Search for: "Canada v. State" Results 261 - 280 of 6,314
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2012, 6:02 pm by Robichaud
Nedelcu and the law against compelled evidence and weakens then right against self-incrimination Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada released the judgement of R. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 9:49 pm
Any person charged with an offence has the right… (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in R. v. [read post]
6 May 2011, 4:00 am by Ted Folkman
Pribetic for bringing to light the case of the day, Third Point LLC v. [read post]
18 Oct 2016, 4:00 am by Guest Blogger
A prime example was Bush v Gore, in which the United States Supreme Court was called on to resolve an election dispute. [read post]
3 Feb 2008, 10:26 am
The other jurisdiction was Canada, and the Court gave recognition to the marriage under the State's longstanding "marriage recognition rule"  - Martinez v County of Monroe, 2008 NY Slip Op 00909. [read post]
The statement also pointed to the work that vaccinated drivers have done in Canada, relaying the reality that “[v]accines, medication, personal protective equipment, food and supplies continue to arrive where they need to be thanks to the efforts [truckers]. [read post]
29 Jun 2008, 1:08 am
On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long awaited decision in Keays v. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 7:39 am by Adam Baker
Martel Building Ltd. v Canada, [1997] 129 FTR 249 (FCTD), revd [1998] 163 DLR (4th) 504 (FCA), leave to appeal refused, 2000 SCC 60, [2000] 2 SCR 860, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/2000/2000scc60/2000scc60.html Facts Note: This case deals with the possibility of a tort action in negligence for breach of a duty of care during negotiation of a contract (specifically during the solicitation and evaluation of tendered bids). [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 6:31 pm by Jonathan Pyzer
Further, “the offence under s. 265(1)(b) is the threat to apply force to another, not the application of force” (R v Bernard, 1988 SCR 833). [read post]