Sentences with phrase «decision of the trial judge»

He successfully reversed the erroneous decision of a trial judge that the plaintiff's claims were filed too late in violation of the statute of limitations (Dagley, et.

It is a well - established tenet that the costs decision of a trial judge will only be disturbed if wrong in principle or otherwise plainly erroneous.

The decision of the trial judge followed an application filed by Akinshola Olujimi, SAN, seeking for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge who found that the defendants should pay 75 % of the claimants» costs and that the claimants should pay the costs of the defendants» counterclaim.

There are, of course, earlier cases where an appeal was allowed on the basis that the decision of the trial judge was not truly a judicial decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge, who used the Guidelines to determine spousal support but concluded that any economic disadvantage suffered by Mrs. Fisher as a result of the marriage was not sufficient to warrant indefinite support.

The decision of the trial judge is typically binding and final, unless there is a basis to appeal the decision.

Prosecutors have successfully challenged a decision of a trial judge to uphold a defence submis...

[3] With respect for those who are of a different view, I would allow the appeal and order a new trial, essentially on the ground that the decision of the trial judge rests on inferences that do not flow logically and reasonably from the evidence upon which they are made to rest, notably on the issue of identification — the only real issue in this case.

In citing case law, the Kentucky Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial judge.

The high court reinstated the decision of the trial judge, who had ordered the parties negotiate utilization of the funds and arrive at a mutually agreeable implementation process or submit further evidence so the court could make that determination.

In General Motors of Canada Limited v. Johnson, 2013 ONCA 502 the Court overturned the decision of the trial judge who had awarded Johnson $ 160,000 in damages.

The B.C. Court of Appeal did not consider the eligibility of the bid, but overturned the decision of the trial judge on the basis that the exclusion clause was applicable and barred any claim by Tercon.

The law in British Columbia is however clear, unless it could be said that, on the evidence properly adduced, it was not open to him to conclude as he did without making what is said to be a palpable and overriding error, the Court of Appeal can not interfere with the decision of a trial judge.

At trial the Claimants made a substantial recovery and the matter eventually settled after the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the trial Judge as to the proper identity of the contracting party.

Although the decision of the trial judge was motivated, no doubt, by sound common sense, it was also based on a close reading of the relevant provisions of Pt 36, as redrafted in April 2007.

Finally, on the issue of the nature of the evidence, the Court relied on the Quebec legislation dealing with assistance in dying; the Ontario and B.C. Practice Guidelines; but most importantly, the decision of the Trial Judge and the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter v. Attorney General decision in reviewing the nature of the evidence.

In Grewal v. Khalsa Credit Union15 the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the decision of a trial judge's that the employer had cause to terminate the employment of the employee (a branch manager).

In contrast in Dowling v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) 17 the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the trial judge and found that the employer did have cause to dismiss the employee.

In Simpson the Court overturned the decision of the trial judge that found that the employee, the Association's executive director, had been wrongfully dismissed.

The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the trial judge rejecting the concept that a certain degree of sexual harassment could tolerable in an industrial workplace.

One example that should hearten employers is the 2009 decision Radio CJVR Ltd. v. Schutte.9 The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the trial judge and found that the employer had cause to fire the employee for incompetence.

For example, in Giancola v. Jo - Del Investments Ltd. 19 the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial judge finding the employer had cause to dismiss the employee.

the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the decision of a trial judge's that the employer had cause to terminate the employment of the employee (a branch manager).

In the first appellate - level rectification decision since the Supreme Court of Canada released its companion judgments in Canada v Fairmont Hotels Inc. 1 and Jean - Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. v Attorney General of Canada, 2 the Court upheld the decision of the trial judge denying an application for rectification on the basis that a general intention to implement a transaction on a tax - neutral basis was not sufficient to justify rectification.

In Brown v. Pronghorn Controls Ltd. 18 the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the trial judge that found that the employer's offer to relocate the employee to another office located a two - hour drive from his current location did not result in the constructive dismissal of the employee.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial judge on a claim under section 84 (2) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Ontario Court of Appeal did not interfere with the decision of the trial judge to award punitive damages.

In a decision written by Justice Marina Paperny (Justice Donald Lee concurring), a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal restored the decision of the trial judge.

In cases where one or both of the parties feel that the Trial Judge has made an error of law or fact in his or her judgment, the decision of the Trial Judge can be appealed to the Court of Appeal and possibly to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court reversed the decision of the trial judge and they allowed the contract to be rescinded on the basis of innocent misrepresentation.

The court also upheld the decision of the trial judge dismissing the dealers» argument that the termination agreement in and of itself required a disclosure document and therefore could not have been released.

In W. Got the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the decision of the trial judge to order RBC to pay $ 100,000 in punitive damages because RBC had misled a Master by tendering a misleading affidavit in support of an ex parte motion.

Importance: Madam Justice Paperny writing for a unanimous court concluded the decision of the trial judge to extend the common law rule against spousal compellability to common law spouses represents an appropriate incremental change to the law.

The Plaintiff appealed the decision of the trial judge.

[A] n appellate court may only intervene in the decision of a trial judge if he or she erred in law or made a material error in the appreciation of the facts.

In a recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Valmet Paper Machinery Inc. v. H.A. Davis Transport Ltd., the Court of Appeal considered a decision of the Trial Judge Groberman J. wherein he awarded the plaintiff shippers the sum of $ 1,244,000 for the destruction of a piece of equipment known as a rewinder, in the course of it being carried by a truck of the appellant motor carrier.

Therefore, to overturn the decision of the trial judge, Mr. Bou - Daher's alternative hypothesis (detailed above) should logically follow from premises sensibly inferred from either evidence or circumstantial evidence on the record.

In Debruge v. Arnold, the plaintiff appealed the decision of the trial judge on the defendant's threshold motion.

Author: Anthony Pugh, J.D., Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka On October 25, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its judgment in 2122994 Ontario Inc. v. Lettieri, in which it upheld the decision of the trial judge and dismissed the franchisor's several attempts to challenge the franchisee's rescission claim, such as alleged bad faith and alleged improper categorization of rescission losses.