All

Privy Council

The truth is, that [“all lands, mines, minerals and royalties” in the Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.) 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, s. 109] constitute a simple enumeration, that the word “all” applies equally to all four, and that it is in no case limited, except by the words “belonging” to the several Provinces, and the words might equally well have been “all royalties, lands, mines and minerals” or “all royalties, all lands, all mines and all minerals”. It is true that the word “territorial” is (in other contexts) employed in the opinions of the Judicial Committee in several of the earlier cases, but not, as it seems to their Lordships, in a sense which would support the present argument.

R. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) |
1923 CarswellNat 3 (Jud. Com. of Privy Coun.) at para. 10 |
Lord Sumner

Supreme Court of Canada

... the phrase “in all the electoral districts” [in the Canada Temperance Act, R.S.C. 1906, c. 152, s. 153] is here used as the equivalent of “in the whole province.”

Gold Seal Ltd. v. Dominion Express Co. |
1921 CarswellAlta 142 (S.C.C.) at para. 143 |
Anglin J.

Alberta

The ordinary meaning of “all” is “the whole amount”, “the greatest possible”, “the entire number”. It is a measure of quantity. It means “everything”. That says it all.

Continental Bank of Canada v. Rena Construction Ltd. |
1985 CarswellAlta 467 (Alta. Master) at para. 19 
Funduk (Master)

I can see no reason for attaching any meaning to the words other than the ordinary and usual one which means that the total number of votes cast in the province or territory ... is all that is contemplated by the words of [s. 153 of the Canada Temperance Act, S.C. 1919, c. 8].

Gold Seal Ltd. v. Dominion Express Co. |
1921 CarswellAlta 1 (Alta. C.A.) at para. 32 
Harvey C.J.


Manitoba

[The plaintiff contracted with defendant to “supply ... all artificial gas for power purposes” for five years.] I think the true agreement between the parties in this case was that during the period of five years thereafter the plaintiffs agreed with the defendants that they would manufacture and supply to the latter all the gas which the defendants would use for power purposes in their factory, and that the defendants agreed that they would take from the plaintiffs all the gas which they would use for that purpose during that period.

Brandon Gas & Power Co. v. Brandon Creamery & Supply Co. |
1912 CarswellMan 141 (Man. C.A.) at para. 13 
Howell C.J.M.

No doubt uncertainty in the interpretation of this contract largely arises from the use of the word “all” [in the phrase “supply ... all artificial gas”] It is, however, at least as readily susceptible of meaning “all that you may actually take from us” as “all that you may use from any source”.

Brandon Gas & Power Co. v. Brandon Creamery & Supply Co. |
1912 CarswellMan 141 (Man. C.A.) at para. 22 
Cameron J.A. (dissenting)

Nova Scotia

Blacks Law Dictionary (5th ed.), defines “all” as:
... the whole of — used with a singular noun or pronoun, and referring to amount, quantity, extent, duration, quality or degree.
The Random House Dictionary of English Language (1966), similarly defines “all” as “the whole of, the greatest possible ... every”.
. . . . .
... all means everything relating to the project, and not as suggested by the respondent and the learned trial Judge “substantially all”.

R. v. Westgate Construction Ltd. | 
1986 CarswellNS 108 (N.S. Co. Ct.) at para. 9, 16 
Palmeter Co. Ct. J.

Ontario

There is nothing in the wording of [R. 1.08 of Rules of Civil Procedure] to prevent a judge, as well as counsel or witnesses, from appearing in the courtroom remotely. The rule permits “all or part” of a motion to be conducted by video conference. The word “all” suggests the entire motion could be conducted this way.

Parsons v. Ontario |
2015 CarswellOnt 3336 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 219 
Juriansz J.A. 


“All” is a simple and straightforward term which denotes each and every thing ...

Essex (County) and CUPE, Local 2974.2 (Charette), Re |
2013 CarswellOnt 2007 (Ont. Arb.) at para. 38 
Davie (Member)


... the words “stock-in-trade and fixtures” do not sufficiently describe the goods intended to be mortgaged. I think the description would be quite sufficient if it were “all the stock-in-trade and fixtures contained in 613-615 Danforth Avenue, in the City of Toronto,” and I am not in agreement with what has been said in one of the cases cited this afternoon and I do not think that the description must state the particular kind of stock-in-trade. If in effect the words mean “all” as in the case that went to the House of Lords I think, Tailby v. Official Receiver (1888), 13 App. Cas. 523, ... then “all” means “all”, and the words “stock-in-trade and fixtures” mean all the stock-in-trade and fixtures situate in those premises belonging to the mortgagor. You must read both the body of the mortgage and the schedule together.

McLelland, Re |
1929 CarswellOnt 14 (Ont. S.C.) at para. 5 
Orde J.A.