Sentences with phrase «appellant experience»

Our lawyers have extensive trial and appellant experience and provide highly effective and successful advocacy for our clients.

Not exact matches

In an interim decision in Pieters v. Law Society of Upper Canada, Michael Gottheil, executive chair of the HTRO, agreed with the appellant, Toronto lawyer Selwyn Pieters, that a variety of documentation should be produced to him by Ontario's Law Society pertaining to his apprehension by a security guard when Pieters entered the Law Society building that day, the seizing of his membership card, and Pieters» subsequent experience in the Law Society building.

They can tell from the kind of problems — with hearing the television or using the telephone — that the appellant reported, however briefly, in this case; and they can also, in a broad way, judge if those problems seem to be worse than those experienced by their contemporaries.

For the Court of Appeal, there was no authority for the Appellant's submission that ``... knowledge of a lack of experience on the part of the plaintiff would override or negate» the basic duty imposed on the Respondents.

For the Appellant, additional obligations arose from the fact he was not particularly experienced — but was there evidence the Respondents knew?

The Court of Appeal noted there was no evidence the Appellant was inexperienced in performing roofing work and no evidence the Respondents were aware he lacked the necessary experience.

The appellant pointed out that the staff were experienced and aware of what was necessary.

The appellants» statements of defence disputed the allegations of what occurred and the nature of the respondents» experience at Oak Ridge and the motions judge erred in concluding otherwise.

The motion judge made several key findings of fact: (i) there was no evidence the appellant's fall was caused by any defect in or lack of repair affecting the premises or any hazardous conditions associated with the premises themselves; (ii) there was no dispute the appellant was performing the renovation work for valuable consideration; (iii) there was no basis for a contractual claim that the respondents had failed to furnish the appellant with safety equipment; (iv) there was no evidence the appellant was inexperienced in performing roofing work or working at heights; and (v) the evidence did not support a finding that the respondents were aware the appellant lacked the necessary experience to carry out the project.