Sentences with phrase «at para»

The second claim, based on advice allegedly received from a lawyer participating in the Law Society of Alberta's lawyer referral service, failed because the plaintiff did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that the lawyer's conduct fell below the standard of care (at para 77).

Her divergence from the majority in both decisions rested on the view that judicial deference is based upon the principle of relative expertise or experience in a particular area, and thus this bare assertion of a presumption of deference simply because a statutory decision - maker is interpreting its home statute pays too little attention to whether the statutory decision - maker actually has sufficient expertise or experience to justify deference to its determination of a legal question (See Alliance Pipeline at para 80 and Alberta Teachers» Association at paras 82 — 89).

This was distinguished from the technique used in Hart, which was a strategy of false bragging (were you tough enough for our organization)(Campeau at para 21).

During the re-enactment, Thielen inculpated Bradshaw to the murders (Bradshaw at para 6).

Then in 2011 Justice Rothstein, this time writing for the majority in Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers» Association, 2011 SCC 61, wrote that the principle of judicial deference asserted in Dunsmuir had evolved to the point where there is a presumption the standard of review is reasonableness where a statutory decision - maker applies and interprets its home statute (at para 39).

Information about the aboriginal child's heritage and his or her entitlement to various federal benefits was in and of itself important to both the Indian Band and the removed aboriginal children — not only to ensure that the latter knew about their aboriginal roots and «could always come home» but also about the fact that they could apply for the various federal entitlements, including a free university education, and other financial benefits once they reached the age of majority (at para 54).

The Mr. Big technique is not used in the United States (see R v Osmar, 2007 ONCA 50 at para 55) and no cases have been found using the Mr. Big technique on American soil (see Hart, Factum of the amicus curiae at para 25 n 51).

Under the reasonableness standard the reviewing court defers to the statutory decision - maker and limits its review to an inquiry as to whether the impugned decision is intelligible, transparent, and justified, as well as within the range of possible outcomes given the applicable facts and law in question (Dunsmuir at para 47).

Rather, the existence of confirmatory evidence can provide a powerful guarantee of reliability (Magoon at para 10).

Hart was shown attractive benefits of working for the gang — he was taken to expensive restaurants and was flown across the country to carry out paid simulated criminal tasks carefully crafted by the police (Hart at para 58).

She reasoned that the Court's analysis requires «that we consider the meaning of employment discrimination in a way that is consistent with, and emerges from, the Court's well - settled human rights principles, and not just the particular words of the Code» (at para.

In addition, the doctrine of abuse of process is considered in the second prong of the test to guard against state conduct that «society finds unacceptable, and which threatens the integrity of the justice system» (Hart at para 113).

Under the correctness standard the reviewing court affords no deference to the statutory decision - maker and effectively conducts a de novo assessment by answering the issue or issues itself (Dunsmuir at para 50).

Jadot v Concert Industries Ltd, [1997] BCJ No 2403 (BC CA) at para 30, Markey v Port Weller Dry Docks Ltd, 1974 CanLII 671 (ON SC), 47 DLR (3d) 7, 4 OR (2d) 12 at para 50.

Also, targets in Mr. Big operations are often exposed to simulated violent retribution by the crime boss first hand such as seeing a fellow member of the crime group being severely beaten as a result of disloyalty (see R v Bonisteel, 2008 BCCA 334 at para 15).

In Pathak v. Royal Bank, [1996] BCWLD 891 (BC CA) at para 8, the British Columbia Court of Appeal described the difference between probationary and regular employment:

Such measures could have a chilling effect on participation in those services for fear of liability (at para 76).

In Mack, the accused was gainfully employed and the amount of payment he received from working for Mr. Big was not significant (Mack at para 34 - 35, 59).

See also Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Guideline Consultation, Sentencing Council, 11 February 2016, Section 3, at para.

Terranova also argued the records are inadmissible as hearsay because the raw data was entered by surveyors who did not testify to its accuracy, and the Court rejects this argument on the business records exception to the hearsay rule (at para 49).

The Court itself recognized at para 78 that Parliament should take the time to weigh and balance the issues, and that a large amount of deference is afforded to their decision in this respect.

However, «there is much to be said for trial judges doing all in their power to ensure that cases are tightly focused on the essential issues» (Lord Justice Toulson at para 28).

Second, the Court effectively takes the position that the failure of a plaintiff to provide expert evidence in relation to the standard of care precludes proof that the lawyer was negligent (at para 65).

The majority did not agree with the dissenting judge's wry assertion [at para 22] that «there are signs in the reasons that the trial judge applied his mind to the issues.»

Whatever they do in relation to peremptory challenges, every level of government in Canada should take seriously the recommendations set out by Justice Iacobucci in his 2013 Report to increase Indigenous representation on juries (summarized at para 44 and para. 374 - 387).

If copying is established, that copying will only amount to an infringement of copyright in the relevant work if what has been taken comprises a substantial part of that work (when assessed in relation to that work as a whole); that is always a question of fact and degree and involves an assessment of the importance (in terms of quantity and / or quality) of the copied part to the recognition and appreciation of the copyright work (Mr Justice Norris at para 28).

Gladue principles direct sentencing judges to «abandon the presumption that all offenders and all communities share the same values when it comes to sentencing and to recognize that, given these fundamentally different world views, different or alternative sanctions may more effectively achieve the objectives of sentencing in a particular community»: Ipeelee at para 74.

While such exact mirroring was not required, the orders in council needed to be confi ned within the contours of eff ective implementation (per Lord Justice Wilson at para 155).

SIP identifies (at para 1.5.3) one further UK - wide form of SI, an Order of Council, so five distinct forms of SI can be identified: Orders in Council, Orders of Council, orders, rules and regulations.

Europe's «wide variety of national and cultural traditions» (Wilkinson at para 44) explains why Strasbourg advances slowly in this area while, with no indigenous charter of rights, a discernible shift in England's own cultural outlook can not be acted upon even by judges with eyes to see it.

Instead, he rejected (at para 52) Half Moon Lake Resort's argument that characteristics of the transaction other than its character as a conveyance of an interest in land were not relevant.

This case was followed shortly thereafter by an immigration law case in the Federal Court which occurred in July 2005, 2005 FC 1050, at para 10 ``... That evidence included a variety of items such as newspaper articles, an e-mail «blog» and a report by a human rights organization...» (e-mail «blog» in quotations in original source).

HELD The judge could remind the jury that the defendant had no previous convictions and say that, in the ordinary case, where there was no evidence of bad character, a defendant of no previous convictions would have been entitled to a direction that the jury should consider that that counted in his favour on the questions of both propensity and credibility; as it was, it was for the jury to consider which counted with them more — the absence of previous convictions or the evidence of bad character; and if the former, then they should take that into account in favour of the defendant, and if the latter, then they would be entitled to take that into account against him (Lord Justice Rix at para 43).

R.E.M. and B.M. (also Griecken, [2009] O.J. No. 5037 at 24 — 25) cite Bell, [1997] N.W.T.J. No. 18 (CA) at para 28:... Where, as here, expert evidence is offered by the defence, in its efforts to make full answer and defence, a trial court should not impose, as noted in Mohan, too strict a standard for the necessity of such evidence, especially where as here the witness recognized the need to avoid crossing into the jury's domain.

He noted that prohibiting a live - in caregiver providing necessary care «could be devastating to the unit holder,» and it was «debatable» whether such a restriction would even provide «marginal enhancement to the other unit holder [s] in terms of property values» (at para 14).

The court refused to decide the matter just based on affidavits as Judge McEwan pointed out at para 27,

[4] Report of the Working Group II, UNCITRAL, 65 th Sess, A / CN.9 / 896 (2016) at para 213 [Report].

Justice Karakatsanis wrote (at para 49):

It is not at all uncommon, for example, for condominium By - laws to discriminate on the basis of age, and it is well established that a condominium corporation is legally entitled to do so (at para 9, citing Condominium Plan No. 931 0520 v Smith at para 6).

My comments start from three propositions which are rooted in constitutional theory: (1) absent constitutional objection, legislation binds; (2) administrative decision - makers enabled by statute can only go so far as their home statute allows (3) it is a court's job, on any standard of review, to enforce those boundaries; in American terminology, to «say what the law is» (Marbury v Madison; Edmonton East, at para 21).

[53] In Miglin, the court determined that just because one portion of a separation agreement fails to substantively comply with the objectives of the Divorce Act does not necessarily mean the entire agreement must be set aside: «[f] or example, if it appeared inappropriate to enforce a time limit in a support agreement, the quantum of support agreed upon might still be appropriate...» (Miglin at para 86).

[5] Note by the Secretariat, UNCITRAL, 65 th Sess, A / CN.9 / WG.II / WP.198 (2016) at para 1 [Note].

In Pushpanathan, at para 33, the Court noted that «expertise must be understood as a relative, not an absolute concept» and reasoned that courts must conduct an analysis in each case to compare its expertise to the decision - maker's on the matter before it.

There must also be evidence that vulnerability was taken advantage of by the other spouse and that the vulnerability was not effectively compensated for by the assistance of legal counsel or other professionals (Miglin at para 83).

Not only was the Registrar not in contempt in this case, but Justice Burrows was «doubtful... that the Registrar should ever be held in contempt when he makes an error in carrying out instructions contained in a court order like the consent order» (at para 74).

Even though privative clauses were given less emphasis as clear statutory signals (see Pezim and the discussion in Khosa, at para 87), there was still a focus on determining relative expertise.

In Khosa, at para 25 the Court noted that the mere fact of delegation to a decision - maker justifies deference on the basis of generalized expertise.

Justice Burrows indicated (at para 75) that the County should have availed itself of that process in this case and foregone the «poorly advised» contempt application which «served no purpose.»

He held that in light of the purposes of health, safety, comfort and convenience of condominium owners, Article 62 (a)(iv) should be interpreted to permit live - in caregivers «required to provide necessary assistance» to residents (at para 14).

Justices Bastarache and Arbour, writing for the majority, envisioned a balancing of the objectives set out in s. 15.2 (6) of the Divorce Act which seek an equitable apportionment of the economic consequences of the marriage and its breakdown between spouses, with the objectives, which flow from s. 9 of the Divorce Act, being finality, certainty and the autonomy of spouses to make their own agreement (Miglin at para 67).