Sentences with phrase «appellant brought»

The appellant brought an application challenging the constitutionality of the trespass notice under s. 2 (b) and s. 7 of the Charter.

Rather than filing a notice of objection, the appellant brought this application to have the initial certificate declared null and void.

The appellant brought an application under rule 14.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking a mandatory order for the payment of money pursuant to an undertaking to pay.

Following the offer, the appellant brought an abuse of process application seeking a stay.

The appellant brought an application to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant brought a motion summary judgment motion.

[2] The appellant brought a motion for summary judgment under s. 16 of the Family Law Rules.

It was in respect of her containment that the appellant brought an action against the Commissioner for damages at common law for false imprisonment and under s 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) in respect of her right to liberty as guaranteed by Art 5 of the Convention.

The Appellant brought an action in the BC Supreme Court seeking a declaration that the Respondent was using its official mark without authorization, and seeking several orders including one requiring transfer of the domain names to it.

[3] The Appellant brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of all land surveyors in Ontario who registered or deposited their plans of survey in provincial land registry offices.

The appellants brought a motion to stay the proceedings, arguing that the Ontario court did not have the requisite jurisdiction or in the alternative, should decline jurisdiction on the grounds that Ontario is not the most convenient forum for the proceedings.

[2] The appellants brought a motion under Rule 21.01 (1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure [3] for a determination before trial of whether the defence of absolute privilege should be extended to protect statements made in municipal council meetings.

Since 29 July 2013, unless they are entitled to a remission on account of limited means, fees are payable by a claimant or appellant bringing a claim in the employment tribunal or an appeal in the Employment Appeal Tribunal («EAT»).

The Appellant brings an application seeking a declaration to this effect but the Application judge dismisses the application and holds that Bear Creek is a navigable stream.

The issue of the Douglases» capacity to bring this action came before the court in 2013, when the appellants brought a motion to strike the claim, arguing that the Douglases lacked capacity to commence the action because of their bankruptcies, and accordingly State Farm's action in their names was a nullity.

The appellants brought an action against their next door neighbour seeking injunctive relief and damages for: (i) invasion of privacy arising from video and audio cameras which they say were trained on their property; (ii) nuisance arising from outside speakers, floodlights and the occasional errant hockey puck; (iii) trespass arising primarily from the construction of two fences; and (iv) abuse of process arising from an application for a peace bond made by the respondents before a justice of the peace.

The appellants brought a motion to stay the action on the basis that the plaintiff and H&M failed to comply with the obligation of immediate disclosure set out in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Aecon Buildings v. Stephenson Engineering Limited.

Not exact matches

Dr. Mann has transgressed scientific norms and offended First Amendment principles by bringing a defamation claim against Appellants for their pointed criticism of his scientific methodology.

No other evidence supported the claim, but the appellant's counsel attempted to bring the deceased's prior firearms convictions into evidence.

Notwithstanding a delay of over four years in bringing a drug case of modest complexity to trial, both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal were of the view that the appellant was tried within a reasonable time.

The respondent brought an action in Ontario against Dr. Lu, three Chinese corporations and a British Virgin Island corporation (hereafter the «appellants») for breach of confidence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and / or unlawful interference with economic interests after discovering clones being sold in the global market.

[19] In this case, there was no «independent» or «other» evidence of fabrication that would bring the appellant's statements into the exception to the general rule that a disbelieved alibi can not be used to support an inference of guilt.

The respondent Judith McConnell brings an action for unjust enrichment seeking a remedial constructive trust in a property owned by the appellant Brian Huxtable.

Actions were brought in Ontario against a number of parties, including the appellant Club Resorts Ltd. («Club Resorts»), a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands that managed the two hotels where the accidents occurred.

The basic question was this: having appealed unsuccessfully to the provincial court, was the appellant entitled to bring a further appeal to the Court, or should he have sought judicial review in the superior court?

[35] The respondent argues that the appellant knew he had a claim while he was still employed at Pitney Bowes and ought to have brought his claim much earlier.

It will also bring a measure of justice to the appellant, Mr. Bhasin, who was misled and lost the value of his business as a result.

The adults brought suit for malicious prosecution against a number of people, including the Crown prosecutor, the appellant Miazga.

The moose was too large for the appellant to bring back to the Reserve.

«The appellant maintains that, by its nature, a tax on criminal defence legal fees will, at some level, be prohibitive or at the very least act as an impediment to or will interfere with the right to counsel since the additional cost of the tax to an accused will interfere with the financial resources available to mount a defence to the charges brought against him or her,» wrote Tax Court of Canada Justice Brent Paris, summing up the firm's case.

[1] The appellant, who is a lawyer, brought an action in Small Claims Court against the defendant seeking damages in the amount of $ 14,933.22 for breach of contract.

In my view, the trial judge failed entirely to consider the impact of the breaches on the appellant in assessing whether the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

In Rea v. Wildeboer, the appellants, including Rea Holdings Inc., brought an oppression claim under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act alleging misappropriation of funds from Martinrea International Inc..

The C.A. dismissed all other grounds of appeal suggesting that if it was not for the delay in bringing the appeal, the Tribunal may have been acting reasonably in revoking the appellant's membership.

In Gutowski, a municipal councilor brought an action in defamation against the appellants, fellow municipal councilors in the County of Frontenac, which stemmed from statements made by the appellants in a regular council meeting.

The respondent brought a public procurement claim against the appellant NDA, in connection...

The respondent brought a public procurement claim against the appellant NDA, in connection with its unsuccessful bid for a contract for services to decommission sites previously used for nuclear generation.

If an appellant has permission to appeal, it is wrong to impose a condition that has the effect of preventing him from bringing it or continuing it.

After the appellants failed to appear at the German arbitration and the Ontario application to enforce the German arbitral award, the appellants finally responded by bringing this appeal based on a technical argument under Article 35 (2) of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 9, which required the party relying on the foreign arbitral award to supply a certified copy of the original award to the application judge.

In this situation, the appellant had, in fact, filed a Reply factum, and the respondent brought a motion to strike the factum.

This was a motion brought by the respondent wife to dismiss the appellant husband's appeal.

In Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. M.S., the ONCA affirmed the motion judge's decision to deny the appellant father leave to bring a status review application for his children who were Crown wards.

The appellant husband previously brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal - FamilyWatch reported on the ONCA's dismissal of that motion in November 2015.

The ONCA noted that, per rule 63.01 (1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, such orders are not automatically stayed by an appeal — nor had the appellant father brought a motion to stay all or a part of the orders pending appeal, pursuant to rule 63.02 (1).

The respondent wife brought a motion asking the ONCA not to hear the appellant husband's appeal until he complied with the trial judge's order regarding the payment of spousal support and the posting of security for future spousal support payments.

The motion judge's knowledge finding was not the same as a discoverability finding since the knowledge finding did not resolve the discoverability consideration with respect to whether the Appellants knew that bringing the claim was legally appropriate.

Its reason for doing so was that if the officer was required to testify in a case that he might bring against the Appellant, his testimony will be at risk if the Appellant sought disclosure of the unproven allegations.

The Court of Appeal directed the terms of an expedited appeal, something that is typical in abduction appeals and in January 2015 Mr. Sampley brought an application to the Court of Appeal to remove Appellant's counsel, as he deposed he had a telephone conversation with Appellant's counsel prior to the BCSC hearing, wherein he disclosed confidential information to her.

When the Appellant did not return, the Respondent brought an application for an order under the Hague Convention that the child be returned to Montana.

The respondent then brought a successful motion pursuant to r. 12.07 for the order that is the subject of this appeal, granting her leave to amend her statement of claim to add the individual appellants as representatives of all the members of Local 773.