obte – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot 12 Results  csc.lexum.org
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
[TRADUCTION] Q.M. Reid, en vous fondant sur votre expérience et sur les données que vous avez obte-
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
Q. Mr. Reid, on the basis of your experience and the recordings that you made of Mr. Phillion, during
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
J’aborde la question du témoignage auto-accu­sateur en faisant remarquer que l’obligation légale de fournir un échantillon d’haleine ne soulève en soi aucune question de preuve illégalement obte­nue et, a fortiori, aucune question de déclarations ou aveux illégalement obtenus.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
I approach the issue of self-crimination by ob­serving that statutory compellability to give a breath sample does not per se raise any question of illegally obtained evidence and, a fortiori, does not raise any question of illegally obtained state­ments or admissions. In this respect, therefore, s. 223 removes one of the problems that was can­vassed during the course of the proceedings at trial and on appeal in the case of Attorney-Gen­eral of Quebec v. Begin[16].
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Elle s’étend également à l’omission du médecin de se préoccuper suffisamment de l’état de sa patiente pour reconnaître la nécessité de la revoir et d’obte­nir la radiographie qui eut tout de suite révélé la fracture et la nécessité d’une prompte intervention chirurgicale.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
It is thus apparent that the negligence which caused the damage suffered by respondents is not limited to the original error. It also includes the doctor’s failure to concern himself enough about his patient’s condition to appreciate the need to see her again, and to obtain the X ray film which would have immediately revealed the fracture and the need for prompt surgery. As time went on without the pain disappearing, the need for a more thorough examination became increasingly evident so much that, from the evidence as a whole, the trial judge felt he had to find that Dame Laurent
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Si l’on interprète le bail et la clause en question, de façon raisonnable et dans la réalité commerciale, je ne vois pas quel autre sens on pourrait donner au contrat sans en retrancher des mots essentiels. Le juge de première instance a suggéré que l’intention du propriétaire était d’obte-
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
Counsel for the appellant did not urge (indeed, he stated that it was not necessary to his position) that the landlord was in breach of a covenant to insure and that the covenant should have embraced risk of loss by fire resulting from the tenant’s negligence. Rather, it was his contention that under the provision of the lease respecting payment of insurance rates by the tenant, the risk of loss by fire passed to the landlord, at least upon the presentation by the landlord of the insurance bill, and that the matter thereafter was between the landlord and its insurer. I agree with this contention. Applying to the lease and to the provision in question the ordinary test of reading it reasonably and in a business sense, I see no other meaning that can be given to the lease short of reading the relevant words out of it. The trial judge suggested that the landlord’s intention was
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
A mon avis, le ministère public ne se libère pas du fardeau de la preuve qui lui incombe en produisant simplement un témoignage oral montrant que la déclaration incriminante de l’accusé n’a pas été obte­nue par suite d’une promesse, par crainte d’un préju­dice ou dans l’espoir d’un avantage.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
Thus it appears that Roach J.A., with the concurrence of Aylesworth J.A., held the view that the decision of this Court in Boudreau v. The King did not change the law as stated by Viscount Sumner and that a declaration made by an accused is a voluntary statement if it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority. In the view of Pickup C.J.O. and Laidlaw and Schroeder JJ.A., this statement of the rule is too narrow and in addition to proving that the statement has not been obtained by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage, the prosecution must further show that the statement
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
En résumé, la jurisprudence indique qu’en obte­nant le consentement d’un patient à une opération chirurgicale sur sa personne, un chirurgien doit, généralement, répondre aux questions précises que lui pose le patient sur les risques courus et doit, sans qu’on le questionne, lui divulguer la nature de l’opération envisagée, sa gravité, tous risques importants et tous risques particuliers ou inhabi­tuels que présente cette opération.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
In summary, the decided cases appear to indi­cate that, in obtaining the consent of a patient for the performance upon him of a surgical operation, a surgeon, generally, should answer any specific questions posed by the patient as to the risks involved and should, without being questioned, disclose to him the nature of the proposed opera­tion, its gravity, any material risks and any special or unusual risks attendant upon the performance of the operation. However, having said that, it should be added that the scope of the duty of disclosure and whether or not it has been breached are matters which must be decided in relation to the circumstances of each particular case.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Le libellé du cinquiè­me amendement n’est pas aussi précis; il a été dé­cidé qu’il était assez général pour que le privilège s’applique aux «interrogatoires en cours de dé­tention» (expression employée dans la cause Miranda v. Arizona[21], les déclarations ainsi obte­nues étant irrecevables en l’absence de garanties précises quant à la procédure, comme c’est le cas devant une cour ou un tribunal.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
Section 2(d) gives no warrant for applying the privilege against self-crimination at large; rather it has a specific focus. The Supreme Court of the United States has had to wrestle with a con­stitutional statement of the privilege which is cast in wider terms; the relevant portion of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be com­pelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Although the word "witness" could sup-port a narrow construction, there is no such limit­ing context in the Fifth Amendment as there is in s. 2(d), which relates the protection against self-crimination to the giving of evidence, at the be-hest of a court or like tribunal, by the person en-titled to the protection The Fifth Amendment formulation is not so confined as a matter of words; and it has been held wide enough to sup-port the assertion of the privilege in "custodial interrogation" (the phrase is from Miranda v. Arizona[20]), with consequent exclusion of state­ments obtained as a result thereof unless there are specified procedural safeguards, as well as be-fore a court or like tribunal.