Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Canada | +1 (343) 700 0450

Boucher v. the King, 11 CR 85

Document Cited authorities 7 Cited in 34 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Citation11 CR 85, [1951] 2 DLR 369, 1950 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1951] 2 DLR 754, 99 CCC 113, [1951] SCR 265, 11 CR 357, 99 CCC 1, [1951] SCR 115, 1950 CanLII 2 (SCC)
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
JudgeRinfret, Thibaudeau; Kerwin, Patrick; Taschereau, Robert; Rand, Ivan Cleveland; Estey, James Wilfred; Locke, Charles Holland; Fauteux, Joseph Honoré Gérald; Cartwright, John Robert; Kellock, Roy Lindsay
JurisdictionFederal Jurisdiction (Canada)
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
29 practice notes
  • R. v. Shergill (S.), (1997) 23 O.T.C. 218 (GD)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Ontario Court of Justice
    • 17 Enero 1997
    ...L.R. 273 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14]. R. v. Coffin, [1956] S.C.R. 191; 114 C.C.C. 1; 23 C.R. 1, consd. [para. 12]. Lizotte v. R. (1950), 99 C.C.C. 113 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16]. R. v. Marshall, [1965] 4 C.C.C. 35 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), consd. [para. 18]. R. v. Booth (1984), 15 C.C.C.(3......
  • R. v. Kopyto, (1987) 24 O.A.C. 81 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Ontario Court of Appeal
    • 27 Noviembre 1987
    ...parliamentary democracy. Indeed, this court may be said to have given it constitutional status . In Boucher v. R. , [1951] S.C.R. 265, 11 C.R. 85, 99 C.C.C. 1, [1951] 2 D.L.R. 369 [Que.], Rand J., who formed a part of the majority which narrowed the scope of the crime of sedition, said, at ......
  • R. v. MacDonald (J.J.), (1989) 90 N.S.R.(2d) 218 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
    • 14 Abril 1989
    ...(1) that Mr. Justice Hallett failed to instruct the jury in accordance with the judgment in Lizotte v. The King , [1951] S.C.R. 115; 99 C.C.C. 113, at p. 128, where Cartwright, J., said that the jury should be told that even if they are not satisfied the alibi has been proved, if the eviden......
  • R. v. O'Leary and O'Leary, (1982) 43 N.B.R.(2d) 50 (CA)
    • Canada
    • New Brunswick Court of Appeal of New Brunswick
    • 14 Abril 1982
    ...accepted the statement by "word or conduct, action or demeanour" - See paragraph 24. Cases Noticed: Lizotte v. R. (1950), 99 C.C.C. 113, refd to. [para. R. v. Dyck (1956), 116 C.C.C. 392, refd to. [para. 11]. R. v. Davidson, DeRosie and MacArthur (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 424 (Ont. C.......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • R. v. Shergill (S.), (1997) 23 O.T.C. 218 (GD)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Ontario Court of Justice
    • 17 Enero 1997
    ...L.R. 273 (Eng. C.A.), refd to. [para. 14]. R. v. Coffin, [1956] S.C.R. 191; 114 C.C.C. 1; 23 C.R. 1, consd. [para. 12]. Lizotte v. R. (1950), 99 C.C.C. 113 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16]. R. v. Marshall, [1965] 4 C.C.C. 35 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), consd. [para. 18]. R. v. Booth (1984), 15 C.C.C.(3......
  • R. v. Kopyto, (1987) 24 O.A.C. 81 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Ontario Court of Appeal
    • 27 Noviembre 1987
    ...parliamentary democracy. Indeed, this court may be said to have given it constitutional status . In Boucher v. R. , [1951] S.C.R. 265, 11 C.R. 85, 99 C.C.C. 1, [1951] 2 D.L.R. 369 [Que.], Rand J., who formed a part of the majority which narrowed the scope of the crime of sedition, said, at ......
  • R. v. MacDonald (J.J.), (1989) 90 N.S.R.(2d) 218 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
    • 14 Abril 1989
    ...(1) that Mr. Justice Hallett failed to instruct the jury in accordance with the judgment in Lizotte v. The King , [1951] S.C.R. 115; 99 C.C.C. 113, at p. 128, where Cartwright, J., said that the jury should be told that even if they are not satisfied the alibi has been proved, if the eviden......
  • R. v. O'Leary and O'Leary, (1982) 43 N.B.R.(2d) 50 (CA)
    • Canada
    • New Brunswick Court of Appeal of New Brunswick
    • 14 Abril 1982
    ...accepted the statement by "word or conduct, action or demeanour" - See paragraph 24. Cases Noticed: Lizotte v. R. (1950), 99 C.C.C. 113, refd to. [para. R. v. Dyck (1956), 116 C.C.C. 392, refd to. [para. 11]. R. v. Davidson, DeRosie and MacArthur (1974), 20 C.C.C.(2d) 424 (Ont. C.......
    • Request a trial to view additional results