On Monday, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice dismissed a motion brought by the union representing TTC employees to block the implementation of random drug and alcohol testing of TTC employees.
On December 7th, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice dismissed a motion for an adverse inference based on the destruction of hospital records.
A more common scenario was the subject of comment in Eisses v. CPL Systems Canada Inc., a 2009 case in which the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice dismissed a motion to disqualify counsel who received allegedly privileged e-mails and used them to amend its pleadings.
Not exact matches
U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff denied the board's
motion to
dismiss the suit, clearing the way for the parties — represented by the Brennan Center for
Justice and the law firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady — to move forward in advance of the 2012 election cycle.
On Thursday, State Supreme Court
Justice Catherine Panepinto denied a
motion by Cuomo and Office of Mental Health Commissioner Ann Sullivan to
dismiss the lawsuit made by Save Our Western New York Children's Psychiatric Center Coalition.
Staten Island Supreme Court
Justice Philip G. Minardo on March 12 denied a
motion to
dismiss the lawsuit on legal grounds.
«One is a
motion to
dismiss in the interest of
justice, primarily predicated upon internal emails among attorneys for the New York State Board of Election,» said attorney Joseph LaTona, who is also representing Maziarz.
An update on the court's website posted this afternoon says the panel will hear oral arguments on the
motion to
dismiss the suit and also calls on attorneys to update the court on the status of the U.S. Department of
Justice's preclearance process.
The
motion to
dismiss also cited a Supreme Court decision from 2013, Sekhar v. United States, in which the
justices restricted the definition of extortion under the Hobbs Act, an anti-racketeering statute enacted in 1946.
State Supreme Court
Justice John A. Michalek on Thursday ruled in favor of a New York State Education Department's (NYSED)
motion to
dismiss a lawsuit filed by the school.
Though the fatal drive - by shooting that incites «Lila and Eve's» plan for vengeance has nothing to do with the police, it's the cops» eager willingness to
dismiss 18 - year - old Stephon's (Aml Ameen) death as just another unsolvable casualty in the drug - turf wars — and by extension his mother's desperate need for
justice — that sets the fast - moving plot into
motion.
When that
motion was denied, Milanes
dismissed his own case and then refiled it in Washington, where the
Justice Department asked to have it sent back to Puerto Rico.
He brought a pretrial
motion for suppression of the text messages that was
dismissed by
Justice Laurence Pattillo in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice because (a) the text messages were no longer under Marakah's control when they were received by Winchester's iPhone and (b) Marakah therefore lacked standing because he no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages.
Justice Brown concluded that the former mayor's
motion should be
dismissed.
In Pena v. U-Pak Disposals Limited, Ontario Superior Court
Justice Benjamin Glustein
dismissed a mistrial
motion brought by the defendants» lawyers concerning information in a Toronto Sun article published on the second day of trial.
The same three
Justices [20] that dissented to the judicial recusal rule changes rejected the Panel's recommendation to grant
Justice Gableman's summary judgment
motion and to
dismiss the case.
Justice Then
dismissed the leave
motion, and awarded costs in the sum of $ 3,500.00.
The plaintiff brought a
motion to set aside the settlement, which
Justice Herman
dismissed in 2008.
On appeal,
Justices Cronk, Epstein, and Huscroft upheld the
motion judge's decision to
dismiss Ms. Brown's lawsuit.
Justice Wright stated in Menear v. Miguna, where a summary judgement
motion was granted to
dismiss a defamation claim on the basis that the statements in a book could not be libellous by UofT Press because they were unaware of the statements,
In the threshold
motion in Maxwell v. Luck, previously discussed here,
Justice Howell pushed back against what is increasingly becoming a routine attempt by insurers to
dismiss chronic pain on the basis of the lack of objective symptoms in personal injury claims.
LENK, J. Gordon Schultz appeals from decisions of a single
justice of this court
dismissing as untimely an appeal brought by Schultz pursuant to G. L. c. 231, s. 6G, and denying Schultz's subsequent
motions for reconsideration and enlarge
Limit on cross-examinations 7 (1) Subject to subsection (2), cross-examinations on any documentary evidence filed by the parties shall not exceed a total of seven hours for all plaintiffs in the proceeding and seven hours for all defendants (2) A judge may extend the time permitted for cross-examination on documentary evidence if it is necessary to do so in the interest of
justice Costs on dismissal 8 (1) If a judge
dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the
motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances.
The Superior Court of
Justice dismissed the plaintiff's
motion.
His
motion was
dismissed and
Justice Sherr further ordered that the father was barred from bringing any other
motion without leave of the Court.
The law firm brought a
motion (2016 ONSC 7964) in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice for summary judgment, requesting that the action against it be
dismissed.
The moving party, Metro Ontario Inc. («Metro»), sought leave to appeal the Order of the Honourable
Justice Akhtar,
dismissing its summary judgment
motion.
In a 58 - page ruling in 2010, Ontario
motions Justice Duncan Grace granted summary judgment against Hryniak in both cases and ordered him to pay $ 2.1 million, but
dismissed the
motions against Peebles and Cassels Brock, ruling those facts required a trial.
On May 22, 2009, Queens Supreme Court
Justice Satterfield granted the
motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of our client, an insurance agent for an insurer.
Mr.
Justice Savage agreed with the Plaintiff and
dismissed the
motion.
In Carpenter, the ONCA
dismissed the appellant's
motion for an extension of time on the basis that the
justice of the case did not warrant an extension.
In Neuberger v. York, a decision of
Justice Greer released in November 2014, she considered a
motion to
dismiss a will challenge that... read more
Justice Metivier
dismissed both applications and invited the parties to provide her with written submissions on the issue of costs.3 The Township, in conjunction with its written cost submissions, brought a
motion against Mr. Bickley seeking an Order requiring him to pay costs personally.
In chambers, van Rensburg J.A.
dismissed the appellant husband's
motion, primarily on the basis that the «
justice of the case» did not require an extension of time.
Justice Webb of the Federal Court of Appeal
dismissed the
motion.
Author: Evan Ivkovic, J.D., Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka In Hepburn v AlarmForce Industries Inc., released on October 6, 2017, by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in London, the court
dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment
motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial»).
In a 2014 decision,
Justice Lemon of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice upheld the decision of Wein J. to
dismiss the plaintiff's action for failure to comply with undertakings and to pay costs.1 The issue before Lemon J. was whether or not the material placed before Wein J. regarding outstanding undertakings on the ex-parte
motion was full, frank and fair...
Ontario Superior Court of
Justice: Applicants»
motion to
dismiss or stay the third party action,
dismissed.
They filed, in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, a
motion seeking an order
dismissing or staying the third party claim initiated against them, arguing Ontario courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the proceeding.
Ontario Superior Court of
Justice: Respondent's
motion challenging constitutionality of s. 95 (2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code
dismissed.
As it promised it would, The Authors Guild Appeal initiated an appeal of
Justice Denny Chin's judgment (which substantially
dismissed The Authors Guild's summary judgment
motion and granted Google's
motion).
The defendant brought a
motion to
dismiss the action under the section 137.1 (3) of the Courts of
Justice Act, which was implemented to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (the «anti-SLAPP» provisions).
The Ontario Superior Court of
Justice concluded on a
motion that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute and
dismissed the action, stating,
The Ontario Superior Court of
Justice recently released a decision in Maxwell v. Luck on a relatively small jury damages award, but
dismissed the threshold
motion and awarded the damages comprised largely of future income loss and general damages.
In Silver v. Imax,
Justice Katherine van Rensburg
dismissed Imax's
motion for summary judgment
dismissing the statutory claims of the plaintiffs for secondary market misrepresentation.
Given the circumstances,
Justice Price
dismissed the TTC's
motion to enforce the settlement as enforcing the settlement would be unfair to the plaintiff.
Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation («OEFC») brought a
motion under s. 7 (5) of the Courts of
Justice Act to vary
Justice Gillese's order
dismissing its
motion to stay a portion of certain Superior Court orders pending determination of its application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Larry Mader appeals from the decision of the Superior Court of
Justice upholding the Ontario Court of
Justice decision
dismissing his
motion to appoint private counsel for two children, L.M., soon to be 16 years old, and N.M., now 13 years old.
In Hepburn v AlarmForce Industries Inc., released on October 6, 2017, by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in London, the court
dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment
motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial»).
(1) Did
Justice Gillese err in
dismissing OEFC's
motion to stay portions of Superior Court orders pending determination of its application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada?