Search for: "State v. Arbour"
Results 21 - 23
of 23
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
”[72] Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, however, did not agree that an expression stated in the positive (i.e., a “significant contributing cause”) meant the same thing as one stated in the negative (i.e., “not a trivial cause”). [read post]
21 Jul 2006, 8:30 am
Others seem to think the jus in bellum proportionality means that war aims must be limited to restoring the status quo ante.We now also have the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, weighing in with threats of criminal liability for breaches of jus in bello proportionality.I am in the middle of revising some things, and do not have time to address the issue specifically. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 6:00 am
In R v Marcott, Justices Arbour and Osler concurred that an element of the offense was “that deception is practiced…and that the person undertaking to tell fortunes represents that he has the power to do so with the intention that such representation should be believed”, and “[where an] assertion, or undertaking [to predict the future] is made for reward…with intent to deceive, the offense is complete. [read post]
