Sentences with phrase «between superior courts»

«Concurrent jurisdiction over lawyers, shared between superior courts and law societies, is an ordinary aspect of the dual identities of lawyers as officers of the court and members of a regulated profession,» she wrote.

Not exact matches

In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 6 the United States Supreme Court held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective test, the Upjohn court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilCourt held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective test, the Upjohn court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilcourt instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilege.9

the right, if any, that a person has in a superior court in the province where the matter arises to refuse to disclose an oral or documentary communication on the ground that the communication is one passing between the person and the person's lawyer in professional confidence...

As can be seen in this appeal, the creation of national classes also raises the issue of relations between equal but different superior courts in a federal system in which civil procedure and the administration of justice are under provincial jurisdiction.

However, in general, they will look to cases considered by the same court and superior courts, before examining cases in other jurisdictions - this applies between different states, as well as between different countries.

Women lawyers, between 2006 and 2015, applied for superior court judicial appointments in Canada at roughly half the rate of men in the same time period, reports Cristin Schmitz in the September 16, 2016 issue of The Lawyers Weekly.

The decision states that while court hearing fees are permissible in principle, those that present «undue hardship» to litigants, such that they are discouraged from accessing the court system, violate core jurisdictional principles within the Constitution: «The historic task of the superior courts is to resolve disputes between individuals and decide questions of private and public law.

If an intermediary court were to be established between the superior and court appeal in Quebec, would it require unanimity of all governments to allow judges of that court to be appointed?

Unfortunately, in addition to refusing rectification, the Court, fearful of «pump [ing] theoretical steroids into the rectification doctrine and [giving] it the strength or force that the Supreme Court of Canada recently and consistently has declined to do» 10 also declined to recognize the general equitable jurisdiction of the superior courts to do justice between parties suffering from the unintended consequences of their mistakes.

Here, however, the AGC was named as a respondent by ACJ Douglas, which meant that the AGC was placed in a fundamental conflict «between two public interest positions — on the one hand, defending the process and the Committee's decision... and, on the other, abandoning that responsibility in deference to the direct role of the AGC as Minister of Justice in the disciplinary process for superior court judges» (para. 7).

The historic task of the superior courts is to resolve disputes between individuals and decide questions of private and public law.

The way the idea of state action will impact such litigation is, I expect — though perhaps I just hope — will be to justify a distinction between barriers to access to superior courts created by the government itself — whether by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial branch — and those agreed to by the parties themselves.

Sinister uses — making business, i. e. occasion for fees; making complication, thence confusion, uncertainty, uncognoscibility, materials for sham science, & c. & c. Examples: — In English common law, causes sent from King's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, to Nisi Prius, or Assizes, and back again: in Equity, from Chancery, or Exchequer, to town examiners» office, or country commissioners, and back again: and from the superior to a subordinate judge: — In Scottish practice, vibrations between the provincial courts and the metropolitan; and in the metropolitan, between outer and inner house: in both, as well as in the provincial courts, between the deciding and some evidence - collecting judge.

(The bifurcation of family law between the provincial and superior trial courts is one of the more serious obstacles to justice.)

The court held that there was concurrent jurisdiction between it and the provincial superior courts...