Sentences with phrase «affiants in»

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

Not exact matches

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.

In your Affidavit of Financial Support, you'll want to cover information like: the name of the affiant (that is, the person making the affidavit); the name of the affiant's employer, if he or she is employed, what efforts the affiant has made to find employment; a list of all sources of income; the monthly deductions from the affiant's salary (for example: MediCare payments, income taxes, child support, health insurance and retirement contributions); the average monthly household expenses; any debts owed by the affiant; and a list of assets that the affiant owns or has some interest iIn your Affidavit of Financial Support, you'll want to cover information like: the name of the affiant (that is, the person making the affidavit); the name of the affiant's employer, if he or she is employed, what efforts the affiant has made to find employment; a list of all sources of income; the monthly deductions from the affiant's salary (for example: MediCare payments, income taxes, child support, health insurance and retirement contributions); the average monthly household expenses; any debts owed by the affiant; and a list of assets that the affiant owns or has some interest inin.

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).

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

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

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.

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.

In the information to obtain («ITO») sworn in support of the warrant, the affiant police officer indicated that she believed that the extended period for execution was necessary because drug traffickers» supply of narcotics is variablIn the information to obtain («ITO») sworn in support of the warrant, the affiant police officer indicated that she believed that the extended period for execution was necessary because drug traffickers» supply of narcotics is variablin support of the warrant, the affiant police officer indicated that she believed that the extended period for execution was necessary because drug traffickers» supply of narcotics is variable.

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 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.