Sentences with phrase «court narrows the application»

The High Court narrows the application of legal professional privilege, rejecting the argument that internal investigation documents are privileged against regulators, such as the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

Not exact matches

The third judge, while agreeing that the statute as written is unconstitutional, argued that the court should adopt a narrowing interpretation to avoid unconstitutional applications and preserve those portions that might be constitutional on their own.

70 While the principles of fairness and flexibility have informed the modern approach to the application of proprietary estoppel, as adopted by this Court in its jurisprudence (see Idle - O Apartments Inc. v. Charlyn Investments Ltd., 2014 BCCA 451 (B.C. C.A.) at para. 49; Sabey v. von Hopffgarten Estate, 2014 BCCA 360 (B.C. C.A.); Scholz v. Scholz, 2013 BCCA 309 (B.C. C.A.) at para. 31; Sykes v. Rosebery Parklands Development Society, 2011 BCCA 15 (B.C. C.A.) at paras. 44 - 46; Erickson v. Jones, 2008 BCCA 379 (B.C. C.A.) at paras. 52 - 57; Trethewey - Edge Dyking (District) v. Coniagas Ranches Ltd. [2003 CarswellBC 657 (B.C. C.A.)-RSB- at paras. 64 - 73; Zelmer v. Victor Projects Ltd. (1997), 34 B.C.L.R. (3d) 125 (B.C. C.A.) at paras. 36 - 37), there remains a necessary balancing between an overly broad application of the doctrine under the general guise of «unfairness» and an overly narrow application of the doctrine that places excessive weight on the technical requirements of the doctrine.

He also denied the application of the forum of necessity doctrine, a narrow and exceptional remedy that allows the court to take jurisdiction despite there not being jurisdiction simpliciter.

The silver lining in this decision is that the application judge restricted his decision to the particular facts of the case before him, explaining that «this ruling is meant to apply only to the narrow factual situation before the Court; it is not to apply more broadly to allow any insured to obtain interest on amounts left unapplied for after 104 weeks.»

In its highly anticipated ruling, the Salman Court reaffirmed Dirks and its personal benefit requirement, but failed to provide clarity about the scope and application of the personal benefit requirement outside of the narrow facts presented in Salman.

Even if the courts consistently adopt the narrow approach there remain difficulties with the application of the Act to construction work performed on process industry sites and these are:

The Supreme Court of Canada has passed up the opportunity to clarify the application of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity (IJI) to reserve lands following its decisions in Tsilhqot» in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 and Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario (Natural Resources), 2014 SCC 48 (Keewatin) in June 2014 by denying leave to appeal in the Sechelt Indian Band case.

As ATS jurisprudence has evolved, courts have largely narrowed its application, reducing foreign plaintiffs» abilities to have their claims adjudicated in American federal courts.

In R (on the application of Green) v The City of Westminster Magistrates» Court [2007] EWHC 2785 (Admin)(05 December 2007)(blogged here), a Divisional Court of the English High Court held that only a very narrow version of the common law crime of blasphemy is compatible with Article 10, and found that Jerry Springer — The Opera was not blasphemous.

If the court had accepted the narrower construction of the series of similar acts test, the result would have been a proliferation of protective applications to tribunals, intended to ensure that potential early detriments would not be ruled out of time in the event that a discriminatory situation later escalated.

Recognizing that the section as drafted had immense potential breadth and, if interpreted literally, could criminalize the conduct of a government employee who accepted a free cup of coffee from a friend who had tax problems, the Court tried to narrow its application.

While some have characterized the majority decision in Carter as a narrow application of stare decisis to avoid dealing with the merits, a closer look reveals an important contemporary appellate endorsement of the underlying rationale for the prohibition on assisted suicide as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Rodriguez.

The court narrowed the grounds on which such applications will succeed; stating that there needs to be a «very good reason» to extend time.