ne pas posséder – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot 6 Results  csc.lexum.org  Page 10
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
La police a été appelée, et R.W.C. a été inculpé sous quatre chefs d’accusation : deux d’agression armée (l’arme étant un stylo et un verre), un d’omission de se conformer à la promesse de ne pas troubler l’ordre public et d’avoir une bonne conduite et un d’omission de se conformer à la promesse de ne pas posséder d’arme.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
75 On November 26, 2002, R.W.C., who was 13 at the time, beat and punched his mother in the face and stabbed her in the foot with a pen during an argument.  The police were contacted and R.W.C. was charged with four offences: two assaults with a weapon (a pen and a glass); failure to comply with an undertaking to keep the peace and be of good behaviour; and failure to comply with an undertaking not to possess a weapon.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Les droits de récusation dont jouit l’accusé ne visent pas à lui permettre de choisir un jury qui lui soit favorable, mais plutôt à en écarter les jurés qu’il croit ne pas posséder les qualités nécessaires à l’accomplissement de cette fonction.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
The right of the prosecution to challenge a juror and that of requiring a juror to stand by are independent of the rights conferred on the accused, and I do not see why the prosecution should be deprived of its rights because the accused has unsuccessfully challenged a juror for cause. The rights of challenge enjoyed by the accused are not intended to enable him to select a jury favourable to his case, but rather to reject jurors who, in his view, do not have the qualifications necessary for performing this function. I cannot accept an inter­pretation of the provisions of the Criminal Code quoted above that would disrupt the balance clearly
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
connaissance de cette situation: par exemple, permettre à une personne de conduire sans permis, ou ne pas posséder soi-même un permis valide ou être propriétaire d’un bien qui est dans un état dangereux.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
know of this status: e.g. permitting an unlicensed person to drive, or lacking a valid licence oneself, or being the owner of property in a dangerous condition. In such cases, negligence consists of an unreasonable failure to know the facts which constitute the offence. It is clear, however, that in principle the defence is that all reasonable care was taken. In other circumstances, the issue will be whether the accused’s behaviour was negligent in bringing about the forbidden event when he knew the relevant facts. Once the defence of reasonable mistake of fact is accepted, there is no barrier to. acceptance of the other constituent part of a defence of due diligence.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
On reconnaît ainsi que, même si elle reçoit l'information, la personne ordinaire peut ne pas posséder la connaissance nécessaire dans certains cas pour apprécier l'importance de l'information ou pour tirer des inférences justes dans un contexte particulier (R. c. Abbey, [1982] 2 R.C.S. 24, à la p. 42).
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
See also  R. v. Béland, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398, at p. 415; Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), at pp. 536‑37.  Expert evidence is permitted as an exception to the usual rule excluding opinion evidence in recognition of the fact that the average person, even if given information, may not possess the necessary knowledge in some cases to assess its significance or draw the correct inferences in a particular context (R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24, at p. 42).
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Cette expertise peut provenir de connaissances spécialisées sur un sujet ou de l’expérience et de qualifications dans un domaine précis. À première vue, le comité de discipline d’un barreau peut paraître ne pas posséder d’expertise relative puisqu’y sont nommés des avocats et des non-juristes.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
30 As the Chief Justice notes in Dr. Q, supra, at para. 28, the question at this stage of the pragmatic and functional analysis is whether the decision-making body has greater expertise than the reviewing court with respect to the question under review.  This expertise may be derived from specialized knowledge about a topic or from experience and skill in the determination of particular issues.  At first glance, it may appear that the discipline committee of a law society has no relative expertise since it is composed of lawyers and lay appointees.  Generally, judges will have been members of a provincial law society and will know about the ethical and other standards of practice to which those societies hold lawyers.  That said, there is nevertheless reason to expect that the Discipline Committee has superior expertise relative to courts.
  Cour suprême du Canada ...  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
En effet, les infractions en question portent généralement sur la situation illégale d'une personne ou d'un emplacement et la défense de l'accusé est qu'il ne pouvait raisonnablement avoir connaissance de cette situation; par exemple, permettre à une personne de conduire sans permis, ou ne pas posséder soi‑même un permis valide ou être propriétaire d'un bien qui est dans un état dangereux.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
The reason is that the offences in question have generally turned on the possession by a person or place of an unlawful status, and the accused's defence was that he reasonably did not know of this status: e.g. permitting an unlicensed person to drive, or lacking a valid licence oneself, or being the owner of property in a dangerous condition.  In such cases, negligence consists of an unreasonable failure to know the facts which constitute the offence.  It is clear, however, that in principle the defence is that all reasonable care was taken.  In other circumstances, the issue will be whether the accused's behaviour was negligent in bringing about the forbidden event when he knew the relevant facts.  Once the defence of reasonable mistake of fact is accepted, there is no barrier to acceptance of the other constituent part of a defence of due diligence.  [Emphasis added.]