export Corp. v. Jubilee Coffee Roasting Co., [1958] 2 All E.R. 411; Tippett v. International Typographical Union Local 226 (1976), 71 D.L.R. (3d) 146; Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd., [1973] Q.B. 233; Cringle v. Northern Union Insurance Co. (1981), 124 D.L.R. (3d) 22; Cox v. Philips Industries Ltd., [1976] 3 All E.R. 161; Pilon v. Peugeot Canada Ltd. (1980), 29 O.R. (2d) 711; Harvey Foods Ltd. v. Reed (1971), 18 D.L.R. (3d) 90; Heywood v. Wellers, [1976] 1 All E.R. 300; Brown v. Waterloo Regional Board of Commissioners of Police (1983), 43 O.R. (2d) 113, aff'g in part (1982), 37 O.R. (2d) 277; Pilato v. Hamilton Place Convention Centre Inc. (1984), 45 O.R. (2d) 652; Speck v. Greater Niagara General Hospital (1983), 43 O.R. (2d) 611; Bohemier v. Storwal International Inc. (1982), 142 D.L.R. (3d) 8, rev'd on other grounds (1983), 4 D.L.R. (4th) 383 (Ont. C.A.), leave denied, [1984] 1 S.C.R. xiii; Perkins v. Brandon University and Potter (1985), 35 Man. R. (2d) 177; Abouna v. Foothills Provincial General Hospital Board (No. 2) (1978), 83 D.L.R. (3d) 333; McMinn v. Town of Oakville (1978), 19 O.R. (2d) 366; Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] A.C. 1129; McElroy v. Cowper-Smith and Woodman, [1967] S.C.R. 425; Paragon Properties Ltd. v. Magna Envestments Ltd. (1972), 24 D.L.R. (3d) 156; Uren v. John Fairfax & Sons Pty. Ltd. (1966), 117 C.L.R. 118; Fogg v. McKnight, [1968] N.Z.L.R. 330; Robitaille v. Vancouver Hockey Club Ltd. (1981), 124 D.L.R. (3d) 228; H. L. Weiss Forwarding Ltd. v. Omnus, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 776; Warner v. Arsenault (1982), 53 N.S.R. (2d) 146; Meyer v. Gordon (1981), 17 C.C.L.T. 1.

  document  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Átitle 9.5pt align after . ex.: III.[ind] P j’ РРX ÂÆ(# Æ Ð Ðûÿ 2 ÏD Q ‚ ±B R ‚ 3C S  µC T  BD
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Átitle 9.5pt align after . ex.: III.[ind] N j’ Ð ÐÂ X ÂÆ(# Æ Ð Ð

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Dans l'arrêt Evans v. Employment Standards Bd. (1983), 46 B.C.L.R. 198, la Cour d'appel de la Colombie‑Britannique a confirmé la compétence du conseil sur les salaires impayés en se référant seulement à une compétence comparable au Haut‑Canada.

Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain

It seems to me that this issue should be resolved by answering a somewhat broader question - does pre-confederation jurisdiction refer to pre-1867 jurisdiction or to jurisdiction in a particular province immediately prior to that province joining confederation?  If the former approach is adopted, the courts must consider only the four original confederating provinces (Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) irrespective of which present-day province is involved in the litigation.  If the latter approach is adopted, the test will involve perhaps only one colony, perhaps as many as eight, and a potential chronological span of as many as 82 years, from 1867 to 1949.  I note that on all of these points past decisions of this Court have been somewhat inconsistent.  In Re B.C. Family Relations Act, Estey J., for the majority, ignored British Columbia altogether and looked at U.K. and Upper Canadian jurisdiction in 1867 while Laskin C.J. made reference to those two plus New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but again not British Columbia.  Some provincial courts have done likewise.  In Evans v. Employment Standards Bd. (1983), 46 B.C.L.R. 198, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the Board's jurisdiction over unpaid wages solely by reference to a comparable jurisdiction in Upper Canada.  References to jurisdiction in other provinces were employed for the same purpose in Re Telegram Publishing Co. and Zwelling (1973), 41 D.L.R. (3d) 176 (Ont. H.C.), reversed in part on other grounds (1975), 67 D.L.R. (3d) 404 (C.A.)  In John East Iron Works, Ld. the Privy Council also appears to have considered 1867 as the reference point for any historical inquiry, stating at pp. 150-51: