manie – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot 14 Results  scc.lexum.org
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
[TRADUCTION] Nul homme raisonnable ne manie de la même façon un bâton de dynamite et une canne.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
No reasonable man handles a stick of dynamite and a walking-stick in the same way.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
L’obligation de diligence envers un élève, surtout un infirme comme c’est le cas ici, en vue de sa sécurité personnelle lorsqu’il manie des outils dangereux, est plus stricte que celle d’un employeur envers un employé qui manie un outil
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
The duty of care owing to a student, especially a handicapped one as in this case, in respect of his personal safety while operating dangerous machinery, is a stricter one than that owed by an employer to an employee working with dangerous
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
L’obligation de diligence envers un élève, surtout un infirme comme c’est le cas ici, en vue de sa sécurité personnelle lorsqu’il manie des outils dangereux, est plus stricte que celle d’un employeur envers un employé qui manie un outil
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
The duty of care owing to a student, especially a handicapped one as in this case, in respect of his personal safety while operating dangerous machinery, is a stricter one than that owed by an employer to an employee working with dangerous
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Le Dr Vallance a notamment jugé que la description qu'a donnée Abbey des événements entourant son voyage en Amérique du Sud donnait une idée de son état mental à l'époque pertinente. Selon le Dr Vallance, Abbey souffrait en tout temps pertinent d'une maladie mentale, d'une manie connue sous le nom d'hypomanie.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
Dr. Vallance testified that he first saw Abbey approximately 10 weeks after the commission of the offence. Dr. Vallance's testimony was based on his interviews with Abbey, his interviews with Abbey's mother, his review of a medical report prepared by another psychiatrist, and his discussions with other doctors who were involved in treating Abbey. In particular, Dr. Vallance relied on Abbey's description of the events surrounding his trip to South America as indicative of his mental state at the material time. Dr. Vallance's opinion was that Abbey, at all material times, was suffering from a disease of the mind, a manic illness, known as hypomania. While Abbey appreciated that he was bringing cocaine into Canada and knew that what he was doing was wrong, he believed that, if caught, he would not be punished. Dr. Vallance said:
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
L’obligation de diligence envers un élève, surtout un infirme, en vue de sa sécurité personnelle lorsqu’il manie des outils dangereux, est même plus stricte que celle d’un employeur envers un employé qui manie un outil dangereux.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
The duty of care owing to a student, especially a handicapped one, in respect of his personal safety while operating dangerous machinery, was even a stricter one than that owed by an employer to an employee working with dangerous machinery. There was a high degree of risk of injury and either one of two courses could reasonably and easily have been followed by M. He could have had the drawers disassembled, in which case the error was correctable by using the power-saw with the guard attached; or, he could have stayed with the plaintiff until the job was done with the unguarded saw. It was not improbable that the accident would not have happened if M had directly supervised the operations until they were finished.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
L’obligation de diligence envers un élève, surtout un infirme, en vue de sa sécurité personnelle lorsqu’il manie des outils dangereux, est même plus stricte que celle d’un employeur envers un employé qui manie un outil dangereux.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
The duty of care owing to a student, especially a handicapped one, in respect of his personal safety while operating dangerous machinery, was even a stricter one than that owed by an employer to an employee working with dangerous machinery. There was a high degree of risk of injury and either one of two courses could reasonably and easily have been followed by M. He could have had the drawers disassembled, in which case the error was correctable by using the power-saw with the guard attached; or, he could have stayed with the plaintiff until the job was done with the unguarded saw. It was not improbable that the accident would not have happened if M had directly supervised the operations until they were finished.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
[traduction] diffère d'une affaire à l'autre, car une personne raisonnable ne manie pas un parapluie avec la même prudence anxieuse qu'elle apporte au maniement d'une arme à feu chargée. [Beckett c. Newalls Insulation Co. Ltd., [1953] 1 W.L.R. 8, à la p.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
We see then that the care required by some activities is greater than the care required by others.  For example, under s. 216 of the Criminal Code, it has been held that persons administering medical treatment will be held to the special standard appropriate to that activity (R. v. Rogers, [1968] 4 C.C.C. 278 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. Sullivan (1986), 31 C.C.C. (3d) 62 (B.C.S.C.).  Such a standard has long been recognized by the common law, which made no distinction on the basis of the actor, only on the basis of the activity:  "It is no crime for any one to administer medicine; but it is a crime to administer it so rashly and carelessly as to produce death; and in this respect there is no difference between the most regular practitioner and the greatest quack"  (R. v. Crick (1859), 1 F. & F. 519, 175 E.R. 835).  The standard flows from the circumstances of the activity.  It does not vary with the experience or ability of the actual accused.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
[80] Par contre, ce n’est pas parce que la notion de « question touchant véritablement à la compétence » se manie bien conceptuellement qu’elle se révèle utile au quotidien pour déterminer concrètement si une cour de justice est admise ou non à s’immiscer dans une décision administrative donnée.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
[80] On the other hand, just because the notion of a “true question of jurisdiction or vires” works well at the conceptual level does not mean that it is helpful at the practical everyday level of deciding whether or not the courts are entitled to intervene in a particular administrative decision.  On this point, Cromwell J. adopts, at para. 95, the deeply problematic statement by the Dunsmuir majority that jurisdiction should be understood in the “narrow sense of whether or not the tribunal had the authority to . . . decide a particular matter” (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at para. 59).  As Professor D. Mullan pointed out in “Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, Standard of Review and Procedural Fairness for Public Servants:  Let’s Try Again!” (2008), 21 C.J.A.L.P. 117, at pp. 126-30, this formulation was not narrow but so broad as to risk bringing back from the dead the preliminary question jurisprudence from which Cromwell J. endeavours to dissociate himself, which reached its unfortunate zenith in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 796, [1970] S.C.R. 425, and Bell v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, [1971] S.C.R. 756.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
À mon sens, une interdiction de publication limitant l’accès du public à l’information relative à l’organisme gouvernemental qui manie publiquement des instruments de force et qui recueille des éléments de preuve en vue d’emprisonner des présumés contrevenants aurait un effet préjudiciable grave.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
51 As this Court recognized in Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, at p. 976, “participation in social and political decision-making is to be fostered and encouraged”, a principle fundamental to a free and democratic society.  See Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285; R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877.  Such participation is an empty exercise without the information the press can provide about the practices of government, including the police.  In my view, a publication ban that restricts the public’s access to information about the one government body that publicly wields instruments of force and gathers evidence for the purpose of imprisoning suspected offenders would have a serious deleterious effect. There is no doubt as to how crucial the role of the police is to the maintenance of law and order and the security of Canadian society.  But there has always been and will continue to be a concern about the limits of acceptable police action.  The improper use of bans regarding police conduct, so as to insulate that conduct from public scrutiny, seriously deprives the Canadian public of its ability to know of and be able to respond to police practices that, left unchecked, could erode the fabric of Canadian society and democracy.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
À mon sens, une interdiction de publication limitant l’accès du public à l’information relative à l’organisme gouvernemental qui manie publiquement des instruments de force et qui recueille des éléments de preuve en vue d’emprisonner des présumés contrevenants aurait un effet préjudiciable grave.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
As this Court recognized in Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, at p. 976, “participation in social and political decision‑making is to be fostered and encouraged”, a principle fundamental to a free and democratic society.  See Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285; R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877.  Such participation is an empty exercise without the information the press can provide about the practices of government, including the police.  In my view, a publication ban that restricts the public’s access to information about the one government body that publicly wields instruments of force and gathers evidence for the purpose of imprisoning suspected offenders would have a serious deleterious effect.  There is no doubt as to how crucial the role of the police is to the maintenance of law and order and the security of Canadian society.  But there has always been and will continue to be a concern about the limits of acceptable police action.  The improper use of bans regarding police conduct, so as to insulate that conduct from public scrutiny, seriously deprives the Canadian public of its ability to know of and be able to respond to police practices that, left unchecked, could erode the fabric of Canadian society and democracy. [paras. 50‑51]