Sentences with phrase «court confirmed»

Accordingly, the court confirmed that the buyer's lawsuit could proceed only against the Printing Factory, but not the builder.

On appeal, the Court confirmed that the Condo Association would not be responsible for paying damages to the unit owners because the construction was necessary to protect a common element — here, the beachfront — from erosion.

The trial court confirmed the award to the Prevailing Party and awarded the Prevailing Party its costs for filing the lawsuit but did not award attorney's fees.

The court confirmed title in joint tenancy means:

The appeals court stated that the lessees should've filed an objection to the bankruptcy auction before the bankruptcy court confirmed the auction.

The court confirmed that both parties being in default, time ceased to be of essence, the agreement remained alive and either party had to stipulate a new completion date.

A Florida court confirmed this last summer.

In Yorta Yorta the High Court confirmed that the applicants must show that the traditional owner community has existed as a community continuously since the acquisition of sovereignty by the British and that in all that time they have continued to observe the traditions and customs of their forebears.

The High Court confirmed that just because native title has different characteristics from other forms of title and derives from a different source, it does not mean it can be given less protection than other forms of title.

Even though Aboriginal laws did not emanate from a central print oriented law - making authority, the Court confirmed, as it has in Australia, that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada had legal systems prior to the arrival of Europeans.

[100] The Court confirmed that the native title rights to which the NTA refers are rights and interests created before sovereignty by Indigenous laws and customs.

In the Yorta Yorta decision the Court confirmed that to prove native title, claimants must show that the traditional owners group has existed as a community continuously since the acquisition of sovereignty by the British, and that in all that time they have continued to observe the traditional laws and customs of their forebears.

The test for the recognition of native title was determined by the High Court's decision in Yorta Yorta.136 There the Court confirmed that to prove native title, claimants must show that the traditional owners group has existed as a community continuously since the acquisition of sovereignty by the British, and that in all that time they have continued to observe the traditional laws and customs of their forebears.

On appeal, the Circuit Court found that the system of exemption and related notation is a reasonable accommodation in the context of the Equal Status legislation, and in June 2010 the High Court confirmed this finding.

In a recent Ottawa case, the court confirmed that a condominium corporation can (and should) prohibit the leasing of condo units to unrelated tenants when the condo declaration limits the use of the units to «private single families ``.

In Atos IT Solutions v Sapient Canada Inc., the Court confirmed that the «minimum performance principle» places a common law limit on expectation damages for breach of contract.

The court confirmed that, unless the declaration defines otherwise the meaning of the expression «private single family», it means exactly what it says: units can not be rented to multiple, unrelated, transient tenants, such as unrelated students sharing accommodation for a short period of time.

In R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKSC 68 the court confirmed that regulations governing a skills scheme for people on jobseekers allowance were ultra vires the Jobseekers Act 1995 because, among other things, they were imprecise.

In a very short endorsement released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario on April 5, 2017, Covenoho v. Pendylum Ltd., 2017 ONCA 284, Ontario's top court confirmed what many of Ontario's employment lawyers having been saying for years now: a poorly drafted employment agreement is going to prove costly.

On June 4, the Supreme Court confirmed the patent in issue is neither invalid or void, finding instead that Teva had established its allegation and therefore dismissing Pfizer's application for an order of prohibition.

In Imperial Tobacco Ltd v A-G [1979] QB 555, [1979] 2 All ER 592 the court confirmed that paying for goods or services amounts to payment in this context.

The court confirmed that a general suspicion of money laundering by the bank in connection with its client did not render the bank dishonest, and this was enough to defeat the claim.

The court confirmed that the use of a trademark in a domain name is unlawful unless a portion of the domain allows consumers to distinguish between the owner of the trademark and the owner of the domain name, without reference to the underlying website.

From a practical perspective, it will be at least as important for the Government that the Court confirmed that it has no legal obligation to consult any of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales — something which could have caused material delay, not least given the forthcoming Stormont elections.

In reaching this decision, the Court confirmed several important principles of constitutional and aboriginal law, and provided an important measure of certainty for private proponents that conduct business in the Keewatin territory.

At para. 13, the Court confirmed the prevailing principle that the plaintiff can not receive more in damages than the court awarded at trial.

Most recently, in R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, the Supreme Court confirmed that this section «can be invoked only by a party alleging a violation of that party's own constitutional rights» (at para. 61).

Despite the difference in onus, the Supreme Court confirmed that principles developed in the «admittedly different but related context of bail pending trial... are also instructive in the appellate context.»

In Grassy Narrows the Supreme Court confirmed that the provinces are fully responsible for ensuring that Treaty rights are respected and constitutional obligations to Aboriginal peoples, including the duty to consult, are fulfilled.

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court confirmed the validity of a condominium's by - law, which was passed to control parking on the common elements.

In 2014, however, a Nova Scotia court confirmed that procedural fairness requirements are less at the screening stage than at the disciplinary stage, and that inquiry committees are entitled to deference when they decide to send a matter to a hearing, in Levesque v. Nova Scotia College of Optometrists, 2014 NSSC 22.

The Court confirmed that the audi alterum partem principle, which requires a decision maker to provide adequate opportunity for those affected by a decision to present their case and respond to the case against them, does not confer an unqualified right to an oral hearing unless otherwise stipulated by statute.

The Court confirmed that the Ontario regulator is not bound by policy - making in other jurisdictions.

In refusing permission to appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed that the test in medical treatment cases was the child's best interests, describing this as «the gold standard».

In a decision closely watched by businesses that are the targets of consumer class action lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a plaintiff asserting a statutory claim must make a showing of particularized and concrete harm sufficient to establish Article III standing, even if the underlying statute provides for statutory damages without a separate...

In the recent decision of Dugai, Murphy v. Manulife Financial Corporation (2013 ONSC 327), the Divisional Court confirmed the principle that defendants have no obligation to lead evidence on a motion for leave to assert a cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation under s. 138.8 (1) of the Ontario Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 5 (the «Act»).

The Ontario Superior Court confirmed the established legal principle that a court has no power to award the costs of a disciplinary hearing where the hearing panel's decision is set aside on a judicial review.

Dismissing the mother's appeal, the court confirmed that the interests of children are a «primary consideration».

The CCLA argued that the legislation breached s. 8 of the Charter — which the court confirmed — but also that the legislation would have a detrimental impact on access to justice.

In that case, therefore, the court confirmed that post-separation bonuses should be classed as non-matrimonial property.

The district court confirmed the master's report of the accounting, and made a decree accordingly for $ 420,000.

Referring to its landmark judgment on autonomy, Opinion 2/13, the Court confirmed the key role that autonomy plays for identifying the compatibility of international dispute settlement with EU law.

The Court confirmed in Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. that qualifying federal employees may not be dismissed without cause.

The Court confirmed the «bright line rule» established in the case of R. v. Neil that a lawyer may not concurrently represent clients whose legal interests are directly adverse without first obtaining their consent.

The Court confirmed that Alberta's drop dead rule requires a functional approach that doesn't overemphasize formalistic steps that might have been taken.

The Court confirmed that the discretion provided by s. 138.3 (6) of the Act to treat multiple representations as a single misrepresentation is not intended to and does not have the effect of modifying the three - year limitation period found in s. 138.14 of the Act.

In Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. 2017 SCC 34, the Court confirmed that Canadian courts can grant orders prohibiting...

The Court confirmed that each misrepresentation upon which a plaintiff bases his or her claim must have been made within three years of the commencement of the action.

The court confirmed that s. 58 of the Administrative Tribunals Act applied to the HPRB, such that a court would not interfere with findings of fact or law, or an exercise of discretion by the HPRB, unless patently unreasonable, e.g., where discretion is exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith, for an improper purpose, based on entirely or predominantly irrelevant factors, or fails to account for statutory requirements.

The trial court confirmed the order's registration but found respondent Jay Drelinger (Father) had satisfied his child support obligation.