Sentences with phrase «appellants agree»

Appellants agree that the 453,374 pounds received for their residence should be translated into U.S. dollars at the $ 1.82 exchange rate prevailing at the date of sale.

Counsel for the appellant agreed that he could not rely on res ipsa loquitur on the facts of this case and he limited himself to the two submissions to which we have referred.

However, there was ample evidence for the summary trial judge to conclude that the Appellant agreed to the reduced amount, including the fact that the Appellant took no steps after her relationship with the abusive partner ended to enforce the terms of the original support order or seek arrears.

By an Agreement of Purchase and Sale made in July 2015 (the «APS»), the appellant agreed to sell to the respondent an undeveloped 3.6 acre parcel of land for a sale price of $ 3,960,000.

The appellant agreed and was paid $ 150.00 later that night when he met up with Officer A.

Furthermore, the panel agreed with the application judge's alternate conclusion that the mark - up is not a tax because the appellant agreed to it in its contract.

Not exact matches

While not necessarily agreeing with every characterization of Mr Machado's, I'd say he does a reasonable job of explaining why, in court on November 25th, I'll be sitting in my amicus briefs rather than among the appellants.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the appellant's grounds of appeal had no merit but they were concerned with the breadth of the injunction.

In written reasons, the Court of Appeal agreed the appellant was a vexatious litigant; had caused a public nuisance; that the AG had standing to seek an injunction to prevent the public nuisance from continuing; that the court had inherent jurisdiction to control its own process; and that the activities of the appellant interfered with the administration of justice.

But I agree with the trial judge that if the Legislature had intended to limit the scope of the words «sufficient reason» to the extent suggested by the appellant, it could readily have done so.

Rather, the Court agreed that the application judge, leaving the choice of dispute resolution proceedings open to the parties granted better flexibility and that a trial would not grant any material advantage as argued by the appellant.

The appellant, Ahmed Baig, agreed to purchase a property from a court - appointed receiver for approximately $ 6.2 million.

In an interim decision in Pieters v. Law Society of Upper Canada, Michael Gottheil, executive chair of the HTRO, agreed with the appellant, Toronto lawyer Selwyn Pieters, that a variety of documentation should be produced to him by Ontario's Law Society pertaining to his apprehension by a security guard when Pieters entered the Law Society building that day, the seizing of his membership card, and Pieters» subsequent experience in the Law Society building.

... I agree that the Board did not adopt the evidence of any particular witness for or against the appellant.

But the parties were agreed that when counsel for the secretary of state was making submissions in the Inner House on the appropriate remedy she had conceded that the appellant would be granted indefinite leave to remain if the court were to decide to restore the decision of the adjudicator.

No sir, the 6th Circuit held, because the appellant had agreed to undergo drug testing and

Counsel for the respondents agreed that if Talisman was liable to the appellant, KBR would be also.

[20] The court added: «As I said, I agree with the appellant's submission that the trial judge erred in applying the material contribution test after he successfully reasoned his way through the «but for» test.»

While the Court agreed with the trial judge that the by - laws did not violate s. 15 of the Charter, it held that certain aspects of the two by - laws breached the appellants» freedom of expression.

[4] The appellants unsuccessfully argued the motion and the appeal, with both courts agreeing that the defence of qualified privilege, but not absolute privilege, applies to statements made by municipal councilors in council meetings.

The Intervenor agrees with the facts stated in the Factums filed by the Appellant Crown (the «Crown») and the Appellant Maurice Genereux («Dr. Genereux, respectively»).

An etymologist or grammarian might agree with the appellants that a vane of any type is still a vane.

As such, the Court of Appeal could not agree with the Appellants» argument that, in the circumstances of this case, the Trial Judge ought to have relaxed the causation test so as to permit a «common sense» analysis of the issue.

I agree with the appellant and the responded that the appellant's termination is encompassed by the Investment Agreement.

[5] The parties propose, and we agree, that the term of probation be six months, that the appellant have no contact with the complainant, that the appellant be subject to a weapons ban, that the appellant reside at a location approved by his probation officer, and that he report to his probation officer as that officer directs.

Did you know that in Alberta since September last year just about every appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal — the appellant has to get permission from the court to file the appeal and often the judge whose decision is being appealed has to agree.

The ONCA dismissed the appellant's first argument, noting that the trial judge had properly considered the expert evidence, but agreed that the trial judge had erred in allowing the wife to deduct notional costs of disposition from the value of the property.

The appellate court agreed with appellant Wilson that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to strike and dishonor the dismissal, but critically found the lower court retained jurisdiction to enter discovery sanctions and attorney's fees (the latter, subject to any Santisas limitations) post-dismissal anyway.

The Appellant Municipality of Middlesex Centre opposes the Respondents» attempt to «get around the planning act» (see para. 41); does not agree Bear Creek is a navigable stream.

The parties agree that, after taking into account the impact of the equalization order, the respondent has a combined yearly income of some $ 33,000 and the appellant $ 41,000.

We agree with the submission of counsel for the respondents that the relationship was such that the parties could not have contemplated that the appellant could make claims against the personal respondent arising from her dismissal that she could not make against the corporate respondent.

We agree with counsel for the appellant that the trial judge wrongly focused on the likely difficulties of a change in custody — which the only evidence on the subject indicates will be short - term and not «devastating» — and failed to give paramountcy to M.'s long - term interests.

The parties «wisely settled» repair costs ($ 35,664) and accelerated depreciation ($ 36,350.25); they could not agree on the value of the appellant's loss - of - use.

The Respondent, Al Boom Wooden Pallets Factory, agrees to purchase a certain volume of finished lumber from the Appellant, Jazz Forest Products (a lumber products wholesaler).

As part of these particular negotiations, the Respondent agrees to credit the Appellant $ 27,121.23 for unused hanger space and encourages the Appellant to enter into an extension.

After the Trial Judge reminds the Appellants of their onus to prove monies received were not taxable, the Appellants approach the Respondents and agree to discontinuance of the action on consent.

The S.C.C. was unable to agree with the Appellant, and instead agreed with the Commissioner that the «Prevention» wording of s. 92 generally supports the analysis and conclusions of the Tribunal and the Federal Court of Appeal.

Although Justice Cromwell found that the warrant authorized the search for documents proving ownership or occupation of the property, he agreed with the appellant and stated that a computer searches require specific pre-authorization in the warrant.

The Appellant said that she was pressured into agreeing to the reduction by other people present at the meeting.

In a concurring judgment, Lord Clarke agrees with Lady Hale that by the terms of the appellant's contract with the respondent LLP, she undertook to perform personally certain work or services for it and her status was not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer.

The vice ‑ president agreed that the appellant had just won the grand prize referred to in the Document.

In delivering the Panel's decision, Justice Sachs agreed with the Appellants that the case law surrounding Commission reviews of SRO decisions highlights the importance of deference to an SRO's findings.

However, in order to prevent the APS from floundering on this issue, the respondent agreed to pay the $ 407,582 necessary to satisfy the severance condition but reserved its rights to seek that amount back from the appellant.

You must either agree with the appellant's list or send the appellant back a revised list by serving the appellant with a revised list within ten days after you received the appellant's list.

The Appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the parties had agreed she could take interest into account in the equalization process, and that this agreement was embodied in the second consent order.

The Court of Appeal does not agree, finding s. 9 operates in this case to bar the Appellant's claims.

When the contract was entered into the principal of the Appellant, Mr. Astrope, ordered blank change order forms for the purpose of evidencing agreed changes to the contract.

An appellant is one who does plea; Begs the Court of Appeals to agree That the lower court erred.

Lord Hope, agreeing, said that the ordinary rules of causation did nothing to advance the appellants» claim for the psychological effect of risks of injury.

While the Respondent argued that the decision to proceed by special case was a discretionary one to which deference was owed, the Appellants argued that the special case was not appropriate because: the questions posed in the special case rested on a hypothetical assumption that the agreements were valid; necessary facts were not included and not all the facts were agreed upon by the parties; and the parties did not sign the statement of special case as required by Rule 9 - 3 (3)(c).