vu un – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

On a déclaré en preuve avoir entendu un bruit comme un raté de moteur ou un coup de feu dans le terrain de stationnement et avoir vu un homme courir vers une fourgonnette stationnée pour s’enfuir à son volant.

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

The deceased, victim of the killing, one Maurice Rodriguez, had been seen in one of the beverage rooms in the Elmar Hotel in Hamilton, Ontario, on the evening of September 21, 1974 and was also seen to leave by himself at about 11:30 p.m. He was shot and killed a short time later in a parking area between the Elmar and another hotel. There was evidence of a noise like a backfire or a shot being heard, coming from the parking area, and of a man seen running to a parked van which he drove away. Several witnesses described the van which had Barber Appliance Services written on the side and one witness noted the licence number as it was driven away. Shortly after midnight, about 12:05 or 12:10 a.m. in the morning of September 22, 1974, the van was located in the driveway of a house belonging to the witness Penoffio. The fact that the witness who took the licence number was mistaken as to one digit of the licence did not impede the speedy discovery of the van. The house, at 87 Augusta Avenue, was about three to five minutes’ driving time distant from the Elmar Hotel.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Cet employé a en outre déclaré que M. Benjamin l’avait abordé, lui et deux autres employés, vers 14h30 le vendredi 28 septembre, et leur avait demandé «de sortir au plus vite, sinon cela serait difficile pour les employés déjà sortis». Le témoin dit également avoir vu un certain nombre d’employés poinçonner leurs cartes de sortie entre 14h00 et 14h30 le vendredi.

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

An employee also testified that Mr. Benjamin had approached him on October 1st and asked him and two other employees not to come into work the following day but to phone in and report that they were sick. The employee further testified that Mr. Benjamin had approached him and two other employees around 2:30 p.m. on Friday, September 28th and asked them “to get the hell out otherwise it would be rough on the guys already out”. The witness further testified that he had seen a number of employees punching out between 2:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. on Friday. After this time no work was accomplished because a lot of employees were standing around in small groups discussing the matter. The witness testified that he did not punch out as requested because he did not want to lose wages.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il est sorti de l’auto‑patrouille, il a dit à ces hommes de sortir de la voiture, il n’a pas fait de mises en garde, il ne les a pas informés de leurs droits, il leur a seulement dit de sortir de la voiture, et le passager est sorti le premier, suivi du défendeur. Après que le passager est sorti, il a vu un sac de marijuana sur le plancher du côté du passager et, cela étant, il a plaqué les deux hommes contre le capot de la voiture.

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

The officer also says that he saw the accused throw something or thought he saw him throw something to the other side of the car and I think at that point based on everything he came to the conclusion that there was something illegal going on in the car, probably a drug – if not a drug transaction then at least a drug use.  And at that point he made what I think in all the circumstances was a decision that was based on determining whether or not there was any drugs in that car and if so, getting his mitts on it.  He got out of the police car, he told these gentlemen to get out of their car, he didn’t warn them, he didn’t caution them, he didn’t give them their rights, he just told them to get out of the car and the passenger got out first and subsequently the defendant got out.  After the passenger got out he saw a bag of marijuana on the floor of the car on the passenger side and that being so he had the two men on the hood of the car.  He took the defendant over and put him in the back of the police car, told him he was under arrest for possession, didn’t caution him, didn’t give him his rights, went back, called for backup who quickly arrived and took the other man into custody.  Subsequently he took the accused back to the police station.  He tells us that he cautioned him, gave him his rights.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Peu de temps après, les policiers ont vu un autre véhicule, appartenant effectivement à l'appelant et paraissant identique à celui qu'ils surveillaient, sortir d'un chemin situé dans un champ voisin d'où était venu le bruit.

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

On August 15, 1987, the day of the alleged offence, the police had lost visual contact with the appellant's vehicle but were able to trace its location using the beeper.  Upon moving to that location, the police established surveillance on a vehicle resembling the appellant's that was parked in a driveway.  Approximately two hours later, the police surveillance team heard a loud noise which sounded like metal crashing.  The crashing sound was caused by the felling of a Bell Canada communications tower, the value of which was in excess of $2 million.  Soon after, the police observed another vehicle, which was in fact the appellant's and appeared to be identical to the one they were watching, pull out of a laneway in a nearby field from which the crashing sound had emanated.  The second vehicle was later located at the appellant's residence.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

L’intimé la recevait sur le tablier opposé pour la placer sur un véhicule en vue de son transport ultérieur. Cette raboteuse était d’un modèle vieillot et, vu un défaut de la poulie motrice, celle-ci ne pouvait pas tourner à une vitesse normale ce qui provoquait des accumulations de copeaux.

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

The appellant en reprise d’instance was working for the respondent, a farmer, using a planing machine for the purpose of planing the surface of hardwood boards. The appellant was placing the boards on the front table of the machine and pushing them at and under the knives. The respondent was receiving them on the opposite table and placing them up on a cart to be later taken away. This machine was of an antiquated model and, due to a defect in the moving pulley which was preventing it from turning at the normal speed, there were accumulations of shavings. On the day of the accident, without having ever been requested by the respondent and without the knowledge of the latter, the appellant undertook to remove the shavings accumulated on the machine on the side where respondent was working, and putting his hand too close to the knives, knowing the direction in which they rotated, he had his fingers cut. The Superior Court dismissed the action brought by the appellant and this judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. Hence the appeal to this Court. The appellant contends that the use of a machine of an antiquated model with a defect in the moving pulley which prevents the latter from turning at the normal speed would not be tolerated in an establishment covered by the Industrial and Commercial Establishments Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 175.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

(2) Quant à M. et Mme Tratch: M. Tratch a témoigné qu’il a vu l’appelant sur le chemin, à quelque cent pieds de lui, alors que lui-même roulait à 25 ou 30 milles à l’heure; que peu avant que la voiture le rejoigne, l’appelant, «traversa le chemin» devant le témoin, de l’ouest à l’est; «il marchait plus ou moins en titubant, devant la voiture». Mme Tratch a dit: «j’ai vu un homme. Il se dirigeait vers le nord, et nous vers le sud. Cet homme allait¼il ne marchait pas droit. C’était comme s’il zigzaguait ou¼sur le chemin. Nous le dépassions».

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

(2) As to Mr. and Mrs. Tratch: Mr. Tratch testified that when travelling at 25 to 30 miles an hour he saw appellant on the road 100 feet or so away who, as the car neared him “took across the road in front of me” from the west to the east and that he was “kind of wobbly walking in front of the car.” Mrs. Tratch said: “I seen a man. He was going north and we were going south. And that man was going—he didn’t go straight. It was going like zigzag or—on that road. We were passing him.” This meeting was not located in relation to the point of impact.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

La vigie sur la passerelle a vu un feu blanc, puis le capitaine a aperçu les deux feux de tête de mât, encore ouverts à tribord, et noté qu’il était 0029, ce qui correspond au témoignage produit par l’autre partie d’un ordre de «tribord toute» à 0029 précises.

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

On the Marie Skou this cannot have contributed to the accident. The lookout on the bridge did see a white light and the master then saw both top lights when still open to starboard. He noted the time as 0029, which is exactly in accordance with the evidence from the other side that the hard starboard order was given precisely at 0029. It might also be observed that the combined speed of the two ships being 24 knots and the collision having occurred three minutes later, this means that the lights of the Chitose Maru were effectively seen at the upper limit of the range of visibility estimated by the master of the Marie Skou that is 0.8 to 1.0 mile. On the other hand, the absence of a lookout on the forecastle of the Chitose Maru was much more serious her bridge being more than five hundred feet aft, not less than two hundred. Putting both ships in pari delicto on that account might be proper on an abstract technical consideration of the observance of the regulations, but, with respect, it is erroneous in the allocation of liability where actual influence in the outcome is the criterion.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Sur le palier supérieur de l’escalier, l’agent Ryan a dégrafé le pantalon de M. Golden, puis a tiré son pantalon et son caleçon long vers l’arrière. En regardant à l’intérieur du caleçon, il a vu un emballage de plastique transparent qui dépassait des fesses de l’appelant et une substance blanche à l’intérieur de cet emballage.

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

30 Following the arrests, Constable Ryan conducted a “pat down” search of the appellant and looked in his pockets.  He did not find any weapons or narcotics. This officer then decided to conduct a visual inspection of the appellant’s underwear and buttocks.  Constable Ryan obtained from the shop’s employee the key to a door leading to the basement where public washrooms were located.  On the landing at the top of the stairwell, Constable Ryan undid Mr. Golden’s pants and pulled back the appellant’s pants and long underwear.  Looking inside the appellant’s underwear, he saw a clear plastic wrap protruding from between the appellant’s buttocks, as well as a white substance within the wrap.  Constable Ryan testified that when he tried to retrieve the plastic wrap, the appellant “hip-checked” and scratched him, so that he lost his balance and almost fell down the flight of 14 stairs.  Constable Ryan subsequently pushed the appellant into the stairwell, face-first.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

20 Bobby Johnson habitait au 147, rue Campbell, et réparait son camion dans l’entrée lorsqu’il a vu un homme qui tenait quelque chose contre son abdomen arriver en courant des alentours de la maison où avait lieu la visite libre.

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

20 Bobby Johnson lived at 147 Campbell Street and was working on his truck in his driveway when he saw a man running from the vicinity of the open house holding something up against his stomach.  He then saw the man jump over a fence.  He described the man as six feet tall, 170 to 180 pounds, greyish hair, wearing a tan short-sleeved dress shirt and grey dress pants with reddening on the back of the calves.  He put the time at 1:00 to 1:30 p.m.  He was not, however, wearing a watch.  He could not make an identification at trial.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

A peu près au même moment, un bruit fort comme un coup de fusil ou un raté de moteur a attiré l’attention d’un passant qui a vu un homme dans le parc de stationnement courir jusqu’à une fourgonnette pour y monter.

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

The victim of this murder was shot while in a parking lot separating the Town Manor hotel from the Elmar hotel in the City of Hamilton at approximately 11:50 p.m. on the 21st of September, 1974. At about this time the sound of a loud noise, like a shot or backfire, attracted the attention of a passerby to the parking lot where he saw a man running to and entering a brown or copper-coloured van with lettering on its side which he later identified from a photograph as bearing the name of “Barber Appliance Services”. On entering the parking lot, this witness found the body of the victim lying on the ground with a gun shot wound in his neck which proved to be a fatal injury. The van had been parked about five feet from where the body was found and a man was seen running towards it and entering the driver’s side although leaving the door ajar. Two other witnesses testified that they had observed the van leaving the parking lot and one of them was able to take what he thought was the number of the licence plate. I agree with the Chief Justice that the driver of the van at this time was undoubtedly the murderer and I feel that the identity of this individual is the pivotal or vital question in the determination of this case. In this regard the evidence is indeed

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

S’il s’était arrêté et avait regardé à sa droite avant de s’engager sur le passage à niveau, il aurait inévitablement vu un train qui s’approchait à 50 milles à l’heure en faisant sonner sa cloche et entendre son sifflet.

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

In the course of the reasons for judgment which he has prepared for delivery in this case, my brother Spence recognizes that the crossing was clearly visible to Kim in time for him to stop his vehicle before proceeding onto it and that there was also a sign, which was there to be seen, erected by the G.N. Railways on the east side of the road about 10 or 15 feet from the crossing warning that persons using it did so at their own risk. My brother Spence would attribute 25 per cent of the fault for the accident to the driver for his failure to stop sooner and I think that the main differences between us are that (i) I would not disturb the finding of the trial judge that “visibility had nothing to do with the accident” and (ii) in my view it was not the condition of the sign but the failure of Kim to stop after he had actual notice of the crossing which caused the collision. Had he stopped and looked to his right before entering the crossing, he would have inevitably seen a train approaching at 50 miles an hour, ringing its bell and sounding its whistle. There is no evidence that Kim failed to see the sign and his actions as he crested the hill strongly indicate that he appreciated the desirability of slowing down. There is no explanation as to why he accelerat-

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

A peu près au même moment, un bruit, comme un coup de fusil ou un raté de moteur, a attiré l’attention d’un passant qui a vu un homme dans le parc de stationnement courir jusqu’à une fourgonnette de couleur brune ou cuivrée dont le flanc portait une inscription qu’il a par la suite identifiée comme étant le nom de «Barber Appliance Services».

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

The victim in this murder was shot in a parking lot separating two Hamilton hotels at approximately 11:50 p.m. on September 21, 1974. At about the same time noise like a shot or a backfire attracted the attention of a passerby to the parking lot where he saw a man running to a brown or copper coloured van with lettering which he later identified as the name “Barber Appliance Services”. This witness on entering the parking lot found the body of the victim on the ground with what proved to be a fatal gun shot wound in the neck. The van had been some five feet from the body and a man was seen running towards it and entering the driver’s side while leaving the door ajar. Two other witnesses testified that they had seen the van and one was able to take down what he thought was the number of the licence plate. It seemed clear that the driver of the van at this time was the murderer. The evidence was inconsistent with any other rational explanation. The identified van was on the night in question in the custody of Penoffio, the firm’s Hamilton manager. Penoffio lived in a house at 87 Augusta Street, Hamilton, which was also occupied by a friend named Matthews and which the accused was visiting on the evening in question. The van was found next to this address shortly after the shooting and at that time the house was occupied by the accused, Penoffio and Matthews. Both Penoffio and Matthews were obviously potential suspects but neither told a story putting the other in the hotel parking lot at the fatal hour. The Crown’s case depended almost entirely on circumstantial evidence although in so far as the statements of the accused and Penoffio were self-serving they were dependent upon the jury’s assessment of their respective credibility. The accused was convicted of murder and his appeal was dismissed without recorded reasons by a unanimous Court of Appeal. The order

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Environ deux heures plus tard, les policiers ont entendu un grand bruit causé par l'effondrement d'une tour de télécommunications. Peu de temps après, les policiers ont vu un autre véhicule, appartenant effectivement à l'appelant, sortir d'un chemin situé dans un champ voisin.

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

Appellant was charged with mischief to property.  The Crown sought to introduce evidence of his whereabouts obtained through the use of an electronic tracking device (a "beeper") installed in his car.  The police had had appellant under surveillance for some time since they suspected him of involvement in a recent murder believed to be linked to a series of similar killings.  On July 14, 1987, they had obtained a warrant to search his home and vehicle, but had found nothing to link him to any of the homicides.  The police had towed the car to the police station to carry out the search.  While it was there, but after the warrant had expired, they installed the beeper.  On August 15, the day of the alleged offence, the police had been able to trace the location of appellant's car using the beeper and established surveillance on a vehicle resembling his parked in a driveway.  About two hours later, the police heard a loud crashing sound, caused by the felling of a communications tower.  Soon after, they observed another vehicle, which was in fact appellant's, pull out of a laneway in a nearby field.  On August 26 the police obtained a warrant to search appellant's vehicle.  When the car was vacuumed, melted pieces of metal, consistent with the metal guy wires of the communications tower, were found.  The constant electronic surveillance was maintained until mid-November, when appellant was arrested on the mischief charge.  The trial judge excluded all evidence obtained through the use of the beeper, on the ground that it had been obtained in violation of appellant's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  He acquitted appellant.  The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

A peu près au même moment, un bruit, comme un coup de fusil ou un raté de moteur, a attiré l’attention d’un passant qui a vu un homme dans le parc de stationnement courir jusqu’à une fourgonnette de couleur brune ou cuivrée dont le flanc portait une inscription qu’il a par la suite identifiée comme étant le nom de «Barber Appliance Services».

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

The victim in this murder was shot in a parking lot separating two Hamilton hotels at approximately 11:50 p.m. on September 21, 1974. At about the same time noise like a shot or a backfire attracted the attention of a passerby to the parking lot where he saw a man running to a brown or copper coloured van with lettering which he later identified as the name “Barber Appliance Services”. This witness on entering the parking lot found the body of the victim on the ground with what proved to be a fatal gun shot wound in the neck. The van had been some five feet from the body and a man was seen running towards it and entering the driver’s side while leaving the door ajar. Two other witnesses testified that they had seen the van and one was able to take down what he thought was the number of the licence plate. It seemed clear that the driver of the van at this time was the murderer. The evidence was inconsistent with any other rational explanation. The identified van was on the night in question in the custody of Penoffio, the firm’s Hamilton manager. Penoffio lived in a house at 87 Augusta Street, Hamilton, which was also occupied by a friend named Matthews and which the accused was visiting on the evening in question. The van was found next to this address shortly after the shooting and at that time the house was occupied by the accused, Penoffio and Matthews. Both Penoffio and Matthews were obviously potential suspects but neither told a story putting the other in the hotel parking lot at the fatal hour. The Crown’s case depended almost entirely on circumstantial evidence although in so far as the statements of the accused and Penoffio were self-serving they were dependent upon the jury’s assessment of their respective credibility. The accused was convicted of murder and his appeal was dismissed without recorded reasons by a unanimous Court of Appeal. The order

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Le policier a dégrafé le pantalon de G, puis a tiré vers l’arrière le pantalon et le caleçon long de ce dernier. Il a vu un emballage de plastique transparent qui dépassait des fesses de G et une substance blanche à l’intérieur de cet emballage.

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

Following the arrests, a police officer conducted a “pat down” search of G and did not find any weapons or narcotics.  The officer then decided to conduct a visual inspection of G’s underwear and buttocks on the landing at the top of the stairwell leading to a basement where public washrooms were located.  The officer undid G’s pants and pulled them back along with G’s long underwear.  The officer saw a clear plastic wrap protruding from between G’s buttocks, as well as a white substance within the wrap.  The officer tried to retrieve the plastic wrap, but G  “hip‑checked” and scratched him.  G was then escorted to a seating booth at the back of the shop.  The officers forced him to bend over a table and his pants were lowered to his knees and his underwear was pulled down.  The officers tried to seize the package from his  buttocks, but were unsuccessful.  Following these attempts, G  accidentally defecated; however, the package did not dislodge.  An officer then retrieved a pair of rubber dishwashing gloves and again tried to remove the package while G was face‑down on the floor, with another officer holding down his feet.  Finally, the officer was able to remove the package once G unclenched his muscles.  It contained 10.1 grams of crack cocaine.  G was placed under arrest for possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, and for police assault.  He was strip searched again at the police station, fingerprinted and detained pending a bail hearing.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[traduction]  En l’espèce, vous avez la preuve que Mmes McLeod et Baker ont toutes les deux vu une photo de l’accusé lors d’une séance d’identification à l’aide de photos, avant de l’identifier à l’audience.

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

In this case you have evidence that both Mrs. McLeod and Mrs. Baker saw a photograph of the accused in the photographic line up prior to identifying the accused in court. Ms. Visscher did as well, and she was unable to identify the accused in court as the man she saw on the dike. Both Mrs. McLeod and Mrs. Baker had seen news coverage on television of the accused leaving the courthouse after he was charged. As well you have the evidence of Janet McLeod that she watched the television newscast three times, and that in so doing the television picture of the accused was stopped. The freeze frame photo has been referred to. She said she watched the news on December 14, 1993 to make sure it is the right person. Those were her words. She and her husband froze the picture of the accused in the newscast and she looked at it and she said then and she says now that the accused is the right person.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il allait sortir de son appartement lorsqu'il a entendu un véhicule s'arrêter devant l'immeuble. Il a vu un homme, qu'il a par la suite identifié comme l'appelant, entrer dans l'immeuble. L'homme a demandé à Jodoin de lui donner une bière.

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

3.                On May 27, 1981, the complainant was attacked in his apartment at about 1: 00 a.m. He had been undergoing hormone treatment in preparation for what was described as a "sex‑change operation", and was dressed as, and had assumed the appearance of, a woman. He was planning to leave his apartment when he heard a motor vehicle stop in front of the building. He saw a man, whom he later identified as the appellant, enter the building. The man asked Jodoin for a beer. The complainant said he had no beer, but at the visitor's request he allowed entry to his apartment because the visitor wished to use the washroom. When in the apartment the visitor attacked the complainant. There was a struggle and a forced act of fellatio by the complainant. The assailant then left.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

L’établissement d’un régime relatif à des infractions provinciales mineures plus expéditif, plus efficace et moins coûteux était à ses yeux un objectif suffisamment important pour justifier une telle restriction. De plus, il a vu un lien rationnel entre le régime établi à l’art.

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

3                 The respondents appealed their convictions to the Court of Queen’s Bench the only defence relied on being the unconstitutionality of s. 16 of the Act, but they were not successful.  Deschênes J., following the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Carson (1983), 147 D.L.R. (3d) 754, and the decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in R. v. Greckol (1991), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 430, which concerned similar provisions, found that s. 16 of the Act infringed s. 11(d) of the Charter.  He was of the opinion, however, that the limitation on the s. 11(d) rights of persons charged with offences was justifiable under s. 1.  In his view, the objective of establishing a more expeditious and efficient and less costly scheme for minor provincial offences was important enough to justify such a limitation.  He also saw a rational connection between the scheme set up under s. 16 of the Act and this objective of efficiency in the context of offences under the Motor Vehicle Act.  Referring to this Court’s decision in R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933, he stated that he was satisfied that s. 16 comes within the range of means that impair the rights guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Charter as little as possible.  Deschênes J. concluded that the salutary effects of the measure adopted in s. 16 were sufficiently proportional to its deleterious effects.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

A peu près au même moment, un bruit fort comme un coup de fusil ou un raté de moteur a attiré l’attention d’un passant qui a vu un homme dans le parc de stationnement courir jusqu’à une fourgonnette pour y monter.

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

The victim of this murder was shot while in a parking lot separating the Town Manor hotel from the Elmar hotel in the City of Hamilton at approximately 11:50 p.m. on the 21st of September, 1974. At about this time the sound of a loud noise, like a shot or backfire, attracted the attention of a passerby to the parking lot where he saw a man running to and entering a brown or copper-coloured van with lettering on its side which he later identified from a photograph as bearing the name of “Barber Appliance Services”. On entering the parking lot, this witness found the body of the victim lying on the ground with a gun shot wound in his neck which proved to be a fatal injury. The van had been parked about five feet from where the body was found and a man was seen running towards it and entering the driver’s side although leaving the door ajar. Two other witnesses testified that they had observed the van leaving the parking lot and one of them was able to take what he thought was the number of the licence plate. I agree with the Chief Justice that the driver of the van at this time was undoubtedly the murderer and I feel that the identity of this individual is the pivotal or vital question in the determination of this case. In this regard the evidence is indeed

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Outre cette preuve circonstancielle, le ministère public a aussi produit une preuve d’identification provenant de divers automobilistes qui ont affirmé avoir vu un taxi de Montréal circuler sur l’autoroute entre Montréal et Ottawa.

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

9 In addition to the foregoing circumstantial evidence, the Crown also introduced identification evidence from several motorists who testified to seeing a Montreal taxicab on the highway between Montreal and Ottawa.  Only one of these witnesses, Sidney Ritchie, actually placed Ménard in the taxicab with the deceased.  Ritchie’s evidence was challenged at trial on the ground that Ritchie had failed to pick the appellant out of a photo lineup and had only been able to make a positive identification at the preliminary inquiry, when the appellant was the only man in the room aside from counsel and court staff.  Moreover, Ritchie had been advised at that time that the appellant was the person charged with the murder.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Au moment où le vol a été commis, ou à peu près vers ce moment-là, les témoins Goddard et Straight ont vu un ancien modèle de Chevrolet, de couleur claire, en stationnement sur un chemin de traverse non loin du remonte-pente Whistler, et ils ont tous deux identifié l’intimé Moncini comme personne assise dans cette voiture.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	At or about the time the bank was robbed, the witnesses Goddard and Straight saw an older model, light-coloured Chevrolet parked on a side road not far from Whistler ski lift and both witnesses identified the respondent Moncini as sitting in that car.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	L'appelant a avoué avoir commis des voies de fait simples mais a nié avoir commis des voies de fait graves. Il a déclaré en témoignage avoir vu un homme de race noire, qu'il a identifié comme étant Jason Semester, s'approcher de la galerie armé d'un couteau, poignarder Heffern et s'enfuir.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	The appellant admitted common assault but denied aggravated assault, and gave evidence that he saw a black man, whom he identified as Jason Semester, approach the porch with a knife, stab Heffern and flee.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Ford a témoigné qu'un certain nombre de Noirs étaient présents au moment de l'agression, qu'il avait vu un individu correspondant au signalement général de Semester s'approcher de la galerie, passer la main à travers les barreaux puis s'enfuir.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	Ford testified that a number of black men were present during the assault and that he saw an individual matching Semester's general description approach the porch, stick his hand through the porch railing, and then flee.  Ford further testified that he noticed moments later that the same man was carrying a knife.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[TRADUCTION] J’avançais sur le chemin Kildare en direction est-ouest, lorsque à l’intersection de Kildare et Smart j’ai vu un enfant courir en avant du camion stationné là. J’ai obliqué vers la gauche autant que possible, mais je n’ai pu l’éviter et le côté droit de ma benne l’a frappé.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	I was travelling on Kildare Rd. from East to West when at the corner of Kildare and Smart I saw a child running in front of the truck parked there. I pulled to the left as much as possible but could not avoid him and hit him with my right side box. (Emphasis added)

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	William Cowan, un ami de Day, a témoigné avoir vu un Blanc et un Noir participer à l'altercation avec Day. Cependant, il n'a pas bien vu le Noir et n'a pu l'identifier à l'aide d'une photographie. Il n'a vu personne brandir un couteau pendant l'altercation.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	William Cowan, a friend of Day's, testified that he saw a white man and a black man involved in an altercation with Day.  However, he did not get a good look at the black man, nor could he make a photographic identification.  Cowan did not see anyone wield a knife during the altercation.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Ce témoignage permet de conclure avec certitude que Slobodian n’a pas agi comme il l’a fait uniquement parce qu’il a vu un piéton qui lui faisait signe d’arrêter. Si la route n’avait pas été
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	This is conclusive evidence that Slobodian did not act as he did simply on account of seeing a pedestrian waving for him to stop. Had the highway been clear, I cannot think he would

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	…J’ai vu un enfant courir en avant du camion stationné là.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	…I saw a child running in front of the truck parked there.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Q    O.K.  Et y avez‑vous vu un policier?
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	Q    Okay.  And did you see a police officer there?

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Mme Sorra a témoigné qu’elle conduisait à une vitesse de 40 à 45 milles à l’heure et avait vu un panneau près de McKellar indiquant que la vitesse maximum permise était de 50 milles à l’heure. Elle a déclaré n’avoir vu aucune autre signalisation de limite de vitesse et rien dans la
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain	Mrs. Sorra testified that she was driving at a speed of from 40 to 45 miles an hour and that as she drove she saw a sign near McKellar to the effect that the speed limit was 50 miles an hour. She says she saw no other speed signs and there was no evidence that any such signs existed.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Vers 14 h, le 12 avril, Jack Schultz, qui travaille à la station de traitement d’eau potable d’Arnprior, a vu un taxi qui roulait près de la rivière Madawaska et, quelques minutes plus tard, il a entendu un bruit d’éclaboussement.

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

4 At about 2:00 p.m. on April 12, Jack Schultz, a worker at a water filtration plant in Arnprior, saw a taxicab driving near the Madawaska River, and several minutes later he heard a splash.  When he approached the riverbank he observed a car sinking into the water and saw the appellant standing nearby with a duffle bag and a bundle of white clothing.  Schultz called the police; they arrived some three minutes later.