poon – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot 2 Results  scc.lexum.org
  Supreme Court of Canada...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Explained:  R. v. Ruzic, 2001 SCC 24, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; referred to:  R. v. Hibbert, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973; Perka v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; R. v. Hinse, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 597; R. v. Provo, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 3; R. v. Power, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; R. v. Fraser (2002), 3 C.R. (6th) 308; Paquette v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 189; R. v. Howe, [1987] A.C. 417; R. v. Mena (1987), 34 C.C.C. (3d) 304; R. v. McRae (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 1; R. v. Langlois (1993), 80 C.C.C. (3d) 28; R. v. Latimer, 2001 SCC 1, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3; R. v. Li (2002), 162 C.C.C. (3d) 360; R. v. Poon, 2006 BCSC 1158 (CanLII); R. v. M.P.D., 2003 BCPC 97, [2003] B.C.J. No. 771 (QL); United States v. Burnes, 666 F.Supp.2d 968 (2009); United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (2006); United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381 (2010).
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
Arrêt expliqué : R. c. Ruzic, 2001 CSC 24, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 687; arrêts mentionnés : R. c. Hibbert, [1995] 2 R.C.S. 973; Perka c. La Reine, [1984] 2 R.C.S. 232; R. c. Hinse, [1995] 4 R.C.S. 597; R. c. Provo, [1989] 2 R.C.S. 3; R. c. Power, [1994] 1 R.C.S. 601; Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration) c. Tobiass, [1997] 3 R.C.S. 391; R. c. Fraser (2002), 3 C.R. (6th) 308; Paquette c. La Reine, [1977] 2 R.C.S. 189; R. c. Howe, [1987] A.C. 417; R. c. Mena (1987), 34 C.C.C. (3d) 304; R. c. McRae (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 1; R. c. Langlois (1993), 80 C.C.C. (3d) 28; R. c. Latimer, 2001 CSC 1, [2001] 1 R.C.S. 3; R. c. Li (2002), 162 C.C.C. (3d) 360; R. c. Poon, 2006 BCSC 1158 (CanLII); R. c. M.P.D., 2003 BCPC 97, [2003] B.C.J. No. 771 (QL); United States c. Burnes, 666 F.Supp.2d 968 (2009); United States c. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (2006); United States c. Montes, 602 F.3d 381 (2010).
  Supreme Court of Canada...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Recent jurisprudence has concluded that those who seek to rely on the common law defence of duress cannot do so if they knew that their participation in a conspiracy or criminal association came with a risk of coercion and/or threats to compel them to commit an offence: see R. v. Li (2002), 162 C.C.C. (3d) 360 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 20-33; R. v. Poon, 2006 BCSC 1158 (CanLII), at para.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
[75] Cet élément prévu par la loi a été reconnu comme étant également pertinent en common law.  En effet, la jurisprudence récente a conclu que les personnes qui tentaient d’invoquer le moyen de défense de common law fondé sur la contrainte n’y étaient pas admises si elles savaient que leur participation à un complot ou à une association criminelle comportait un risque de contrainte ou de menaces visant à les forcer à commettre une infraction (voir R. c. Li (2002), 162 C.C.C. (3d) 360 (C.a. Ont.), par. 20‑33; R. c. Poon, 2006 BCSC 1158 (CanLII), par. 7; R. c. M.P.D., 2003 BCPC 97, [2003] B.C.J. no 771 (QL), par. 61).