étai – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot 4 Results  csc.lexum.org
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
En examinant les autres éléments de preuve, que l'appelante a décidé de ne pas produire, il faut préciser les éléments de l'infraction en question et examiner si ces autres éléments de preuve étaient suffisants pour être présentés au jury.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
In considering the other evidence which the appellant decided not to call, it is necessary to identify the elements of the offence in question and to consider whether the other evidence was sufficient to warrant putting the appellant's case to the jury.  In reaching this determination, the test to be applied is whether the other evidence, "if believed by a properly charged jury acting reasonably, would justify a conviction".  Here, to substantiate its case, the appellant would have to demonstrate that:  (i) the respondent was operating the vehicle in question; (ii) the respondent's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol; and, (iii) the impaired driving ability of the respondent caused the deaths and bodily harm which occurred.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
19 Le juge Linden a conclu que la deuxième condition n’était pas remplie. Estimant qu’il n’avait pas à se «plier à la théorie des contrats» (par. 59) et qu’«[i]l ne s’agi[ssai]t pas de savoir ce dont les parties [avaient convenu] ni ce qu’[étai]t leur intention» (par. 59), il a conclu que les contrats d’achat de débentures et le contrat de change à terme devaient être considérés ensemble pour déterminer si les montants dont Shell demandait la déduction constituaient véritablement des «intérêts».
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
19 Linden J.A. concluded that the second condition had not been met.  Considering that he was not “constrained by contract theory” (para. 59) and that the important consideration was “not what the parties agree to, nor what their intent is” (para. 59), he held that the Debenture Agreements and the Forward Exchange Contract had to be considered together to determine whether the amounts Shell sought to deduct were actually “interest”.  In his view, the real “interest” amounts could only be identified after reducing the putative interest payments by an amount equal to the foreign exchange gain created by the discounted forward rate on the NZ$, amortized over the term of the loan.  On this approach, he concluded that Shell’s deductions were not entirely interest: that portion exceeding 9.1 percent per annum must have been a repayment of principal.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
En examinant les autres éléments de preuve, que l'appelante a décidé de ne pas produire, il nous faut préciser les éléments de l'infraction en question et examiner si ces autres éléments de preuve étaient suffisants pour être présentés au jury.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
In considering the other evidence which the appellant decided not to call, it is necessary to identify the elements of the offence in question and to consider whether the other evidence was sufficient to warrant putting the appellant's case to the jury.  In reaching this determination, the test to be applied is whether the other evidence, "if believed by a properly charged jury acting reasonably, would justify a conviction":  R. v. Monteleone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154, at p. 161.  In this case, three charges were laid against the respondent:  two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm contrary to s. 255(2) of the Criminal Code and one count of impaired driving causing death contrary to s. 255(3).  In order to substantiate its case, the appellant would have to demonstrate that:  (i) the respondent was operating the vehicle in question; (ii) the respondent's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol; and (iii) the impaired driving ability of the respondent caused the death and bodily harm which occurred.