Sentences with phrase «appeal found»

The Court of Appeal found that B.C.C.T. had acted within its jurisdiction, but affirmed the trial Judge's decision that there was no reasonable foundation for B.C.C.T.'s finding of discrimination.

The Court of Appeal found the Lord Chancellor's Guidance on Exceptional Funding to be unlawful in the case of R (Gudanaviciene & ors) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework and The Lord Chancellor [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, 15 December 2014.

The Court of Appeal found more compelling a claim by a Mrs Ferguson against British Gas in 2009.

For example, in R v Rogers [1995] 1 Cr App R 374, the exception was accepted to be applicable in principle in a criminal trial for possession of heroin, but the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge correctly excluded evidence that a deceased person had admitted that the heroin belonged to him and other people were «after him for the money for the heroin.»

In the circumstances the Court of Appeal found there was no procedural irregularity vitiating the grant of the consents.

The Court of Appeal found that, were it not for the power of the courts to grant exemptions from paying hearing fees, the fees would be an «unconstitutional impediment to justice.»

The Court of Appeal found it «strongly arguable» that British Gas's conduct satisfied this test (Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] 3 All ER 304).

Importantly, the Court of Appeal found that this case was appropriate for the application of the SSAG, even when the original order preceded the introduction of the SSAG.

On the second ground, the majority of the Court of Appeal found the appellant failed to establish the trial judge erred in assessing the claim for loss of future income earning capacity.

A majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal found that it did.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing court placed too much emphasis on ability to pay because it thought it was precluded from imposing a sentence that might result in Metron's bankruptcy.

The Chief Commissioner reached the opposite conclusion, but the Court of Appeal found he relied upon facts and reasoning extraneous to the established law.

Following the principles of R. v. J.W., 2011 NSCA 76, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal found analysis pursuant to s. 684 involves two separate inquiries: the first, to determine whether Mr. Martin has sufficient means to obtain legal assistance on his own; and the second, whether it is desirable in the interests of justice for Mr. Martin to have appointed assistance in this matter.

The Court of Appeal found for a revocation of a waiver to be effective it must provide reasonable notice to the receiving party: Petridis at paragraph 20.

The Court of Appeal found Mr. Barry's application met the above listed restoration criteria.

Finally, the Court of Appeal found that allowing the Crown to use an insurance statement (required as part of a process designed to facilitate the determination of liability) as part of a criminal prosecution would be to allow the Crown to do, through other means, what ss.

However, at trial, the appellant provided an «insufficient factual underpinning» to ground compensation for loss of earning capacity; the Court of Appeal found this part of the claim failed because the judge found the appellant did not meet the burden described in the Perren decision — the trial judge simply did not accept the appellant's evidence of his limitations and anecdotal evidence from other witnesses did not shore up his testimony.

The Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge took too strict a view of what constituted «a significant advance».

Accordingly, the Alberta Court of Appeal found no fault with the trial judge's determination Mr. Porter's TSA statement was provided on the basis of an honest and reasonably held belief he was required to do so (note: this is an important precondition for exclusion as per White).

As such, the Court of Appeal found the balance of the claim as against Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre should not have been dismissed and amended paragraph two of the Motion Judge's decision.

As such, the Court of Appeal found no reasonable claim on this point.

Citing R. v. Généreux, 1992 CanLII 117 (SCC), the Court of Appeal found no basis to recognize being a member of the Canadian forces as an analogous basis for discrimination: «We are not in a period of massive demobilization, nor in a period when military personnel are treated as social outcasts.

The Court of Appeal found that motion judge failed to assess the fairness of deciding this matter by way of summary judgment given the conflicting evidence and the fact that Rule 76.01 prohibited from cross-examining the plaintiffs on their affidavits.

The Court of Appeal found that the Employment Offer acted as a complete stand - alone contract of employment, and the plaintiff was in fact employed under the terms of that contract for nine months prior to signing the Agreement.

The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff was not required to accept the defendant's offer.

As such, with or without the City of Toronto as amicus curiae, the Court of Appeal found there would have been no change to the ultimate outcome.

The Court of Appeal found that the «principle of finality» militates in favour of allowing the parties to decide when a dispute has been resolved.

The Court of Appeal found that determinations as to foreseeability are a question of fact in each case.

The Post said the Ontario Court of Appeal found no reason to alter the Ottawa trial judge's decision which ordered McDonald's to pay the 67 - year - old woman $ 104,499.33 for the lack of notice and damages she suffered, plus interest and costs.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found that an appeal is a statutory right.

Notwithstanding its participation in previous proceedings, the Court of Appeal found the City of Toronto was able to provide ``... a useful contribution to the resolution of the case, without causing injustice to the Scadutos».

Since the Court of Appeal found «no ambiguity» in the language of the bylaw (See para. 33), the Trial Judge's interpretation was not entitled to deference.

For example, in MacDonald v. ADGA Systems International Ltd. 6 the Ontario Court of Appeal found the following language enforceable:

Citing R v Schmaltz, 2015 ABCA 4 at para. 13 and R v Werkman, 2007 ABCA 130 at para. 3, the Court of Appeal found both the issue of trial fairness and application of the rule in Browne v Dunn were questions of law reviewable on the correctness standard.

Contrary to the submission of the Appellant, the Court of Appeal found the Trial Judge was entitled to accept witness evidence (including from those not trained as veterinarians); it was ``... unreasonable to suggest that a device that is designed to deliver a meaningful shock to an animal many times larger than the dogs in question would not cause unnecessary pain or suffering...» (See para. 16).

At another point in the trial, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's criticism that counsel's submissions lacked conviction and sincerity, was not justified.

Despite the words ``... without becoming a party to the proceeding» contained in the Rule, the Court of Appeal found, pursuant to Oakwell Engineering Ltd. v. EnerNorth Industries Inc., 2006 CarswellOnt 9793 (C.A.), at para. 9, that amicus curiae need not be «impartial», «objective» or «disinterested» in the outcome of a case.

With respect to trial fairness, the Court of Appeal found the Trial Judge did not raise the issue of whether counsel had cross-examined the complainants on the Appellant's assertion that it was Abdi alone who was involved in the robberies.

Conclusion The British Columbia Court of Appeal found that while the Province tried to blur the distinction between data and individual health care records, the evidence showed that this is a true distinction and there is no real privacy threat.

The Court of Appeal found that while it was clear Mr. Aubrey believed that he was being promised the severance package if he retired, there was no evidence the employer had actually referenced retirement when discussing the severance package with him.

The Court of Appeal found that the statistics did not support this contention and therefore no discrimination had been established.

While the Court of Appeal found factors 5 through 8 «presented no difficulty» to the granting of CACE's application, the balance of these factors were problematic.

While there has been a limited amount of case law in relation to this remedial power, in the recent decision of Doyle v. Zochem Inc., 2017 ONCA 130, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that both moral damages and human rights damages may be awarded for termination - related employer conduct that is unfair or is in bad faith and which causes the employee mental distress.

Finally, the Court of Appeal found that, notwithstanding the Appellants» assertion that they sought declaratory relief only, the claim really sought «consequential relief» in the form of damages and so the exception under s. 16 (1)(a) of the Limitations Act, 2002 does not apply.

In Hupacasath First Nation v. Minister of Foreign Affairs Canada, [12] the Federal Court of Appeal found against one First Nation appellant seeking consultation prior to the ratification of a bilateral investment treaty with China.

With respect to inadequate or late disclosure by the Crown, the Court of Appeal found «The Crown provided no satisfactory explanation why defence counsel was not advised, in advance, that Terrio would be testifying.

The Court of Appeal found rectification is not a doctrine that allows a court to revise a party's document simply because it has produced unanticipated adverse consequences.

With respect to the first 4 factors, the Court of Appeal found CACE ``... has no more direct interest in the outcome of this appeal than do lawyers generally who provide advice and counsel to employers...» (para. 27).

Overall, the Court of Appeal found that the UK must pay Zambrano carers such amount as will enable them to support themselves in order to be the carer for the EU citizen child within the EU but, subject to that, may determine to pay social assistance to them on some different basis from the basis applied to EU nationals themselves.

Citing Re Stelco Inc., 2005 CanLII 42247 (ON CA) at paras. 15 - 20 and Nortel Networks Corporation (Re), 2016 ONCA 332 (CanLII) at para. 34, the Court of Appeal found that, in considering whether to grant leave, a Court should consider whether: