Sentences with phrase «application judge»

An "application judge" is a person who reviews and decides on requests or applications made to a court. They determine how a certain law or rule will be applied to a particular situation and make a decision based on that. Full definition
In allowing the leave to appeal application the judge was of the view that the points raised are of significance to the lawsuit and to the practice of law.
The Ontario application judge found that the warrant for Marakah's home had been invalid and that the text messages recovered from his own Blackberry could not be used against him.
The Court found that the original application judge who had heard the father's Hague Convention application...
The original application judge agreed with the employer.
The court reversed the decision of a Superior Court of Justice application judge (who ruled in the franchisor's favour) and found that the restrictive covenant in the franchise agreement was unenforceable in Peterborough.
The Court of Appeal decided to reach its own determination on the interpretation of clause 17 pursuant to its powers under section 134 (1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, rather than remit it to a new application judge.
Your first sentence is the actual place to drag the attraction of the application judges.
The Application Judge reserved her decision at the conclusion of argument.
In 2015, the application judge in Ontario ordered that the Office of the Children's Lawyer intervene; that office advised the court that neither child wished to return to Germany.
In terms of issue one, the Court of Appeal, based on the language and logic of the SABS, agreed with the application judge that «economic loss» is a threshold for entitlement to attendant care benefits.
The application judge undertook a discussion of the latest revisions to the SABS, which, under s. 3 (7) of the SABS included a preclusion of a member of the insured's family, who was not ordinarily an income earner, from profiting from the attendant care benefit.
The application judge found that «sustained an economic loss» is a threshold rather than a method to calculate the benefit owed.
With respect to issue number two, that the application judge erred in finding that an insurer was obligated to pay all expenses outlined in the Form 1, the Court agreed that with previous FSCO decisions that held that an insurer is permitted to request information to verify that an economic loss had been sustained by a family member providing care or other information or that the services provided were reasonable and necessary and found that the application judge did not rule in the contrary.
First, the Court found that the application judge had the requisite jurisdiction to make the order and declaration the appellant was required to transfer full ownership to the respondent.
Rather, the Court agreed that the application judge, leaving the choice of dispute resolution proceedings open to the parties granted better flexibility and that a trial would not grant any material advantage as argued by the appellant.
The application judge declared the respondent as the sole owner, to the exclusion of the appellant, of the general dentistry practice.
The appeal is limited to the following submission: did the application judge err in concluding the «purpose test» contained in Amos is met in the circumstances (was the incident in question really an «accident»)?
While Hourigan J.A. agreed with the result and general conclusions of the application judge below, he found the following errors in the analysis:
the application judge erred by exceeding his jurisdiction by ordering and making a declaration that the appellant must transfer ownership to the respondent; and
Secondly, the Court rejected the argument that the application judge erred in not directing the outstanding financial dispute to proceed to trial of the issues.
the application judge erred in ordering that other proceedings are required to determine the parties» financial issues rather than making a determination within the application.
Meaning, that the application judge's decision was just ad reasonable given the facts.
The application judge, Nightingale J., finds temporary parking of the motorcycle on the walkway constitutes both «an ordinary or well - known use of the vehicle» and ``... the dominant feature in the incident and not simply ancillary to it».
Accordingly, the application judge concludes the incident satisfied the test for an «accident» under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Effective September 1, 2010, O. Reg.
The application judge found that Mr. Groia made uncivil attacks on the prosecutors»;
However, the application judge also made some of the unredacted information subject to a temporary non-publication order, thereby preventing the press from disseminating that information to the public.
[4] The application judge rejected the appellants» application to quash the production order.
On the application judge's findings, this simply was not a search incident to arrest,» said the ruling.
Cheung then sought a ruling declaring the bylaw as invalid but an application judge determined the bylaw was reasonable.
It found that the application judge provided ample basis for concluding that the pre-charge delay amounted to an abuse of process, and that while the judge did not use the three - step approach mandated by R. v. Babos, he applied the necessary elements of that test.
The application judge stayed the charges on the basis that the pre-charge delay had breached the respondents» s. 7 Charter rights.
He held that the application judge erred by making the intrusive order when there was no basis in the pleadings to be able to judge whether the order was necessary to enable the case to be disposed of in accordance with the principle of proportionality — i.e. in a manner that is fair, efficient and cost effective as judged in relation to the nature and circumstances of the particular case.
The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, which found Cheung's expectation that the restaurant should be able to use all the common parking spaces was unreasonable.
He argued that the application judge erred in finding that he was not a beneficiary of the Local 1059 Benefit Trust and in failing to hold that the MacKinnons breached fiduciary duties owed to him
The application judge did not err in reading the Trust Agreement and the Benefit Plan Text together to determine the beneficiaries of the Local 1059 Benefit Trust.
The applications judge in North relied on the motions judge's decision in Oudin in upholding the termination clause.
The application judge ordered that the custody and access arrangements in existence at the time of trial pursuant to the earlier order of Judge MacKenzie of the Ontario Court of Justice should continue
«The application judge [in North] found the motion judge's reasons in Oudin to be analogous.
With respect to considering and weighing the factors, the Court adhered to the standard of review and was deferential to the application judge.
Both the application judge and the Divisional Court (discussed on this blog, respectively, here and here) held that a life insurance policy taken out pursuant to a separation agreement could be clawed back into the estate for a dependant support claim by the subsequent spouse.
Both the application judge and the Divisional Court permitted this.
Overall, the decision sends home the message that application judges have significant discretion when it comes to production orders and that such orders attract significant deference.
Since the contract was silent on the issue of mitigation, the application judge held that the duty to mitigate applied and if the parties had intended to remove the employee's obligation to mitigate that should have been set out in the contract.
On the sealing order issue, the Court found that the application judge erred in allowing the Crown to redact paragraphs that disclose future investigative steps.
The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with the application judge and concluded that Bowes was entitled to the full six month payment.
The application judge accepted the employer's argument and held the general duty to mitigate damages applied.
Therefore, the application judge concluded that Mr. Bowes had mitigated his losses by finding other employment and was not entitled to the full 6 - month payment as set out by the contract.
The Quebec Superior Court, per Gagnon, J. (application judge), found that the first police force's officers had promised to keep B's identity confidential in exchange for the information he...
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z