Sentences with phrase «against the respondent from»

Not exact matches

Respondents in London related how Sadiq Al - Gharyani, Libya's Mufti who made the call for Jihad against Gaddafi in 2011 and many of his affiliates were in control of militias in Libya and giving orders from their safe homes in London and Manchester, in 2014 and into 2015.

Respondents in this year's survey pointed to five main causes of the field's less than favorable reputation: drug and product recalls such as the withdrawal of Avandia; safety issues such as the discovery of problems with raw material from China used in medical products; scandals, including evidence that pharmaceutical companies have failed to release data from trials whose results cast doubts on their drugs» safety and efficacy; lawsuits brought against companies that failed to warn patients of problems with their products; and ethical issues such as kickbacks for physicians promoting specific medications.

This consent order also concerns separate and distinct violations of the Department's prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition, 49 U.S.C. § 41712, arising from Respondents» marketing and sale of air transportation services ultimately operated by a company that did not hold proper authority from the Department.

South Carolina now allows a judge to issue a protective order that prohibits the harm or harassment against any pet animal owned, possessed, kept, or held by the petitioner; any family or household member designated in the order; or the respondent if the petitioner has a demonstrated interest in the pet animal.The law also allows the judge to issue a protective order that provides for temporary possession of the personal property, including pet animals, of the parties and order assistance from law enforcement officers in removing personal property of the petitioner if the respondent's eviction has not been ordered.

Pursuant to Clean Air Act § 307 (b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607 (b)(1), Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and D.C. Circuit Rule 15, Air Alliance Houston, California Communities Against Toxics, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Hoosier Environmental Council, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ohio Citizen Action, and Sierra Club (collectively, «Petitioners») hereby petition this Court for review of the 2 final action taken by Respondents U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Administrator Scott Pruitt in the attached memorandum from William L. Wehrum, dated January 25, 2018 (Attachment 1), and in the Federal Register notice published at 83 Fed.

In Mubarak v Mubarak [2001] 1 FLR 698, [2000] All ER (D) 2302 the first post-Human Rights Act 1998 case on this jurisdiction (and see «Enforcement matters», David Burrows, 159 NLJ 7368, p 653), Brooke LJ emphasised the importance that the respondent, who faces what amounts to a criminal charge (see Engel and Others v The Netherlands (No 1)(1979) 1 EHRR 647), should know the case against him or her (ie McFarlane LJ's list: (a) and (b)-RRB-: «In Newman v Modern Bookbinders Ltd [2000] 2 All ER 814, [2000] 1 WLR 2559 judgment was given in [a case which is] far removed from the present.

Since the Chambers Judge's order «would seem to prevent the Province from pursuing all enforcement remedies against [the Respondent], regardless of whether they relate to a specific court proceeding», the Court of Appeal agreed the order inappropriately restrained the lawful conduct of a government official and was, therefore, in the nature of an injunction against the Crown.

However the respondent's claim against the appellant is not derived from the clients» claims, and is rather an independent cause of action.

The case of Whiteley v. Osprey Media Publishing Inc. and Sun Media Corporation involved an allegation from a lawyer that the respondents (Osprey Media Publishing Inc., Sun Media Corporation, which is owned by the Quebecor media chain, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission) discriminated against him on the basis of place of origin in goods, services or facilities.

See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)(holding that respondent's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated where he was advised that he was not required to testify but that his silence could be held against him); Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 808 n. 5 (1977)(clarifying that Baxter permitted an adverse inference to be drawn in a civil case from a party's refusal to testify, but that the Baxter respondent's silence «was only one of a number of factors to be considered»).

Despite concern about the impact of the prohibition against polygamy in s. 293 of the Criminal Code on public acceptance of their relationships, the prohibition does not deter respondents from pursuing the relationships they choose, see Figure 15.

The Supreme Court determined that the assurances from the Taiwanese Government offered the respondent reasonable protection against violence by non-state actors and the circumstances of his confinement, should he be unable to mix with the wider prison population, would not entail a real risk of his being subject to treatment that infringes art 3.

(3) On the request of a claimant mentioned in subsection (2), the landlord must advise the claimant of the status of the lease and serve the claimant with notice of any claim against the respondent arising from the lease, and the claimant, at the claimant's option, may assume the responsibilities of the respondent under the lease.

(3) On the request of a claimant mentioned in subsection (2)[i.e., a victim of domestic violence who is not a party to the lease] the landlord must advise the claimant of the status of the lease and serve the claimant with notice of any claim against the respondent [the perpetrator] arising from the lease, and the claimant, at the claimant's option, may assume the responsibilities of the respondent under the lease.

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.

The Respondent's union asked the CSST to reconsider that decision, arguing the functional limitations resulting from the employment injury at issue made the Respondent a person with a handicap within the meaning of section 10 of the Québec Charter, he could not be discriminated against because of this handicap and that, in looking for suitable employment, the employer had to make every effort to facilitate his return to work without, however, imposing undue hardship on him.

For the purposes of an ethics inquiry against a claims adjuster employed by the Respondent, the syndic of the Chambre de l'assurance de dommages, requested documents concerning the claims adjuster from the Respondent under s. 337 of the Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services.

A group of over 200 General Motors dealerships from across Canada launched, in Ontario, a class action lawsuit against General Motors of Canada and the Respondent, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP.

The Appellant appeals from a summary judgment decision dismissing her action against the Respondents, Toronto Police Services Board and Detective Constable Andrew MacPhail, for wrongful arrest and negligent investigation of criminal charges.

As part of the Respondent's claim for division of property, she asserts an entitlement to constructive trust against proceeds from the sale of the Applicant's corporate shares.

The case of Whiteley v. Osprey Media Publishing Inc. and Sun Media Corporation involved an allegation from a lawyer that the respondents (Osprey Media Publishing Inc., Sun Media Corporation, which is owned by the Quebecor media chain, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission) discriminated against him...

The factum states in early January of this year the LSUC obtained a phone call recording from the sheriff's dispatch centre in San Bernardino County «of someone believed to be the respondent» making further explicit threats against Kochis.

Half of UK respondents reported having had at least one court action commenced against them in the last year (up from 45 % last year), with 16 % of the actions involving sums in excess of US$ 20 million.

Many of the Justices» questions for the Respondent were based around the idea that applying the presumption against extraterritoriality here would prevent the patentee from being fully compensated for the patent infringement.

On day one, we heard from counsel for TWU twice; once as appellants against the Law Society of Ontario (formerly LSUC) and once as respondents to the Law Society of British Columbia.

The appellant also appeals against that portion of the costs award that granted costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis from the date of its offer to settle.

The appellants brought an action against their next door neighbour seeking injunctive relief and damages for: (i) invasion of privacy arising from video and audio cameras which they say were trained on their property; (ii) nuisance arising from outside speakers, floodlights and the occasional errant hockey puck; (iii) trespass arising primarily from the construction of two fences; and (iv) abuse of process arising from an application for a peace bond made by the respondents before a justice of the peace.

The applicant commenced an action against the respondent, claiming damages from losses she incurred as a trader.

Facts: The applicant Mother filed an affidavit in support of her motion for advance (interim) funding in respect of the appeal of the respondent, the father, from the order of Chappel J. dismissing his challenge to the jurisdiction of Ontario courts to adjudicate Mother's claims against him for custody, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent was the plaintiff in the underlying action who subsequently entered into two agreements with the defendant, H&M Combustion Services Ltd. («H&M») in 2011 and 2016, to indemnify H&M from any exposure in the litigation in exchange for the assignment of its rights to the plaintiff in pursuing a third party claim that H&M commenced against the appellant.

The respondent's spouse, who had been borrowing large sums of money from the appellant, signed a promissory note agreeing to register a mortgage against the property in the appellant's favour as security for the loans.

One respondent cautioned against using the corporate structure of a PBC for anything other than holding native title, such as commercial enterprise, because although the NTA protects native title rights and interests held by the PBC from liability incurred by the body corporate, the non-native title assets of the PBC, of individual members and of the broader native title group could be at risk if the PBC was wound up for any reason.

A second data collection was performed to examine the criterion validity of the VAWI against the NorVold Abuse Questionnaire (NorAQ).23, 28 Statistics Sweden sent out the VAWI and NorAQ between November 2009 and January 2010 to 20 % (n = 92) of the respondents from the initial data collection.

In PES processing, the survey information from the PES dwelling is matched against corresponding Census forms for either the same Census dwelling, or for a dwelling nominated by the PES respondent as a likely address the would have been enumerated at, to determine whether each resident of the PES dwelling was counted in the Census.