Sentences with phrase «appeal affirmed»

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the lower court.

[16] The Court of Appeal affirmed this aspect of the trial judgment, noting that liability may lie with directors if they «exercise power in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial or unfairly disregards the interests of the complainant.»

Not so said that trial court, and the Florida's First District Court of Appeal affirmed.

[para. 15] The appeals are dismissed and the order of the Court of Appeal affirmed.»

The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONCA 471, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Law Society Hearing Panel and the Appeal Panel.

[31] In Walters v. Walters, 2011 BCCA 331, our Court of Appeal affirmed the principles which apply to the variance of support orders as those set out in Oakley v. Oakley (1985), 48 R.F.L. (2d) 307 (B.C.C.A.) at 313 as follows:

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision and said that the words «at the end» meant the same as «after the end».

The confusion continues with the decision in R v Corbeil, where the Quebec Court of Appeal affirmed a conviction where the accused represented that she had special training in palm reading, and charged an undercover police officer ten dollars.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the principle that an appeal may be restored if it is in the interest of justice to do so (see, for example, Settlement Lenders Inc. v. Blicharz, 2016 ABCA 33 (CanLII), at para. 13; Gould v. Gould, 2014 ABCA 144 (CanLII), at para. 4) and listed criteria to assist in defining that standard as follows:

On February 4th, the British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed a ruling that a gaming company had no duty to preserve betting slips redeemed by an individual to whom it denied a prize claim for over $ 6.5 million.

That being said, where an ambiguity is found, the Court of Appeal affirmed the view that a Trial Judge may directly examine the intentions of the parties.

The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that plaintiffs» claims in negligence and breach of confidence were properly certified at first instance.

The Court of Appeal affirmed in this decision that, in the absence of a statement of claim that discloses a cause of action, a class action can not be «conditionally certified.»

The Court of Appeal affirmed, following the Federal Court of Appeal's decision in Apotex Inc. v. Allergan Inc., 2016 FCA 155, that «Evidence of the actual state of mind or subjective intention of the parties is irrelevant to the existence of a valid contract and its terms» (See para. 35).

Referring to the decision of Justice Brown in Canada v. Fairmont Hotels Inc. and citing the earlier decision of Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd., 2002 SCC 19 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal affirmed that the purpose of rectification is to restore the parties to their original bargain, not to set right an error of judgment.

Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a national class action on demurrer, holding that the plaintiffs could not state a claim for breach of contract for insurer not following purported «national» automotive repair «standards.»

The Court of Appeal affirmed that leave to appeal is to be granted «sparingly» for CCAA proceedings.

The dual effort bore fruit: the trial court granted summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds and awarded attorney's fees for the costs of proving denied requests for admission, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings in full.

In a published opinion issued January 12, 2018, Heron Bay Homeowners Assn. v. City of San Leandro, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's partial grant of Heron Bay Homeowners Association's request for attorneys» fees following its successful CEQA suit against the City of San Leandro (the City).

In September 2016, the Court of Appeal affirmed the motion court judge's dismissal of the lawyer's summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision that wrongful summary variation of privileges should be assessed as an exercise of administrative bad faith, not breach of contract.

The order dismissing the writ of error will be vacated and set aside, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal Affirmed.

With respect to the second issue, whether the Trial Judge erred in «misapprehending the evidence», the Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Judge's finding there was simply no evidence beyond «mere conjecture» that an early warning would have prevented the loss suffered by the Appellants; their physical and psychological injuries (see at para. 30).

The Court of Appeal affirmed that this statutory provision limits the court's discretion to order costs against the named parties only unless the «person of straw» test is satisfied.

The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions of Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb but reduced their sentences by a total of two one years, each.

In Hartley v. Cunningham et al. 2013 ONCA 759, the Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's decision that the tree belonged to both neighbours.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that a conveyance may be set aside, and the parcel registered rectified, where a transfer was made in error and the transferee was not a bona fide purchaser for value: 719083 Ontario Limited v. 2174112 Ontario Ltd..

In Faris v. Eflimovski, the Court of Appeal affirmed its earlier judgment in 1196158 Ontario Inc. v. 6274013 Canada Limited16 where it held that the plaintiff bears a stringent burden at a status hearing pursuant to the former Rule 48.14 (13).

The Court of Appeal affirmed that human rights damages are remedial damages, and compensate for the intrinsic value of the infringement of rights under the Code.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision and the secretary of state appealed to the House of Lords.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

The B.C. Court of Appeal affirmed the ability to allow for deviations from absolute proporationality given smaller provinces already enjoy guaranteed representation in relation to their respective populations.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the plaintiff was not obliged to seek information from adverse parties prior to documentary and oral discovery, in circumstances where those adverse parties have no legal obligation to provide the information.

The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed in Hopkins v. Kay, 2015 ONCA 112, that patients were not precluded by Ontario's privacy legislation from bringing a class action (based on the tort of intrusion upon seclusion) relating to improperly - accessed patient records.

The Court of Appeal affirmed [2016 ONCA 585, affirming 2015 ONSC 6177, 127 O.R. (3d) 260] a lower court judgment that stated «it would not be in the interests of justice to encourage an overly muscular development of the concept of pre-discovery due diligence.»

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's ruling that, by choosing Ontario law as the governing law, the parties imported the obligations under the Act but not the jurisdictional limit contained within the Act.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that lender had not violated the Act and the California Supreme Court denied managing member's petition for review.

The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed LSUC's decision to refuse accreditation, despite infringing rights of religious freedom, given the impact of the covenant on rights of students — potential members of the profession — to be free from discrimination.

Though the Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, the court found the penalty, for which the committee had given no reasons, had been increased by reason of the committee's annoyance at the member's cavalier attitude and personality [25], and accordingly the committee gave weight to the member's attitude in an improper manner [26].

The district appealed, and in late May, the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court order in a landmark decision for LGBTQ rights.

On Wednesday, the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed previous rulings that Luthmann hadn't collected enough signatures to make it onto the ballot.

In July 2005, the California Court of Appeals affirmed that districts must consider the needs of charter students and district students equally.

In August, 2016, the First District Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court, holding that the plaintiffs suffered no special injury from the tax credit scholarship program, and that the state legislature did not exceed its authority under the constitution.

«If the Court of Appeals affirms the lower court's decision, it will create a precedent where a district can be found liable based solely on wrongdoing by a school official, regardless of how vigilant a school district is in monitoring employees, and without the district being given the opportunity to address the harassment in question,» stated Thomas J. Gentzel, Executive Director, National School Boards Association.

Court of Appeals affirmed conviction.

After the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed their right to do so, in AEP v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that such claims were «displaced by the federal legislation authorizing EPA to regulate carbon - dioxide emissions.»

The New South Wales Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, effectively stopping the mine expansion in its tracks.

In 1998's State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, the Federal Court of Appeals affirmed the patentability of business methods that involve some practical application and produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result.

Since Oct. 1, 2008, 6,280 appeals have been filed, although the Board of Patent Appeals affirms the PTO's decisions more than 70 percent of the time.

In US v. Mitchell, No. 09 - 3041, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction for money laundering conspiracy, holding that 1) the indictment was not so defective that defendant could not have reasonably understood the offense for which he was charged; and 2) defendant did not show that the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of certain tax information.