Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: recent Court: canada supreme court Page 1 of about 10 results (0.048 seconds)

Apr 23 2014 (FN)

Peracomo Inc., Real Vallee Vs. Telus Communications Company

Court : Canada Supreme Court

..... . . . 2. claims set out in paragraph 1 shall be subject to limitation of liability even if brought by way of recourse or for indemnity under a contract or otherwise. however, claims set out under paragraph 1(d), (e) and (f) shall not be subject to limitation of liability to the extent ..... a fact to be proven to justify an insurers decision to deprive its insured of coverage. [97] at common law, since this courts decision in canadian indemnity co. v. walkem machinery and equipment ltd., 1975 canlii 141 (scc), [1976] 1 s.c.r. 309, [a]t least as far as ..... . the federal courts decided in favour of the insurer and the appellants submit they erred. [37] royal issued a policy to the appellants including protection and indemnity coverage during the relevant time. the policy covered liability in consequence of . . . damage to any fixed or movable object? and arising from an ..... 2010), at p. 288; e. gold, a. chircop and h. kindred, maritime law (2003), at p. 728. it is worth noting that the contracting states considered, but expressly rejected, the inclusion of gross negligence? as a sufficient level of fault to break the liability limit: comit maritime international, the travaux pr ..... purpose to establish a virtually unbreakable limit on liability and does not accord with its text. [24] i turn first to the conventions purpose. the contracting states to the convention intended the fault requirement to be a high one the limitation on liability was designed to be difficult to break: margolle .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2014 (FN)

In the Matter of a Reference by the Governor in Council Concerning Ref ...

Court : Canada Supreme Court

the court i. introduction [1] the senate is one of canadas foundational political institutions. it lies at the heart of the agreements that gave birth to the canadian federation. yet from its first sittings, voices have called for reform of the senate and even, on occasion, for its outright abolition. [2] the government of canada now asks this court, under s. 53 of the supreme court act, r.s.c. 1985, c. s-26, to answer essentially four questions: (1) can parliament unilaterally implement a framework for consultative elections for appointments to the senate? (2) can parliament unilaterally set fixed terms for senators? (3) can parliament unilaterally remove from the constitution act, 1867 the requirement that senators must own land worth $4,000 in the province for which they are appointed and have a net worth of at least $4,000? and (4) what degree of provincial consent is required to abolish the senate? [3] we conclude that parliament cannot unilaterally achieve most of the proposed changes to the senate, which require the consent of at least seven provinces representing, in the aggregate, at least half of the population of all the provinces. we further conclude that abolition of the senate requires the consent of all of the provinces. abolition of the senate would fundamentally change canadas constitutional structure, including its procedures for amending the constitution, and can only be done with unanimous federal-provincial consensus. [4] this said, our conclusions are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2014 (FN)

Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Vs. Information ...

Court : Canada Supreme Court

cromwell and wagner jj. i. overview [1] the main question before the court concerns the interaction between ontarios access to information legislation and its confidential sex offender registry (registry?). a requester under ontarios freedom of information and protection of privacy act, r.s.o. 1990, c. f.31 (fippa?), sought disclosure from the ministry of community safety and correctional services (ministry?) of the number of offenders registered under its registry residing within the areas designated by the first three digits of ontario postal codes (the so-called forward sortation areas or fsas). the information in the registry, which is established and maintained under christophers law (sex offender registry), 2000, s.o. 2000, c. 1 (christophers law?), is confidential but is available for law enforcement purposes only to the ministry and to police. in this respect, the ontario registry is different from those of some others jurisdictions which are public and this difference reflects a clear policy choice. the basis of that choice is the belief that keeping the information confidential for law enforcement purposes will encourage the offenders to comply with registration and reporting requirements and help prevent vigilantism. [2] the ministry refused to disclose the requested information (record?), citing law enforcement and personal privacy exemptions, but that decision was overruled by the information and privacy commissioner (commissioner?) who ordered disclosure .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 28 2014 (FN)

Douglas MartIn Vs. Workersâandeuro;andtrade; Compensation Board of Al ...

Court : Canada Supreme Court

..... legislative history, parliament also intended to enact specific exceptions to its reliance on provincial law. [37] for example, in 1947, parliament amended the geca to provide coverage for pulmonary tuberculosis contracted in a government hospital or sanatorium, which was not covered at the time under provincial legislation. during a debate in the house of commons, the minister responsible for the amendments .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2014 (FN)

In the Matter of a Reference by the Governor in Council Concerning Sec ...

Court : Canada Supreme Court

the chief justice and lebel, abella, cromwell, karakatsanis and wagner jj. i. introduction [1] the supreme court act provides that three of the nine judges of the supreme court of canada must be appointed from among the judges of the court of appeal or of the superior court of the province of quebec or from among the advocates of that province?: r.s.c. 1985, c. s-26, s. 6. this reference seeks our opinion on two aspects of the eligibility requirements for appointment to these three quebec seats. [2] the first is whether a person who was at any time an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the barreau du qu bec qualifies for appointment under s. 6 as being from among the advocates of that province?. if the answer to the first question is no, the second question arises. it is whether parliament can enact legislation to make such a person eligible for appointment to one of the three quebec seats on the court. the answer to these questions which on their face raise issues of statutory interpretation engage more fundamental issues about the composition of the court and its place in canadas legal and constitutional order. [3] these questions arise in the context of the appointment under s. 6 of the honourable marc nadon, a supernumerary judge of the federal court of appeal and formerly, but not at the time of this appointment, a member of the quebec bar of more than 10 years standing. justice nadon was not a judge of the court of appeal or the superior court of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2014 (FN)

A.i. Enterprises Ltd. and Another Vs. Bram Enterprises Ltd. and Others

Court : Canada Supreme Court

..... . the position is different, however, in the unlawful means tort, the focus of which is unlawful conduct that intentionally harms the plaintiffs economic interests. there need be no contract or even other formal dealings between the plaintiff and the third party so long as the defendants conduct is unlawful and it intentionally harms the plaintiffs economic interests. in this ..... distinguished two-party intimidation from three-party intimidation and made it clear that the rationale for its holding was limited to two party cases arising from threats to breach a contract between those two parties: pp. 87-88. the underpinning for the courts holding does not apply to a three-party unlawful means action. [80] the not otherwise actionable? ..... ?: para. 150, citing lord reid in rookes v. barnard, [1964] a.c. 1129, at pp. 1168-69. unlawful means? include common law torts, statutory torts, crimes, breaches of contract, breaches of trust and equitable obligations, breaches of confidence, and so on: para. 150. to this broad definition of unlawful means?, lord nicholls added the requirement that the plaintiff must ..... to liability: see obg, at para. 49. lord nicholls of birkenhead advocated a broader view, according to which unlawful means? included common law torts, statutory torts, crimes, breaches of contract, breaches of trust and equitable obligations, breaches of confidence, and so on?: obg, at paras. 150 and 155. [18] the court of appeal preferred lord hoffmanns narrow definition. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2014 (FN)

ErIn Lee Macdonald Vs. Her Majesty the Queen and Others

Court : Canada Supreme Court

lebel j. i. introduction [1] this case requires us to consider the scope of police search powers in the context of everyday interactions with private citizens at the doorsteps of their homes. the police in this case responded to a noise complaint and, without warning, became engaged in a dangerous situation that, in their opinion, put their safety, and the safety of others, in jeopardy. the charges laid as a result of this incident afford us an opportunity to consider the operation of s. 8 of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms in this context, the mens rea required for conviction under s. 95(1) of the criminal code, r.s.c. 1985, c. c-46, and some corollary issues related to sentencing. ii. background facts [2] in 2009, mr. macdonald was employed in the oil and gas industry. his employment required him to spend time in both calgary and halifax. on the evening of december 28, 2009, mr. macdonald entertained a co-worker and his co-workers friend at his halifax condominium (the unit?). some alcohol was consumed during the evening as mr. macdonald and his colleague who was about to replace him in halifax discussed work. [3] later in the evening, the concierge of mr. macdonalds building, mr. sears, received a noise complaint regarding loud music reverberating from the unit. mr. sears went to the unit, heard the loud music and knocked on the door. he received no response. just as he was about to leave, he saw mr. macdonalds guests leaving the unit and saying good .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2014 (FN)

Her Majesty the Queen Vs. Sean Summers and Another

Court : Canada Supreme Court

karakatsanis j. i. introduction [1] when an accused person is not granted bail, and must be remanded in jail awaiting trial, the criminal code, r.s.c. 1985, c. c-46, allows time served to be credited towards a resulting sentence of imprisonment. a day in jail should count as a day in jail. [2] however, crediting a single day for every day spent in a remand centre is often insufficient to account for the full impact of that detention, both quantitatively and qualitatively. time in a remand centre does not count for the purposes of eligibility for parole, earned remission or statutory release, and this can result in a longer term of actual incarceration for offenders who were denied bail. moreover, conditions in remand centres tend to be particularly harsh; they are often overcrowded and dangerous, and do not provide rehabilitative programs. [3] as a result, for many years courts frequently granted enhanced? credit: 2 days for each day spent in pre-sentence custody. this practice was endorsed by this court in r. v. wust, 2000 scc 18 (canlii), 2000 scc 18, [2000] 1 s.c.r. 455. when conditions were exceptionally harsh, judges granted credit at a rate of 3 to 1 or more. [4] the truth in sentencing act, s.c. 2009, c. 29 (tisa), passed in 2009, amended the criminal code to cap pre-sentence credit at a maximum of 1.5 days for every day in custody. the purpose was to remove any incentive for an accused to drag out time in remand custody, and to provide transparency so that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 2014 (FN)

Diane Knopf, Warden of Mission Institution and Another Vs. Gurkirpal S ...

Court : Canada Supreme Court

introduction [1] this case arises from a decision of correctional authorities to transfer a federal inmate from a medium security institution to a maximum security institution on an emergency and involuntary basis. in response to the transfer decision, the inmate filed an application for relief in the form of habeas corpus on the grounds that the decision taken was unreasonable and that it was procedurally unfair. [2] at issue in this case is the state of the law with respect to the writ of habeas corpus. in particular, this court must clarify the scope of a provincial superior courts review power on an application for habeas corpus made by a prison inmate. the first question before the court is whether on such an application a provincial superior court may rule on the reasonableness of an administrative decision to transfer an inmate to a higher security institution or whether the reasonableness of the decision must be dealt with by the federal court on an application for judicial review. the second question concerns the information that must be disclosed to ensure that a transfer decision is procedurally fair. [3] in my view, superior courts are entitled to review an inmate transfer decision for reasonableness on an application for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid. if a decision is unreasonable, it will be unlawful. support for this conclusion can be found in the nature of the writ, in past court decisions regarding the writ, and in the importance of swift access to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 2014 (FN)

Antal Babos Vs. Her Majesty the Queen

Court : Canada Supreme Court

moldaver j. i. introduction [1] this appeal provides the court with an opportunity to revisit the law of abuse of process as it relates to state conduct that impinges on the integrity of the justice system but does not affect trial fairness sometimes referred to as the residual category? of cases for which a judicial stay of proceedings may be ordered. in particular, we are tasked with clarifying the approach to be followed when determining whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered where such conduct is uncovered. [2] as we shall see, the appellants, antal babos and sergio piccirilli, complain about three forms of state misconduct: (1) attempts by the original provincial crown attorney to intimidate them into foregoing their right to a trial by threatening them with additional charges should they choose to plead not guilty; (2) collusion on the part of two police officers to mislead the court about the seizure of a firearm from mr. baboss car; and (3) improper means used by a federal crown attorney in obtaining mr. piccirillis medical records from the detention centre where he was being detained pending trial. [3] notably, the appellants do not argue that they cannot receive a fair trial as a result of the alleged incidents of misconduct they accept that they can. they submit instead that this is one of the clearest of cases in which a stay of proceedings is necessary to preserve and protect the integrity of the justice system. anything short of that would amount .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //