The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in Delta Air Lines Inc. v. Lukacs, 2018 SCC 2, in which it considered whether the Canadian Transportation Agency (the «Agency») acted reasonably in dismissing the complaint of Gabor Lukacs against Delta on the basis that he met neither of the tests for standing that have been developed and
applied by the civil courts.
Not exact matches
This has often been stressed
by the European Commission and
Court of Human Rights when
applying the rules of the European Convention regarding
civil and political rights.
Although title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as so amended,
applies with respect to «pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions», a few
courts have failed to reach the conclusion that breastfeeding and expressing breast milk in the workplace are covered
by such title.
The ADA's «undue hardship» standard is different from that
applied by courts under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 for religious accommodation.
(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available
by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency; [the
courts have construed this exemption to
apply only to documents that are normally privileged in the
civil discovery context]
No claim is made that the «formal title» doctrine
by which church property disputes may be decided in
civil courts is to be
applied in this case.
The way in which claims are made are governed
by the
Civil Procedure Rules («the CPR»), which also
apply to the
Court.
For the reasons given
by the
Court of Appeal, we are all of the opinion that the exclusion from the insurance policy based on art. 2402 of the
Civil Code of Québec may not be set up against the heirs of the insured, as that article must, even in light of s. 34 (1) of the federal Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I - 21, be interpreted having regard to the principles of interpretation that
apply in the area of insurance law so as to favour the precision and certainty of the grounds for exclusion in such matters.
On May 31st the Newfoundland and Labrador
Court of Appeal issued a judgement with a number of broad statements about the proportionality principle and how it ought to be
applied by courts in crafting discretionary orders under
civil rules.
Two questions arose: (i) whether s 204 contained an express requirement under which the county
court was required
by an enactment to make a decision
applying the principles that were
applied by the
court on an application for judicial review, thus placing s 204 appeals within the public law category; and (ii) if not, whether there were any other reasons requiring the application of judicial review principles with the result that s 204 appeals fell within the post-LASPO 2012
civil legal aid regime.
[Draftsman turns to Mr Z: «If you are a former client of a lawyer who holds, or whose firm holds, confidential information of yours which might reasonably be expected to be material where an issue arises between you and another client of that firm, you can
apply to the High
Court by claim (Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Pt 8); or by application in any court proceedings in which the question arises... etc&raq
Court by claim (
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Pt 8); or
by application in any
court proceedings in which the question arises... etc&raq
court proceedings in which the question arises... etc»].
She was charged with disobeying a
court order, which she tried to quash
by claiming that two of the Rules of
Civil Procedure make it impossible to
apply that section of the Criminal Code.
There are are risks to the integrity of the process where, for example, the governing decision is a Supreme
Court of Canada decision which purports to
apply to the common law of all of the provinces — maybe even the
civil law
by analogy — where the decision has been considered
by the appellate
courts (and the trial
courts) of other provinces, and one would never now that from a particular provinces's jurisprudence.
The case also considered the principles to be
applied by the
Court in ordering the production of documents
by third parties under the
Civil Procedure Rules.
The analogous application was first picked up
by the German Federal
Court (BGH) in regard to authorized car dealer agreements and later more or less copied
by the Austrian
Civil Supreme
Court (OGH), which has also
applied it to the termination of (subordination) franchise agreements.
Whether you are seeking compensation through the insurance claims process or
by filing a lawsuit in
civil court, the same legal concepts
apply.
Article 24 - 2 The provisions of Articles 10 through 12 (Method of Filing Petition for Disqualification or Challenge; Statement of Opinions
by Judge with Regard to Disqualification or Challenge; and Withdrawal of Judge) of the Rules of
Civil Procedure shall
apply mutatis mutandis to a family
court research law clerk.
Civil defence counsel then brought a motion to the civil court to, in essence, have their conduct in sharing the plaintiff's productions with criminal defence counsel vindicated by way of a declaration that the deemed undertaking rule had not been breached, or alternatively, did not apply at all in the circumsta
Civil defence counsel then brought a motion to the
civil court to, in essence, have their conduct in sharing the plaintiff's productions with criminal defence counsel vindicated by way of a declaration that the deemed undertaking rule had not been breached, or alternatively, did not apply at all in the circumsta
civil court to, in essence, have their conduct in sharing the plaintiff's productions with criminal defence counsel vindicated
by way of a declaration that the deemed undertaking rule had not been breached, or alternatively, did not
apply at all in the circumstances.
Date — Bah JSC in this case stated that: «what is intended to be covered
by Order 81 are irregularities, short of situations of want of jurisdiction or infringements of statutes other than the High
Court Rules... thus, whilst Order 81 rule 1 treats non compliance with the Rules as not nullifying the non - complying proceedings, the rule DOES NOT
apply to non — compliance which is so fundamental as to go to Jurisdiction, or which is in breach of a Statute other than the
civil procedure rules; breach of the Constitution; or the breach of the rules of natural justice.»
The three conditions for litigation privilege to
apply in criminal or
civil proceedings from the Judgment in Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6)[2004] UKHL 48 were reiterated
by the
Court of Appeal:
These discovery and subpoena tools are all basically derivative of the common law trial subpoena power, and certain other powers that were vested in
courts of equity, which is constitutionally recognized in federal criminal trials in the 6th Amendment which includes a right «to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor» and
applies in
civil trials
by tradition,
court rule and statute.
The rules of practice and procedure, in
civil matters, of the
court in which proceedings are commenced
by way of application
apply to those proceedings, but where those rules do not provide for the proceedings to be heard and determined without delay and in a summary way, the
court may give such directions as it considers necessary in order to so provide.
Or, if your bent is more to the
civil side, read the 2012 Supreme
Court of Canada's decision in Clements v. Clements where the «but for» test for causation is
applied in a «robust common sense fashion»
by the majority.
Actually [the district
court] did commit one clear error on the fiduciary count, and that was to
apply the normal
civil standard of preponderance of the evidence, rather than the higher standard of proof — proof
by clear and convincing evidence — that Illinois requires to establish the existence of a fiduciary duty outside of the per se categories such as lawyer - client and guardian - ward.
It was accepted that the orders had implemented the first defendant lord chancellor's prior policy decision (the decision) that the principle of «full cost recovery» in setting
court fees (the principle) should be
applied to public law family proceedings; that the rationale for the decision had been a wish to fix fees at a level which reflected the true cost to the
courts services and to replace the then extant model which involved heavy subsidisation; and that s 92 of the Courts Act 2003 (CA 2003) was relevant insofar as it empowered the lord chancellor to prescribe court fees by order, and that it set out obligations to «consult» specified judicial persons, the Civil Justice Council in civil proceedings, and «persons likely to have to pay [fees]», prior to the making of any o
courts services and to replace the then extant model which involved heavy subsidisation; and that s 92 of the
Courts Act 2003 (CA 2003) was relevant insofar as it empowered the lord chancellor to prescribe court fees by order, and that it set out obligations to «consult» specified judicial persons, the Civil Justice Council in civil proceedings, and «persons likely to have to pay [fees]», prior to the making of any o
Courts Act 2003 (CA 2003) was relevant insofar as it empowered the lord chancellor to prescribe
court fees
by order, and that it set out obligations to «consult» specified judicial persons, the
Civil Justice Council in civil proceedings, and «persons likely to have to pay [fees]», prior to the making of any or
Civil Justice Council in
civil proceedings, and «persons likely to have to pay [fees]», prior to the making of any or
civil proceedings, and «persons likely to have to pay [fees]», prior to the making of any orders.
The RSC
applied to all
civil cases in the Supreme Court in England and Wales commenced after the merger of the Courts of Common Law and Equity in 1883 by the Judicature Acts until they were superseded by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in 1999 on 26 April
civil cases in the Supreme
Court in England and Wales commenced after the merger of the
Courts of Common Law and Equity in 1883
by the Judicature Acts until they were superseded
by the
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in 1999 on 26 April
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in 1999 on 26 April 1999.