Sentences with word «affiant»

My friend had a more conservative reading of the law so he continued to meet with affiants in person.

However, such affiants shall be subpoenaed to provide information to the hearing body in the event of a public hearing or to a court of law in the event of a court proceeding.

Further, the cross-examinations of the applicants ‟ affiants revealed that other causes might exist for any perceived difficulty in organizing the hoped - for turnout — e.g. the overall security measures taken for the G20 Summit, as well as the well - publicized risk of unlawful conduct by others.

In countless Canadian and other decisions abroad, joint affidavits have been received and considered by the courts without any thought as to whether an affidavit made by more than one affiant at the same time and as to the same allegations is good evidence.

Although affidavits based on information and belief that fail to state the source of the information are not struck out automatically (see Carevest Capital Inc. v. North Tech Electronics Ltd. 2010 ONSC 1290 (CanLII) at para. 16), one doubts whether these vague «advised by the file» affidavits are proper information and belief evidence at all or whether they really just serve to put the affiant lawyer's personal opinion of the case before the court.

When creating your Affidavit of Eligibility, you'll want to include information like: the name of the contest or sweepstakes; who's making the affidavit; who's requesting the affidavit; where it will be signed; the social security number of the person proving their eligibility (known as «the affiant»); and the affiant's contact information.

From the information provided in Barr, we know the affiants included several Alberta peace officers and at least one expert on crime prevention and organized crime (Barr at paras 7, 11, 12, 14).

If you've given your statement on an affidavit, you are the affiant.

Question for advanced students: what difference would or should it make if the affiant and the commissioner were in different jurisdictions?

Implementation question: How well would the commissioner have to be able to see the document signed by the affiant in order to know that what he / she later got on his / her desk for commissioning was the same document?

The affidavit evidence must be specific, must be based on the personal knowledge of the affiant as much as possible and should specify that the actual or potential damage to the plaintiff is «very serious».

Question: Is one sufficiently «in the presence» of the commissioner if the commissioner can see and hear the affiant / deponent by video link or by videophone link as with Skype video?

There is no reason for this sentence because the affiant has nothing else to say — anyone can see this by reading the affidavit.

For instance, I found four different versions of the sadly common «Further your affiant» language at the end of an affidavit used in Minnesota:

Case # 1: «The affidavit material filed in support of and opposition to the application contained hearsay, double - hearsay, statements without attribution or that could not be in the affiant's personal knowledge, argument, speculation and other statements of dubious admissibility.

A lot of the content in those affidavits is inadmissible because it is hearsay, double - hearsay, opinion or speculation, facts stated that are outside of the affiant's personal knowledge or facts that have an insufficient foundation.

Suppression remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth, or if the

The court held that the words of the affidavit were those of the affiant, and not of the lawyer, as was the representation that the content contained therein was true.

However, proper technology that is probably currently available could still make the process paperless, so long as the affiant's and commissioner's signature can be put on the same electronic document.

At my first trial earlier this year, I thought I had the affiant trapped in an impending impeachment.

1) ritual: make affiants go through relatively elaborate and fixed steps when they make their written statements — to give a chance to reconsider to people who intend to lie or who are not sure of the truth of what they are about to sign and to discredit attempts to claim that the affiant did not know what he or she was doing when they signed the affidavit;

In that case, the affiant should receive a token of consideration (assuming that doctrine exists anymore) instead of paying for the service of converting of lies into truth.

If the DA declines to prosecute, then an affiant can petition the Court of Common Pleas to review the decision.

However the affiant bears the burden of convincing the court that the DA abused his descretion in declining to prosecute, which is a pretty high hurdle.

2) authentication: create a circle of trusted and responsible people who will administer the ritual (including ID verification) and observe the affiant to ensure the veracity of their oath (oaths are a religion - related vestige and require a holy book; for secular people, there are affirmations — but check your jurisdiction for details).

Imagine a bot asking the standard commissioner ritual questions and video - recording the affiant to fix any evidence of authenticity or its lack.

Cross-examination on affidavit is best reserved for cases in which the affiant attests to information which is not supported by any documentary evidence.

The rules mandate disclosure of all material from the police investigative file in order that its contents may be compared to the information underpinning an affiant's reasonable grounds for belief (and investigative necessity in wiretap cases) as set out in an affidavit or information to obtain.

She indicated that the parties would then have the option to cross-examine the affiants.

After the case Conference, and facing an unexpected affidavit in a written hearing proceeding, the insurer sought an adjournment of the case in order to cross examine the affiant and was denied.

I say that because, while the allegation of these particular surveillance techniques seems outlandish and unlikely, the response that the affiant, a detachment commander with no asserted expertise in the matter, does not know of the technology and has no reason to believe it is a technology that the R.C.M.P. uses is not sufficiently definitive to be dispositive of the matter.

The Court upheld all of the trial judge's decisions that summary trials were appropriate stating at para 80, that «The existence of conflicting affidavit evidence establishes that there is disagreement among the affiants.

It does not necessarily establish that any of the affiants lack credibility.»

The plaintiff sought to cross-examine the affiant, the defendants refused, and the parties ended up in front of Master Haberman for a determination as to whether cross-examination was appropriate.