Sentences with phrase «at paragraph»

(At paragraph 27.)

A few years later, the SCC held that a decision - maker was not required to make an explicit finding on each constituent element leading to a final conclusion (Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union, 2011 SCC 62 at paragraph 16).

The Crummey decision was referred to by Justice Perell in the Bragg decision at paragraph 33.

32 The purpose of such fees, as has been stated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Canada, 2008 FCA 90 at paragraph 13, is not only to provide the Patent Office with a means of recovering administration costs, but also to rid the proliferation of deadwood patents.

Take, for example, Justice Rothstein's comments at paragraph 35 of R. v. Cunningham:

Justice Rennie of the Federal Court has stated (prior to the issuing of Agraira by the SCC) that the analysis in Newfoundland Nurses is not «an open invitation to the court to provide reasons that were not given, nor is it a licence to guess what the findings might have been made or to speculate as to what the tribunal might have been thinking» (Komolafe v. Canada (MCI), 2013 FC 431, at paragraph 11).

In a companion case, R. v. Braich, 2002 SCC 27, the court held that an appellate court was not permitted to substitute its views for that of a trial judge if the trial judge's reasons provided «an intelligible pathway through his reasons to his conclusion» (at paragraph 42).

The authors state at paragraph 18.05:

For the purposes of this article, Chief Justice McLachlin's comments at paragraph 16 of the decision are perhaps the most interesting wherein she writes:

At paragraph 51 of its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the ability of employees to strike is essential to meaningful collective bargaining and that, in the circumstances of that case, the right to strike was constitutionally protected under section 2 (d) of the Charter.

At paragraph 7, Justice Hughes observes as follows:

This is despite the best efforts of Lady Hale, who gave the main speech, to emphasise at paragraph 34 that this decision did not amount to replacing legal oppression of one community (homosexual couples) with legal oppression of another (Christians and others who shared the appellants» beliefs about marriage), because the law equally prohibits a hotel keeper from refusing a particular room to a couple because they are heterosexual or because they have certain religious beliefs.

Master Champagne noted at paragraph 20 of her decision that she was «loath to say the plaintiff's answers amount to a constructive refusal, as the term suggests willfulness or bad faith.»

While U.S. Steel is correct to say that a person can not be imprisoned for a civil debt for, as Justice Binnie held in R. v. Wu, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 530 (S.C.C.) at paragraph 2, «[d] ebtors» prison for impoverished people is a Dickensian concept that in civilized countries has largely been abolished», the Act does not provide for the possibility of U.S. Steel or any of its executives being sent to debtors» prison for the failure to pay a penalty imposed upon it.

The Tribunal also dealt with the risk of an employee finding new employment over a period of time, stating at paragraph 96:

Justice Perkins, in the case of S. (C.) v. S. (M.) 2010 ONSC 340, provides a useful definition of parental alienation at paragraph 92 of his judgment:

For instance, in Canadian Broadcasting Corp v SODRAC 2003 Inc, [2015] 3 SCR 615, at paragraph 55 the majority decision written by Justice Rothstein (Cromwell J, among others, concurring) effectively cautions against the dissent's use of policy considerations in textual interpretation.

R (on the application of E)(Respondent) v Governing Body of JFS and the Admissions Appeal Panel of JFS (Appellants) and others [2009] UKSC 15, at paragraph 2

[139] As indicated by the Divisional Court in Godfrey v. Ontario Police Commission, at paragraph 41, «[i] n the traditional labour relations context, matters or issues of employee discipline are essentially a private matter between the parties».

Rather than refuse to order these damages or shy away from the summary judgment process, Justice Perell stated at paragraph 28:

That being the case, the test in the case of family status discrimination had to take into account the following fact (at paragraph 88):

Vice-Chair David Muir declined to order future lost wages, stating at paragraph 14:

Further to that, look at paragraph 55 - «The harm Boucher incurred because of Pinnock's conduct was severe.

For instance, in Narraine v. Ford Motor Co., [1996] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 43, the Board of Inquiry addressed the damaged working relationship, stating at paragraph 10: This type of reasoning has provoked discussion in human rights jurisprudence as well.

However, the compensation awarded may at best be equal to what the party could have obtained under the Tariff if it had been represented by a lawyer: see Sherman, supra, 2004 FCA 29 (CanLII), at paragraph 11.

That the court appears to adopt a highly technical approach is illustrated by the case of Arrow Nominees Inc v Blackledge [2000] 1 BCLC 709 (at paragraph 7.118).

The Law Society of Upper Canada's Nov. 28, 2013, appellate decision in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Groia, at paragraph 235, held that lawyers should not mount a defence based on prosecutorial misconduct unless they are made «in good faith and have a reasonable basis.

The Court also considered that steps should be taken to make parties aware that «hearing fees will not obstruct their pursuit of justice if they can not afford them» (at paragraph 39).

Labour arbitration was introduced as part of the compromise to ensure labour stability during the life of a collective agreement, as summarized succinctly by the Supreme Court of Canada in Health Services and Support — Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27 at paragraph 60:

Justice Fish wrote at paragraph 56:

As stated, my interpretation of Peart J's comments (at paragraph 45) is that an injunction was not available because packaging was not «marketing or advertising».

The Court of Appeal found for a revocation of a waiver to be effective it must provide reasonable notice to the receiving party: Petridis at paragraph 20.

R. (2nd) 215 (H.C.) at paragraph 20.

At paragraph 82, the SCC noted that an actionable wrong can be established with a breach of a distinct and separate contractual provision or other duty such as a fiduciary duty.

At paragraph 82 the judge stated:

«Risk - benefit in this context is explained in the commendable consideration of the issues surrounding «Product liability for medicinal products» in the chapter of that name by Charles Gibson QC, Geraint Webb QC and James Purnell in «Clinical Negligence» (Michael Powers QC and Anthony Barton eds, 5th Edition (2015), Chapter 13)(«Powers & Barton»), at paragraph 13.29, as follows:

Justice Bastarache also noted at paragraph 30 that is important that «the non-tangible elements of the situation — including work atmosphere, stigma, and loss of dignity, as well as nature and conditions of employment, the tangible elements — be included in the evaluation.»

The Court, at paragraph 23, wrote:

The Manitoba Court of Appeal also found that a «beneficiary need not suffer an actual loss in order to be entitled to a remedy» (at paragraph 23) and «given the shameful conduct on the part of the appellant fiduciary» (at paragraph 26) it ordered the appellant to pay the funds to the court pending the final outcome of the administration of the estate, while repeatedly emphasizing the obligations of a committee and the lengths the court will go to in upholding this fiduciary relationship.

The trial judge made strong findings against the appellant, including that the renovations were «grossly in violation of the [appellant's] obligations» (at paragraph 17), and that the renovations were in «dereliction of the responsibility of a committee, who should have the interest of the incapable party in mind» (at paragraph 24), resulting in the judge ordering the expenditures to be charged back to the appellant.

Justice Perell wrote at paragraph 48 that when judgment is granted before the expiration of the reasonable notice period the courts have employed three approaches to deal with the plaintiff's own going duty to mitigate during the balance of the notice period:

At paragraph 51 the judge wrote:

This Court can reverse the Federal Court's fact - based discretion only upon demonstration of palpable and overriding error or failure to give weight to all relevant considerations: H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2010 SCC 2, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6 at paragraph 43; Community Panel of the Adams Lake Indian Band v. Adams Lake Band, 2011 FCA 37 at paragraph 31.

At paragraph 61 Gillese J. wrote:

Discussing the significant impact of the lawyer's letter, the Court wrote at paragraph 31:

Of Canada.4 The judge wrote at paragraph 25 of the decision:

However, on the facts before it, the Federal Court exercised its discretion to the contrary: Reasons, at paragraph 204.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal reviewed the fiduciary obligations of a committee to an incapable person and concluded that «the breach of such a special relationship gives rise to the widest array of equitable remedies» (at paragraph 21) and that the «court is concerned not only in compensating a wronged plaintiff, but also in upholding the obligations of good faith and loyalty» (at paragraph 22).

This was confirmed in Alcatel Canada Inc. v. Egan11 in which the Ontario Court of Appeal held at paragraph 26:

Gillese J.A. disagreed with the trial judge in this regard, finding, at paragraph 99, that «that approach does not accord with the principle that employment income earned during the notice period is generally to be treated as mitigation of loss.»