vu à – -Translation – Keybot Dictionary

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

De nos jours, la prudence normale requiert que le conducteur de tout véhicule se déplaçant lentement sur une route principale quand la visibilité est réduite prenne des précautions de sécurité adéquates pour être vu à temps par les voitures qui le suivent.

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

Under today’s conditions, normal prudence requires that the driver of any slow-moving vehicle making use of a main highway when visibility is reduced, should take adequate safety precautions to ensure that following traffic be made aware of his presence in good time. That principle was considered recently by this Court in Gagné v. Côté[2], which involved a rear end collision at night between an automobile and a horse-drawn vehicle. In that case Pigeon J., delivering the judgment of the Court said at p. 28:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	De nos jours, la prudence normale requiert que le con­ducteur de tout véhicule se déplaçant lentement sur une route principale quand la visibilité est réduite prenne des précautions de sécurité adéquates pour être vu à temps par les voitures qui le suivent.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Under today's conditions, normal prudence requires that the driver of any slow-moving vehicle making use of a main highway when visibility is reduced, should take adequate safety precautions to ensure that following traffic be made aware of his presence in good time.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il a déposé que les appelants et lui‑même avaient rencontré le plaignant dans les toilettes de l'école juste avant la récréation, chacun a frappé le plaignant, a enfoncé un crayon dans ses fesses et a touché son pénis. Il a déposé qu'il ne se souvenait pas avoir vu à aucun moment le pénis des appelants.

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

C.Z. gave similar evidence.  He testified that he and the appellants came across the complainant in the school washroom just before recess, each kicked the complainant, put a pencil in the complainant's bum, and touched his penis.  He testified that he did not recall seeing the appellants' penises at any time.  With respect to the time of the offence C.Z. testified that the incident occurred between September 1 and September 30 of 1985 but could not remember if it was the beginning, middle, or end of September.  During cross-examination C.Z. agreed with defence counsel that the alleged assault could have happened the last week of September or the beginning of October but stated that it could not have occurred at the end of October or in November.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Peu de temps après ces événements, madame Roy, qui avait vu à trois reprises le visage du rôdeur, a tenté plusieurs fois de le reconnaître sur des photographies et parmi les personnes réunies pour une confrontation aux fins d’identification, mais elle a été incapable de l’identifier avec certitude.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Shortly after these events, Mrs. Roy, who had seen the prowler’s face three times, made several attempts to identify him in “line-ups” where the appellant was present and in photographs, but she was unable to make any positive identification and the appellant was released.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[traduction] Prenons l’exemple bien connu de l’animal aperçu dans Regent’s Park. S’il est vu à l’extérieur du zoo, dans un lieu où l’on promène habituellement son chien, alors il est plus vraisemblable qu’il s’agisse d’un chien que d’un lion.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Consider the famous example of the animal seen in Regent’s Park.  If it is seen outside the zoo on a stretch of greensward regularly used for walking dogs, then of course it is more likely to be a dog than a lion.  If it is seen in the zoo next to the lions’ enclosure when the door is open, then it may well be more likely to be a lion than a dog.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

L'intimé n'a pas témoigné à son procès, mais il a invoqué comme moyen de défense un alibi corroboré par la déposition de divers témoins qui ont déclaré l'avoir vu à Windsor ou à Detroit au moment du meurtre ou à peu près au même moment.

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

The respondent did not testify at his trial, but set up a defence of alibi supported by the evidence of various witnesses who placed him in Windsor or Detroit at or around the time of the murder.  Defence counsel did not object to the testimony by Ms. King's mother as to what her daughter told her in the first three telephone calls.  Indeed, it was apparently the theory of the defence that the respondent actually did abandon Ms. King at the hotel in London, a hypothesis supported by the evidence of what Ms. King said in the first two telephone calls to her mother.  However, the defence contended that after leaving Ms. King, the respondent returned to Detroit and did not return to the hotel, and therefore could not have been with her when she was murdered.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Bien qu’il ait témoigné que l’accusé était incapable de subir son procès lorsqu’il l’a vu à Penetanguishene le 16 décembre 1975, l’état de l’accusé s’est amélioré à la suite de traitements, et l’on n’a pas contesté sa capacité de subir son procès lorsqu’il a commencé le 27 avril 1976.

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

The accused did not give evidence on the voir dire or before the jury. The sole defence evidence on the voir dire was given by Dr. R.L. Fleming, a psychiatrist at the mental health centre, who diagnosed the accused as a paranoid schizophrenic. Although he testified that the accused was not fit to stand trial when he saw him at Penetanguishene on December 16, 1975, the accused’s condition improved with treatment, and no issue was raised as to his fitness for trial when it began on April 27, 1976. Insanity was not raised as a defence.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Dans R. v. Eakins (1943), 79 C.C.C. 256 (C.A. Ont.), l'accusé avait été vu à plusieurs reprises employer une salle publique d'un hôtel de Toronto pour recevoir, puis payer des paris sur des courses de chevaux.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Other judges, however, took the opposite view.  In R. v. Eakins (1943), 79 C.C.C. 256 (Ont. C.A.), the accused was seen on a number of occasions using a public room in a Toronto hotel to take, and later settle, bets on horses.  He was convicted at trial on the charge of keeping a common betting house.  Robertson C.J.O. allowed the appeal and stated at p. 257:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Les parties ont fait vie commune pendant plus de 25 ans, période au cours de laquelle l'appelante a, d'une part, vu à l'entretien et à l'éducation de leurs trois enfants et à tenir le ménage, et a contribué, d'autre part, aux activités de l'entreprise de l'intimé.

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

2                 The appellant L.G. and the respondent G.B., 53 and 56 years old respectively, were married in 1960.  Three children were born of the marriage.  The two eldest, D. and B., had reached the age of majority when the divorce occurred.  The youngest, F., was 12 years old and at boarding school at the time.  The parties lived together for over 25 years during which the appellant looked after the maintenance and education of their three children, did the housework and also contributed to the activities of the respondent's business.  The divorce took place on November 18, 1986.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Au contraire, les appelants demandent, contre la compagnie Hudson’s Bay, une déclaration que l’accord du 24 février 1970 constitue un contrat valide et qui subsiste encore entre les parties. Ce qui est arrivé, comme on l’allègue dans les plaidoiries écrites, c’est que les parties n’ont pas, suite aux déclarations des intimés, vu à compléter leur accord.

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

The appellants contend that the respondents wrongfully procured a breach of contract between the appellants and Hudson’s Bay Company. There is, however, no plea of any breach by Hudson’s Bay Company in respect of its contract with the appellants. On the contrary, the appellants claim, as against Hudson’s Bay Company, a declaration that the agreement of February 24, 1970, is a valid and subsisting contract between the parties. What has occurred here, as stated in the pleadings, is that the parties did not, after the statements made by the respondents, proceed to complete their agreement. Clearly, this was because they apprehended that legislation, by way of regulation or statute, would be enacted to prevent the control of Canadian uranium resources passing from Canadian to non-Canadian hands.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Le juge de première instance a également conclu que Appleby avait personnellement participé à la décision prise par les trois compagnies minières de conclure les contrats de souscription à forfait dont il s’agit en l’espèce; que s’il n’avait pas personnellement rédigé les brochures expédiées par courrier par la compagnie de courtage dans le but de promouvoir la vente des actions, il avait donné des directives à l’égard de leur rédaction et avait vu à ce que rien ne soit expédié sans que lui-même ne l’ait lu et approuvé.

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

Appleby repeated this performance with the shares of two other mining companies which he had caused to be incorporated. These were Boeing Mines Limited and Marlboro Mines Limited. The trial judge also found that Appleby was personally instrumental in the making of the underwriting agreements that were entered into by the three mining companies; that if he did not personally write the sales literature that the securities company mailed to promote the sale of shares, he ordered the writing of this material and saw to it that none of it was sent out without his having read and approved of it. Finally, it was Appleby himself who every day telephoned W.D. Latimer Company Limited in order to set the prices at which the latter was authorized to buy and sell the shares of the

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

R. [. . .] je me souviens avoir vu, à l'occasion, [F.F.B.] venir dans notre chambre et avoir des rapports avec [P.A.L.].  Je me souviens que [P.A.L.] disait non, non.  Il ne parlait jamais beaucoup.  Il faisait simplement ce qu'il voulait.  Je faisais semblant de dormir à l'époque.  Je ne . . .  J'étais jeune aussi.  Ce n'est que beaucoup plus tard que j'ai dit à [P.A.L.] que je le savais, parce que je me sentais . . .  Je ne pouvais rien dire à ma mère à ce sujet, j'avais peur et aussi j'avais l'impression que j'étais . . .  Je me sentais mal parce que je ne pouvais rien dire.  J'avais l'impression à cette époque de commettre une injustice envers [P.A.L.], parce que je ne voulais pas que cela m'arrive.  Donc, je faisais semblant de ronfler et de ne rien voir, pour qu'il ne m'arrive rien.

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

A.  . . . I remember seeing on occasions, [F.F.B..] come in our bedroom and have intercourse with [P.A.L.].  I remember [P.A.L.] saying no, no.  He never said an awful lot.  He just did as he felt like.  I did pretend I was asleep at the time.  I didn't . . . I was only young too.  I never told [P.A.L.] until later on in the years that I did know this, because I felt . . .  I couldn't say anything to my mother about it, in fear and I felt too, that I was . . .  I felt bad because I couldn't say anything.  I felt that I was doing [P.A.L.] an injustice at the time, because I didn't want it happening to me.  So, I pretended I was snoring and not seeing anything, it wouldn't happen to me.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Cette défense reposait sur la prétention de Jordan qu'elle l'avait vu à la piste de courses où elle travaillait à l'heure approximative où les voies de fait sur la victime Hammond étaient commises à l'autre bout de la ville.

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

In the present case Glenda Jordan was called as a witness by the accused Schimmens at the trial of Nygaard and Schimmens.  Jordan was the live-in girlfriend of Schimmens.  Her testimony was crucial to Schimmens' alibi defence.  This defence was based on the claim by Jordan that she saw him at the race-track where she worked at roughly the same time that the assault on the victim Hammond occurred across town.  Schimmens' alibi was also supported by testimony from one Brian Sager who claimed to have been with Schimmens at the track at the relevant time.  It was the Crown's theory that the alibi was false, and was orchestrated by Schimmens from the Remand Centre where he was detained.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

L’appelant connaissait parfaitement cette machine et ses pièces composantes pour avoir vu à son entretien et participé à son opération six ou sept fois ou, selon son admission, possiblement plus souvent.

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

were used by other farmers. Appellant was quite familiar with the machine and its component parts, having looked after it and participated in the use of it six or seven times, or by his own admission possibly even more. When this planing was used appellant’s task consisted simply and strictly in placing the board lengthwise on the front table of the machine, and pushing this board at and under the knives, where rollers then mechanically moved it onto the opposite table, from which, the planing being thus complete, respondent took it up and placed it on a pile or loaded it onto a vehicle nearby. On the day in question, while respondent was loading a board which had just been smoothed onto the vehicle, with his back to the machine, appellant exceeded his duties and without having ever been requested or having any need to do so, undertook of his own initiative and without the knowledge of respondent, who had never seen him do such a thing, to remove the sawdust accumulated on the machine with his right hand, not on the side where appellant stood in the performance of his duties but on the opposite side where respondent took the boards off, and where the sawdust was in fact expelled by the action of the knives. As he was putting his hand too close to the knives, knowing the direction in which they rotated, he had his fingers cut. “It’s my fault, I know that!” he said to respondent when the latter, turning towards the planing machine, became aware with dismay of the accident which had just occurred.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Mais, le témoignage des guides Lounder et Wright me convainc que les guides allaient chercher ce combustible sur demande et qu’en fait le défendeur n’avait jamais été explicitement prévenu de s’abstenir de le faire. En fait, Wright dit que le défendeur avait du bois à sa disposition le lundi, mais il n’a pas vu à la provision de combustible du défendeur du lundi jusqu’à l’incendie, soit le mercredi à 18h.

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

The evidence of the plaintiff would indicate that the guests were not to wait on themselves, especially for the purpose of obtaining stove oil, the reserve supply of which was located seventy-five to one hundred yards away from the New Lodge in another structure but the evidence of the guides Lounder and Wright satisfies me that the guides would obtain such fuel when requested and that in fact no instructions of a negative nature were ever given to the defendant. In fact Wright states that the defendant had wood available on Monday but Wright did not go near the defendant’s fuel supply from Monday until after the fire occurred on Wednesday at 6:00 P.M. It may be as claimed by the plaintiff, that guides were instructed to check the fuel supplies of the guests during the dinner hour each evening, but it is clear that in the case of Cone, such was not done, even where Wright was under the impression that Gone had been unable to light his fireplace since his arrival because of wet wood.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Entre 5h30 et 6h, plusieurs locataires ont entendu des éclats de voix et des cris et deux bruits sourds qui venaient de l’appartement de Carl Taylor (le n° 23) à quelque distance dans le corridor de celui de l’appelant. Mme Wilson, qui habitait l’appartement en face du n° 23, a fait sortir ses enfants de leur chambre à coucher vers 5h30 ce matin-là à cause des éclats de voix, des pleurs et des bruits qui provenaient de l’appartement de Taylor. Elle a entendu la victime pleurer et dire à l’appelant «s’il te plaît, ne me frappe plus». Elle a également entendu la victime demander à Carl Taylor d’empêcher l’appelant de la frapper. Par le trou de la serrure de la porte de sa chambre à coucher, elle a vu, à travers la porte ouverte de l’appartement de Taylor, l’appelant assis dans l’appartement de Taylor. Elle a entendu l’appelant dire qu’il ne la frapperait plus et plus tard elle a entendu la victime pleurer et dire «je pensais que tu n’allais plus me frapper».

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

Between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m. several of the tenants heard loud talking and shouting and two heavy thuds from the area of Carl Taylor’s apartment (No. 23) just down the hall from that of the appellant. Mrs. Wilson, who had an apartment across the hall from No. 23, removed her children from their bedroom around 5:30 a.m. on that morning because of loud talking, crying and noises eminating from Taylor’s apartment. She overheard the deceased crying and say to the appellant “Please don’t hit me any more”. She also heard the deceased ask Carl Taylor to make the appellant stop hitting her. Through the keyhole in her bedroom she saw the appellant through the open door of Taylor’s apartment seated in Taylor’s apartment. She heard the appellant say he wouldn’t hit her any more and later again heard the deceased crying and say “I thought you weren’t going to hit me any more”.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Robitaille était mieux placé que Mlle Gosselin pour voir le meurtrier, car il s’est trouvé face à face avec lui à un pied et demi de distance. Il a toutefois précisé que ce n’est pas ce qu’il a vu à cet instant qui lui a permis de reconnaître le meurtrier, car il était alors trop nerveux, Huard venant juste d’être blessé.

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

Robitaille had a greater opportunity to view the murderer than Gosselin, as he was confronted by the murderer at a distance of one and one-half feet. He said that he did not recognize the person from this confrontation as he was too nervous, Huard just having been wounded. He recognized the murderer from earlier observation when the latter was seated in the restaurant. He described the murderer as about six feet one inch and well-built. The only identifying characteristic which he pointed out was sideburns. He picked Vézeau out of a police line-up on January 2,1970 and again in court. Robitaille's evidence is contradictory in places, and this fact becomes disturbing in relation to the question of whether the police showed him any photographs prior to the line-up. At trial he said that he saw fifteen photos in November, yet at the preliminary inquiry he said that he saw no photos of Vézeau in November. Whether he was telling the truth or just confused by the questions addressed at trial and at the preliminary inquiry were questions for the jury to determine.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

trouve à la clause 11 du Bail en vertu duquel CP détient tous les droits sur O & Q, y compris le pouvoir de vendre les terrains excédentaires. Par conséquent, il est logique de conclure que ce pouvoir de vente a été accordé à O & Q par TG & B dans le bail susmentionné et que ce même pouvoir a été cédé (comme nous l'avons déjà vu) à CP dans le Bail de 1884. Toutefois, puisque TG & B n'est pas une partie à la présente action, point n'est besoin de se prononcer ici sur le pouvoir de CP de vendre les terrains excédentaires de TG & B. De plus, il n'est nullement question en l'espèce d'une demande de jugement in rem qui s'appliquerait à l'ensemble des terrains en cause. Il est donc préférable que la question de la vente des terrains de TG & B soit examinée dans le cadre d'une action pouvant être intentée soit par TG & B elle-même, soit en son nom, si certains actionnaires minoritaires de TG & B concluent que cela pourrait être dans leur intérêt.

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

O & Q, including the power of sale of surplus lands. It is consistent to conclude therefore that TG & B did grant this power of sale to O & Q in the TG & B lease and that this power of sale was assigned (as previously discussed) to CP in the 1884 Lease. However, because TG & B is not before the Court in this present action, it is not now necessary to make any declaration with respect to CP's power to sell TG & B surplus lands. Furthermore, this action raises no claim for anything in the nature of an in rem judgment running with all the lands herein in question. The issue of the sale of TG & B lands is thus better left to any action that may be brought by TG & B, derivatively or otherwise, should some minority shareholder of TG & B hereafter conclude that it might be in their interests to do so.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	L’agent Slote de la police de Hamilton a témoigné qu’à 20h39, il a reçu un appel de l’appelant qui déclarait avoir [TRADUCTION] «vu à l’instant un meurtre». La conversation a été enregistrée:
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Constable Slote of the Hamilton Police Force testified that he received a call at 8:39 p.m. from the appellant, who attested to having “just seen a murder”. The conversation was recorded on the police dispatcher:

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

A mon avis, l’appelant a agi de façon normale pour une personne de son état et la seule cause de l’accident dont il a été victime est la négligence des fonctionnaires préposés à la réfection du chemin de halage qui n’ont pas vu à assurer la

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

The question is not to determine whether appellant broke the regulations. What must be decided is whether he committed a fault, and whether the government employees did commit a fault in the performance of their duties or in respect of a duty attaching to ownership of the canal. In my view appellant acted normally for a person in his capacity, and the only cause of the accident of which he was the victim was the negligence of the public employees in charge of repairing the towpath, who did not take steps to

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

15 Étant donné que l’art. 71 AIAL oblige, comme nous l’avons vu, à informer le demandeur de la procédure de règlement des différends, et que l’intimée n’a informé l’appelante que de la première étape de cette procédure, on ne peut pas dire qu’un refus valable a été exprimé.  Étant donné que le refus n’était pas valable et que le délai de prescription prévu au par. 281(5) de la Loi sur les assurances ne commence à courir qu’à partir du moment où un refus est exprimé, l’avis envoyé le 8 mai 1996 n’a pas fait en sorte que ce délai de prescription a commencé à courir.

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

15 Given that s. 71 of the SABS imposes a requirement to inform the claimant of the dispute resolution process as discussed above, and given that the respondent only informed the appellant of the first step of this process, a proper refusal cannot be said to have been given.  Since a proper refusal was not given, and since the limitation period under s. 281(5) of the Insurance Act only begins to run upon a refusal, that limitation period was not triggered by the notice sent on May 8, 1996.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

L’obligation a commencé, mais ne s’est pas terminée, avec l’amarrage du chaland au navire, et il appartenait aux personnes de faction de surveiller les câbles. Le navire est responsable de la négligence du guetteur qui n’a pas vu à temps que le chaland était détaché.

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

Per Hall and Laskin JJ. dissenting: There was no bailment to the ship either of the lumber or of the barge however the arrangement none the less put the ship under a duty of care in respect of the barge and its cargo. The duty began but did not end with the securing of the barge to the ship and it was for the watch to monitor the lines. There was liability of the ship for the negligence of the watchman in his failure to discover timeously that the barge was loose.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

L’appelant a agi de façon normale pour une personne de son état et la seule cause de l’accident dont il a été victime est la négligence des fonctionnaires préposés à la réfection du chemin de halage qui n’ont pas vu à assurer la sécurité des camionneurs chargés d’y livrer de la pierre, alors qu’il était évident que ce transport ne pouvait pas se faire sans prendre des mesures spéciales vu l’état des lieux et le genre de ponts qu’il fallait utiliser.

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

Appellant acted normally for a person in his capacity, and the only cause of the accident of which he was the victim was the negligence of the public employees in charge of repairing the towpath, who did not take steps to ensure the safety of truckers instructed to deliver stone there, when it was obvious that such delivery could not be made without taking special measures in view of the condition of the premises and the type of bridge to be used. In order to cross the bridge used with a heavy load, it was necessary to drive “along the centre line of the bridge”, which an ordinary trucker could not have suspected without being told.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

[traduction] Le ‑ nous avions les sept plaignants ‑ sept plaignants que j'ai trouvés francs et réceptifs. Nous les avons tous vu à la barre, et leurs témoignages m'ont parus raisonnables et cohérents.

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

The - we had the seven complainants - seven complainants who I found were forthright and responsive.  We all saw them get on the stand, and their evidence to me was reasonable and consistent.  And they were thoroughly cross-examined.  They weren't harassed in any way, but they were thoroughly examined by Mr. Burke.  And we saw them there, and even the accused has said that he does not question their honesty; and I also find that their evidence consisted of the truth.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	R. Oui, c’était déjà là. Il l’a vu à l’examen de mon cerveau.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	A. Yes, it was already there. He saw it on the test when he called [sic] my brain.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

D'après le juge Tourigny, la présente affaire diffère également de l'affaire Latour, précitée, dans laquelle l'accusé avait présenté une défense d'alibi, affirmant qu'il n'était jamais allé à l'endroit en question. Le ministère public avait amené en contre‑preuve que l'accusé avait été vu à cet endroit, quelque trois mois après le crime.

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

Tourigny J.A. thought that this case was also different from Latour, supra, where the accused made an alibi defence stating that he had never been to the place in question.  The Crown brought rebuttal evidence that the accused had been seen at the location some three months after the crime.  In that case, the attack on credibility was collateral.  Here, in Tourigny J.A.'s opinion, the appellant made his credibility a central issue by changing his story on his intention to steal and intention to kill.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	Q. Quelle a été votre opinion lorsque vous l’avez vu à l’unité de soins intensifs?
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Q. What opinion did you hold when you saw him in the intensive care unit?

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

Il ne fait pas de doute d’après la preuve que le navire, sous charte-partie à une compagnie associée avec Seaboard, était prévenu qu’il prendrait une cargaison à son bord, mais il est également clair que la cargaison en cause, la cargaison de bois, devait être chargée à bord du navire par l’affréteur après que celui qui l’avait vendue à Seabord l’aurait amenée le long du navire. Puisqu’il faisait noir à ce moment-là, et que les débardeurs qui devaient transborder le bois du chaland au navire n’étaient pas disponibles, le capitaine du remorqueur a vu à l’amarrage au

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

There is no doubt on the evidence that the ship, under charter to a company associated with Seaboard, was aware that it would be taking on cargo, but it is also clear that the particular cargo, the lumber, was to be loaded on board the ship by the charterer after the seller to Seaboard had it brought alongside. Since it was dark at that time, and stevedores to transfer the lumber from barge to ship were not available, the captain of the tug saw to the fastening of the lumber-carrying barge to the ship. There was an officer on board the ship and

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL

La prudence normale requiert que le conducteur de tout véhicule se déplaçant lentement sur une route principale quand la visibilité est réduite prenne des précautions de sécurité adéquates pour être vu à temps par les voitures qui le suivent.

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

The negligence of the younger Hébert in driving at an excessive speed in the circumstances was not the sole cause of the accident. Normal prudence requires that the driver of any slow-moving vehicle making use of a main highway when visibility is reduced, should take adequate safety precautions to ensure that following traffic is made aware of his presence in good time. The presence of a white light at the rear provided no improvement. Indeed a white rear light was misleading and ambiguous at the best of times, and would be all the more dangerous in conditions of fog. On the other hand, the red lights required by the Highway Code are unambiguous. To venture into fog on a main road with an inadequate rear light was extremely imprudent. Responsibility should be divided equally between the two drivers. Respondent Mrs. Lamothe, owner of the tractor, is also liable under s. 3 of the Highway Victims Indemnity Act.

  Cour suprême du Canada ...  

Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL	[traduction] Prenons l’exemple bien connu de l’animal aperçu dans Regent’s Park. S’il est vu à l’extérieur du zoo, dans un lieu où l’on promène habituellement son chien, alors il est plus vraisemblable qu’il s’agisse d’un chien que d’un lion.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain	Consider the famous example of the animal seen in Regent’s Park.  If it is seen outside the zoo on a stretch of greensward regularly used for walking dogs, then of course it is more likely to be a dog than a lion.  If it is seen in the zoo next to the lions’ enclosure when the door is open, then it may well be more likely to be a lion than a dog.