signale – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	On signale que le Conseil n’a pas de pouvoir sur l’admission de membres par les syndicats affiliés.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	It was pointed out that the Council had no control over any affiliate regarding whom they accepted for membership within their organization.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Troisièmement, même s'il avait existé au dossier une preuve suffisante d'un usage local général consistant à n'épandre ni sel ni sable sur les allées, je ne crois pas que cet usage eût nécessairement milité décisivement contre une conclusion de négligence en l'espèce. Peu après le passage cité par les Malcolm, Linden (loc. cit., à la p. 154) signale également que:
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Thirdly, even if there had been adequate evidence in the record of a general local custom of not salting or sanding driveways, I am not of the view that such a custom would necessarily be decisive against a determination of negligence in the case at bar.  Shortly after the extract cited by the Malcolms, (supra, at p. 154),  Linden also points out that:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

En formulant cette prétention, l’avocat des époux a admis que l’appel de l’époux ne pouvait être accueilli à moins que celui de l’épouse ne le soit; dans ce cas, il se proposait de plaider que si la demande de l’épouse avait été entendue, celle-ci aurait eu le droit, si elle avait eu gain de cause, de parrainer l’admission de son époux en vertu de l’article 31(1)(a) du Règlement. Je signale, sans statuer sur la question, la réplique de l’avocat du ministre que l’époux, en tant que personne expulsée à l’époque pertinente, n’aurait pu être parrainé.

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

In advancing this contention, counsel for the spouses conceded that the husband’s appeal could not succeed unless that of the wife succeeded, in which case he proposed to submit that had the wife’s application been entertained she would have been entitled, if successful, to sponsor the admission of her husband under s.31(1)(a) of the Regulations. I point out, without ruling upon it, the rejoinder of counsel for the Minister that the husband as a deportee at the material time would not have been eligible to be sponsored. I need not, however, rule on this counter-submission because I am of the opinion that the wife’s contention in this Court fails.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

En fouillant la maison, ils ont trouvé un fusil de calibre .10 sous étui dans la penderie de la chambre à coucher et une carabine de calibre .22 sans étui dans un placard du sous‑sol. Le juge du procès signale que l’arme trouvée au sous‑sol est du même calibre que celui du projectile retiré du crâne de la victime.

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

[25] The general telewarrant and the search and seizure telewarrant were executed on July 23, 2006 at 10:35 a.m. at the appellant’s house by Detective Sergeant Briand and Constable Alain Gaucher.  While searching the house they located a .10 calibre gun in a case in the bedroom closet and a .22 calibre rifle, not in a case in a basement closet.  The trial judge noted that the gun found in the basement closet was the same calibre as the bullet recovered from the victim’s skull.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Comme le signale dans ses motifs mon collègue le Juge Martland dans Wild c. La Reine, il a été décidé dans l’affaire Regina c. Lemire que si une cour d’appel accueille l’appel pour le motif qu’un élément précis de preuve crée un doute raisonnable sur la culpabilité du prévenu alors que, selon une interprétation correcte du droit, cet élément de preuve ne peut créer un doute sur sa culpabilité, la décision de la Cour d’appel renferme dès lors une erreur de droit et un appel peut être porté devant cette Cour en vertu de l’art.

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

As my brother Martland points out in his reasons in Wild v. The Queen, it was held in Regina v. Lemire that if an appellate court allows an appeal on grounds that certain specific evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to guilt when on a proper view of the law that evidence is not capable of creating any doubt as to his guilt then the decision of the appellate court is in error on law and an appeal lies to this Court under the provisions of s. 598(1) (a) of the Criminal Code.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Dans l’affaire Kilbourne la Cour d’appel, comme le signale lord Hailsham, n’avait pas jugé la preuve d’actes similaires irrecevable, elle avait cassé lé verdict parce que le juge du procès avait dit aux jurés qu’ils pouvaient se servir de la preuve sur chaque chef d’accusation comme corroboration de la preuve sur les autres chefs.

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

In the case at bar, the defence was precisely, besides character evidence, that the visits of the young witnesses were made for perfectly legitimate purposes. This defence made the similar fact evidence admissible in rebuttal. Since, even without such similar fact evidence, the accused could not possibly have asked for an acquittal without this defence, he suffered no prejudice from similar fact evidence having been admitted in chief even assuming the trial judge had erred in this respect. In Kilbourne, as mentioned by Lord Hailsham, the Court of Appeal held the similar fact evidence inadmissible and quashed the verdict because the trial judge has told the jury that the evidence on each count could be considered as corroboration on the other counts. But Lord Hailsham said at pp. 748-749:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Comme le juge Rinfret le signale dans la présente cause, tous les arrêts qu’on y a cités (c’était en 1972) portaient uniquement sur les conséquences du recours possible contre l’assureur du tiers et non pas contre celui de la victime.

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

As Rinfret J.A. pointed out in the case at bar, all the cases that were cited (this was in 1972) dealt solely with the consequences of the possible remedy against the third party’s insurer, not against the victim’s insurer. As for Marach[7], that case involved an entirely different question, namely the remedy against the Fund for damage caused by an unknown driver. For this reason it is not necessary to consider it exhaustively. All that was there said must be read in the context of the question then before the Court. As in the other cases involving the effect of the possible remedy against the insurer of the party liable, nothing touches on the question in issue in the case at bar, which may be stated as follows: Can it be said that an insurer will “benefit” from the amount claimed, when this insurer has not paid anything and all remedies against him are prescribed?

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[TRADUCTION] La défense affirme que Paquette a participé au vol parce qu’on l’y a contraint; à ce sujet je vous signale que si Paquette a participé au projet de commettre un vol au Pop Shoppe, sous l’effet de menaces de mort ou de lésions corporelles graves, on ne peut considérer dans ces circonstances qu’il a partagé, avec Simard, l’intention de voler le Pop Shoppe, et vous devez l’acquitter.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Now, the defence are asserting that Paquette participated in this robbery because he was compelled to do so, and in that connection I charge you that if Paquette joined in the common plot to rob the Pop Shoppe under threats of death or grievous bodily harm, that would negative his having a common intention with Simard to rob the Pop Shoppe, and you must find Paquette not guilty.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il n'est donc pas question de substituer notre opinion à celle du juge. Comme le juge Beauregard le signale, aucune preuve n'indiquait qu'il serait impossible de former un jury impartial dans un délai raisonnable.

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

20.                     As regards the motion based on the provisions of the Charter, I am completely in agreement with the reasons given by the dissenting judges. In my view, a stay of proceedings was, in this case, premature. It is only at the stage when the jury is to be selected that it will be possible to determine whether the respondent can be tried by an impartial jury. This does not therefore involve substituting our opinion for that of the judge. As Beauregard J. notes, there is no evidence indicating that it will be impossible to select an impartial jury in a reasonable time. This is rather a matter of speculation.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Je signale que devant cette Cour, l’avocat de l’intimé, tout en soutenant que la preuve ne justifiait pas des directives au jury sur l’art. 21 du Code, a reconnu que, si la preuve avait été suffisante, il aurait été erroné en droit d’interdire au jury de tenir compte de cet article.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	I might observe that in this Court counsel for the respondent conceded, while contending that there was no evidence to warrant a charge to the jury under s. 21 of the Code, that if sufficient evidence had existed it would have been error in law to exclude that section from the jury.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Le Juge d’appel Schroeder signale, dans l’affaire Guttman, que l’autorité de ce précédent n’a jamais été remise en question, même pas dans la décision récente de la Cour d’appel dans Vaillancourt Lumber Co.

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

It is pointed out by Schroeder J.A. in the Guttman case that the authority of this decision has never been questioned, nor was it questioned in a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Vaillancourt Lumber Co. Ltd. v. Trustees of Separate School Section No. 2, Township of Balfour et al.[3] The Vaillancourt case was correctly distinguished in the reasons of the Court of Appeal. In the Vaillancourt case the owner had received notice in writing of a lien claim by a

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Je signale au passage que la présence sur les lieux d’un technicien compétent pour administrer l’alcootest — en l’occurrence l’agent Boucher — n’est pas contestée ni, par conséquent, le fait que les échantillons auraient pu être prélevés dans le délai prévu par la loi.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	10 This was also when he decided not to demand that Mr. Plourde take a breathalyzer test.  He felt that Mr. Plourde was depressed and that he needed treatment.  I would note in passing that it is uncontested that a qualified breathalyzer technician — Constable Boucher — was present and that samples could accordingly have been taken within the time provided for by law.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	L’article 32 de la Loi de l’Alberta édicté dans quel délai il faut enregistrer ou déposer une réclamation de privilège; en donnant le texte de cet article, je signale un point évident, soit que l’article présuppose qu’un privilège est né.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Section 32 of the Alberta Act prescribes the time for registering or filing a claim of lien, and in setting out its terms I emphasize the obvious that it presupposes that a right to lien has arisen. It is in these words:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	32. Je signale que la réclamation du ministre du Revenu national aurait dû être dirigée contre la Société hôtelière Canadien Pacifique Limitée qui exploite cet hôtel, plutôt que contre l'appelante. Celle‑ci a toutefois jugé à propos de ne pas faire de cas de cette irrégularité.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	32.              I should mention that the claim of the Minister of National Revenue should have been made against Canadian Pacific Hotels Limited, which operates the hotel, rather than the appellant. However, the latter did not wish to make an issue of this discrepancy.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

En passant, je signale que, comme il ressort de l’extrait suivant des motifs de jugement délivrés par le Juge Brand dans la cause Pirkey, cette dernière décision repose surtout sur le fait que, contrairement au droit qui a cours au Canada, la distinction entre une «felony» et une «misdemeanor» existe encore aux États-Unis d’Amérique.

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

With respect to the decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon in the Pirkey case, supra, as well as that of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in Olsen v. Delmore, supra, I agree that these decisions are of no assistance in view of the differences existing between the systems of Government obtaining in Canada and in the United States of America. And I may, incidentally, point out that, as appears by the following extract of the reasons for judgment delivered by Brand J., in the Pirkey case, this decision rests mainly on the fact that, contrary to what is the case in Canada, the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor still obtains in the United States of America. The extract can be found at p. 703 of the report:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Je signale encore une fois que, même s’il n’y avait eu aucun appel antérieur de marge, les deux intimés n’ignoraient pas la condition relative au maintien d’une marge de 35% (et s’y étaient conformés dans le passé); ils savaient très bien que, vu la forte hausse des cours, leur marge était déficitaire et qu’ils étaient tenus d’effectuer des versements.

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

The circumstances of this case show that the margin requirements of the appellant were not met and that it considered or deemed the covering purchases necessary for its protection. I again point out that, even if no call had been previously made, both respondents were fully aware of (and had previously complied with) the 35% maintenance requirement; knew well that because of the substantial rise in the market price they were undermargined and were obligated to make payments. However, they categorically rejected that obligation by repudiating the transactions and demanding immediate return of all moneys previously paid. A formal call may be the best way to show a “requirement”, but the contract does not so stipulate and, in fact, specifically provides that no notice or demand is required before the power may be exercised. In my opinion, a call was not required in view of the respondents’ knowledge and their actions as above indicated. Again, where customers have definitively and formally, individually and by their solicitor, repudiated their respective short sales when the market was at its height, and said, in effect, “we will have no part of these transactions, they must be treated as your own”, I find it

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Pour démontrer que l’assureur de Therrien ne «bénéficiera» pas du paiement, l’intimée signale qu’en vertu de l’art. 39 la demande de paiement qu’elle a faite au Fonds a pour effet de le subroger dans sa créance contre Therrien et, par voie de conséquence, contre l’assureur de ce dernier.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	To show that Therrien’s insurer will not “benefit” by the payment, respondent points out that under s. 39 the effect of her application for payment to the Fund is to subrogate it in her rights against Therrien and, consequently, against the latter’s insurer. This is by virtue of the first paragraph which is as follows:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

En ce qui a trait aux deux premières conclusions, je ne vois pas comment on peut prétendre que l’absence d’un panneau de limite de vitesse ou la forme du panneau indiquant la courbe aient été des causes prochaines de l’accident, quand la preuve indique la présence d’un panneau à damier jaune et noir de quatre pieds de largeur à environ 100 pieds à l’est du début du virage. Ce genre de panneau a un sens universel: il signale un danger.

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

With respect to the first two findings, I cannot see how it can be contended that the absence of a speed control sign, or the nature of the curve sign, can be regarded as material causes of the accident, when the evidence establishes that there was a four-foot square black and yellow checkerboard sign approximately 100 feet to the east of the beginning of the curve. Such a sign has universal significance and was indicative of danger. The driver of the car, in which the appellant was a passenger, never noticed the sign.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Dans les circonstances, comme je l’ai indiqué, la comparution volontaire de l’appelant à son procès ne donne nécessairement lieu à aucune déduction, si ce n’est qu’il faisait ce que la loi prescrivait et, de plus, comme le signale M. le Juge Arnup dans ses motifs de jugement en Cour d’appel, page 383:

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

introduce any evidence of consciousness of guilt through flight, attempted flight or other means of evading justice. In these circumstances, as I have indicated, the appellant’s voluntary appearance at his trial does not necessarily give rise to any inference except that he was doing what the law required and furthermore, as Mr. Justice Arnup points out in the course of his reasons for judgment in the Court of Appeal at page 383:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Glanville Williams signale cependant que la règle de l'ignorance volontaire comporte des dangers et a une application limitée. Il dit, à la p. 159:
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Glanville Williams, however, warns that the rule of deliberate blindness has its dangers and is of narrow application. He says, at p. 159:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Je signale en passant que le mot "sûr" a été ajouté à l'article en 1987.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	I would note in passing that the word "safe" was added to the section in 1987.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Je signale aussi, en passant, que la déclaration énonçant des lignes de conduite faite par le
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	I might also point out, in passing, that the statement of guidelines made by the Minister on

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Il faut admettre, comme le signale cette Cour dans l’arrêt British Columbia Telephone Company et autres personnes c. Marpole Towing Limited [Chugaway II][3], à la p. 338, que:
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	It is true, as was pointed out in this Court in British Columbia Telephone Company and other persons v. Marpole Towing Limited [Chugaway II][3], at p. 338 that:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Il me paraît, cependant, qu’il ne faut pas en rester là, du moins quant à la réclamation fondée sur le décès du père des appelantes, car il est manifeste que le premier juge a tenu compte du revenu de la succession dont elles ont hérité en fixant le montant accordé aux appelantes pour perte de soutien. M. le Juge Rinfret le signale dans ses notes en appel:
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	It appears to me, however, that this does not dispose of the case, at least as regards the claim arising out of the death of appellants’ father, for it is clear that the trial judge took into account the income from the estate they inherited in fixing the amount that appellants were awarded for loss of maintenance. Rinfret J.A. has noted it in his reasons on appeal:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	2. La Cour d’appel signale une deuxième erreur:
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	2. The Court of Appeal noted a second error:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[traduction] Je vais vous exposer brièvement le droit applicable à l’infraction dont il est question en l’espèce. Je signale que, dans la plupart des procès, cela n’est fait qu’à la clôture de la preuve au moment de l’exposé du juge du procès.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	I will shortly be instructing you as to the law concerning the offence in this matter.  I point out that at most trials, this is not done until the conclusion of the evidence at the trial judge’s charge.  I happen to think that it makes it more difficult for you if you don’t know what the law is from the start.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	compte tenu des profits. Je signale que personne n’a tenté de mettre ces prévisions en doute.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	to include profit. I point out that there was no real attempt to discredit this budget figure.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Il signale alors que la plupart des arrêts publiés qui ont trait à une multiplicité d’actions devant différentes cours traitent de cas où l’une d’elles est un tribunal étranger, et il dit:
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	He then noted that most reported cases concerning a multiplicity of actions before different courts, deal with cases in which the other court is a foreign court and said:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Je ne sais pas si vous avez pu lire le livre depuis hier. Vous aurez probablement remarqué qu’on y signale qu’il est difficile de distinguer entre la dissociation mentale aiguë et l’inconscience momentanée attribuable à l’alcool.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	A. It is frequently a blackout, it is frequently similar to a blackout. You can confuse the two. I don’t know if you had a chance to read the book overnight. You probably noticed they say it is difficult to distinguish an acute dissociative reaction from an alcoholic blackout and they may take place at the same time.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il y déclare que la demande n’est pas irrecevable en se fondant d’abord sur l’arrêt de notre Cour: Royal Trust Co. c. Ville de Montréal[1]. Il renvoie spécialement à l’énoncé suivant du juge Davies repris, comme il le signale, par lord Blanesburgh dans O. Martineau and Sons, Ltd. c. Ville de Montréal[2]:

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

This inscription in law was dismissed by judgment of Victor Pager J. of the Superior Court, dated February 17, 1961. He held that the action was not ill-founded in law relying, first, on the decision of this Court in Royal Trust Co. v. City of Montreal[1]. He referred in particular to the following statement by Davies J., which as he noted was adopted by Lord Blanesburgh in O. Martineau and Sons, Ltd. v. City of Montreal[2]: