Search for: "In The Matter Of: S.C.R."
Results 21 - 40
of 373
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2021, 4:00 am
(New York: Center on International Cooperation, 2019), available at https://www.justice.sdg16.plus/. [3] R vs Brydges 1 S.C.R. 190 (1990). [4] For background, see e.g. [read post]
13 May 2010, 1:55 pm
Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 at 20-21: Relevance is a matter to be decided by a judge as question of law. [read post]
23 Oct 2016, 8:08 am
Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633, the Supreme Court held that a decision of an arbitrator interpreting a contract amounted to a matter of mixed fact and law, and not just a question of law. [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 10:15 am
Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 that instructed judges to pay particular attention to the unique circumstances of Aboriginal people and their social histories when determining a suitable sentence for Aboriginal offenders. [read post]
5 Jan 2023, 4:00 am
Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929 and other decisions. [read post]
25 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) is a copyright collective meaning that it manages certain rights on behalf of copyright holders. [read post]
26 Feb 2008, 1:52 pm
Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 [$800,000]. [read post]
12 May 2019, 4:00 am
Cooper, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 146, at p. 159). [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 10:57 am
Maynard, [1951] S.C.R. 346; Angle v. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 4:00 am
Ltd., [1929] S.C.R. 117, Bater v. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 1:26 pm
, 1943 CanLII 38 (SCC), [1943] S.C.R. 348, at p. 354, per Duff J., quoting Hanfstaengl v. [read post]
28 May 2010, 8:38 am
No. 79, at p. 1075 S.C.R. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 9:57 am
& P.E.I.R. 44, leave to appeal refused, [2002] 4 S.C.R. vii; R. v. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 9:57 am
& P.E.I.R. 44, leave to appeal refused, [2002] 4 S.C.R. vii; R. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 6:42 am
Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, 89 C.C.C. (3d) 402, as drawn from Daubert v. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 7:25 am
Hanke, 2007 SCC 7, 1 S.C.R. 333, the Supreme Court affirmed the “but for” test remains the basic test for determining causation, but developed the concept of “material contribution” in a different manner than that used in Athey, formulating a “material contribution” test as an exception to the “but for” test, a matter that is not relevant to this appeal. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 8:46 am
Hanke, 2007 SCC 7, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333. [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 8:13 pm
French, 1974 CanLII 24 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 767, at pp. 783-84. [read post]
14 Jan 2024, 5:28 pm
McDermott, [1931] S.C.R. 94, the Supreme Court of Canada said that in applying the legislation the court “would naturally proceed from the point of view of the judicious father of a family seeking to discharge both his marital and his parental duty; and would of course (looking at the matter from that point of view), consider the situation of the child, wife or husband, and the standard of living to which, having regard to this and the other circumstances, reference ought to… [read post]
10 Mar 2019, 7:23 pm
St-Germain, 2016 SCC 48 (CanLII), [2016] 2 S.C.R. 352, at paras. 36-39. [read post]
