R. v. Olson, (1979) 20 A.R. 263 (SCC)
| Judge | Martland, Pigeon, Dickson, Estey and Chouinard, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | December 21, 1979 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | (1979), 20 A.R. 263 (SCC);20 AR 263;50 CCC (2d) 275;1979 CanLII 189 (SCC);[1980] 1 SCR 808;1 Sask R 415;106 DLR (3d) 561;[1980] 1 SCR 783;1979 CanLII 188 (SCC) |
R. v. Olson (1979), 20 A.R. 263 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Olson
Indexed As: R. v. Olson
Supreme Court of Canada
Martland, Pigeon, Dickson, Estey and Chouinard, JJ.
December 21, 1979.
Summary:
This headnote contains no summary.
Criminal Law - Topic 5686
Punishments - Warrant of committal - Effect of defective warrant of committal - The Alberta Court of Appeal directed the imprisonment of an accused - The warrant of committal directed the imprisonment of the accused in Alberta - The accused was imprisoned in Saskatchewan - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the direction respecting imprisonment in Alberta in the warrant was an administrative error which did not affect the validity of the imprisonment of the accused in Saskatchewan.
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 659 [para. 10].
Counsel:
No one appearing for the appellant;
Eric A Bowie, for the respondent, Crown.
This appeal was heard by MARTLAND, PIGEON, DICKSON, ESTEY and CHOUINARD, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on December 18, 1979.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered on December 21, 1979.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacKenzie et al. v. First Marathon Securities Ltd. et al., 2004 ABQB 834
...429; 12 C.P.C.(4th) 255; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161; [1997] S.C.J. No. 31 (S.C.C. No. 24981). 30. Novak et al. v. Bond (May 20, 1999) 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 32 C.P.C.(4th) 197; 45 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 63 B.C.L.R.(3d) 41; [1999] 8 W.W.......
-
Improving the potential of tort law for redressing historical abuse claims: the need for a contextualized approach to the limitation defence.
...period, but concluded that fairness to the plaintiff outweighed potential burdens for the defendant. See also Novak v Bond, |1999] 1 SCR 808, 172 DLR (4th) (115) For a critique of DE, see MSZ, supra note 112. (116) For example, in both Muir, supra note 10, and DE, supra note 14, the courts ......
-
Kay v. Swan Hills (Town) et al., 2002 ABQB 82
...N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289 (S.C.C. No. 21763). 13. Novak (Barbara) and Novak (Anton) v. Bond (Donald) , [May 20, 1999] 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C. No. 26811). See paras. 64 and following of [1999] 1 S.C.R. 14. At paras. 38 to 39 of [......
-
1126592 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. Condominium Corp. No. 0425913, [2014] A.R. Uned. 600 (PC)
...Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd ., 1998 1 S.C.R. 27 at paras. 21 to 22). [13] The Plaintiff in this case cited the case of Novak v. Bond , 1999 1 S.C.R. 808 and section 3(1)(a)(iii) The Plaintiffs placed great emphasis on the use of the word "warrants". [14] At paragraphs 66 and 67 in N......
-
MacKenzie et al. v. First Marathon Securities Ltd. et al., 2004 ABQB 834
...429; 12 C.P.C.(4th) 255; 217 N.R. 371; 103 O.A.C. 161; [1997] S.C.J. No. 31 (S.C.C. No. 24981). 30. Novak et al. v. Bond (May 20, 1999) 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 32 C.P.C.(4th) 197; 45 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 63 B.C.L.R.(3d) 41; [1999] 8 W.W.......
-
Kay v. Swan Hills (Town) et al., 2002 ABQB 82
...N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289 (S.C.C. No. 21763). 13. Novak (Barbara) and Novak (Anton) v. Bond (Donald) , [May 20, 1999] 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C. No. 26811). See paras. 64 and following of [1999] 1 S.C.R. 14. At paras. 38 to 39 of [......
-
1126592 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. Condominium Corp. No. 0425913, [2014] A.R. Uned. 600 (PC)
...Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes Ltd ., 1998 1 S.C.R. 27 at paras. 21 to 22). [13] The Plaintiff in this case cited the case of Novak v. Bond , 1999 1 S.C.R. 808 and section 3(1)(a)(iii) The Plaintiffs placed great emphasis on the use of the word "warrants". [14] At paragraphs 66 and 67 in N......
-
Condominium Corporation 0812755 v IBI Group Inc, 2019 ABQB 75
...the actual claimant. [Emphasis added.] [46] However, the Court in Main Street then made an unfortunate reference to Novak v Bond, [199] 1 S.C.R. 808 and erroneously attributed a passage to Major J. (who participated in the dissenting decision, not the majority). The case involved section 6 ......
-
Improving the potential of tort law for redressing historical abuse claims: the need for a contextualized approach to the limitation defence.
...period, but concluded that fairness to the plaintiff outweighed potential burdens for the defendant. See also Novak v Bond, |1999] 1 SCR 808, 172 DLR (4th) (115) For a critique of DE, see MSZ, supra note 112. (116) For example, in both Muir, supra note 10, and DE, supra note 14, the courts ......