Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Appeals from the Court of Appeal lie with the Supreme Court of Canada, Canada's court of last resort. Other than certain criminal matters, appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada are heard only by leave of that court. Since the Supreme Court denies leave in most cases, the Court of Appeal is the final court for most matters originating in Alberta.
The Supreme Court had partially invalided (for extreme intoxication akin to automatism) a similar common law rule (the Leary rule) in R v Daviault, and it was in fact the backlash to Daviault which had even spurred Parliament to enact section 33.1. Judge Willie Dewit for the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck down the provision. Judge ...
"This appeal by special leave is presented by the Attorney-General of Alberta against the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated the 2nd December, 1941, which answered certain questions concerning the constitutional validity of the Debt Adjustment Act, 1937, of the Province of Alberta as amended by five later Acts." Viscount Maugham
The decision was immediately attacked as being logically inconsistent and a "basket of contradictions", [44] and upholding "the strange and growth-defying ability of provinces to restrict inter-provincial trade." [49] One editorial stated, "The Supreme Court's decision this week in the 'Free the Beer' case could drive you to drink. Not that you ...
Decisions that do not note a Justice delivering the Court's reason are per coram. Multiple concurrences and dissents within a case are numbered, with joining votes numbered accordingly. Justices occasionally join multiple reasons in a single case; each vote is subdivided accordingly.
Deschamps and Rothstein JJ. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Canadian Western Bank v Alberta [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3 is a landmark decision in Canadian constitutional law by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) relating to the division of powers between Federal and Provincial legislative bodies.
Schmidt v Calgary Board of Education (Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sinclair, Clement and Moir, JJ.A. October 26, 1976) is the basis for the legal requirement in Alberta that, where a separate school jurisdiction exists (they exist in only some of Alberta), members of the minority faith that established the separate school jurisdiction must be considered and treated as residents ...
The Coalition appealed the fair dealing issue to the Supreme Court maintaining that the Board's conclusion was not in accordance with the test in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339 and was therefore unreasonable.