Sentences with phrase «defendants brought»

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the claims.

In Qaddoura et al. v. Walkom et al., 2018 ONSC 20, the defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and refusals given at her continued examination for discovery.

In 2016, the defendants brought the motion under appeal for an order adding the Estate as a necessary party to the action.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceedings based on section 7 (1) of Ontario's Arbitration Act, 1991 (a similar provision is contained in provincial arbitration statutes across Canada).

While the jury was deliberating, the Defendants brought a «threshold motion» for a declaration that the Plaintiff's claim for general damages was barred on the basis that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that, as a result of the accident, he had sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs» claims under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Defendants brought motions to stay or dismiss the subject actions.

After the verdict, the defendants brought a «threshold motion» (Shaw v. Mkheyan, 2017 ONSC 851) for a declaration that Mr. Shaw's claims for general damages and future care costs were barred on the basis that his injuries did not fall within the exceptions to the statutory immunity provided for in sections 267.5 (3)(b) and 267.5 (b) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c. I. 8 and the applicable regulations (the «threshold provisions»).

The defendants brought a motion to quash the summonses, and the plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to compel the defendants to file affidavits.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the out - of - province plaintiffs could not be part of the action, and could not sue the defendants in Ontario.

The Defendants brought an application to cancel the CPL.

The Defendants brought a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on the basis that the Ontario Court did not have jurisdiction.

The defendants brought a motion to have the plaintiff's claim stayed, arguing that the action should be heard in Israel, as the majority of the publication of the article was in Israel, and only 200 - 300 persons in Canada read the English online article.

Even after the reasons for judgment were released and the defendants brought a motion for a mistrial, they did not base it on the drowsiness of the trial judge, or even raise the issue.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss the claims against them.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgement to have the claims dismissed as against the directors and the holding companies on the basis that they were not employers of the plaintiff and therefore have no place in the action for wrongful dismissal.

Eight of the named defendants brought a motion for a summary judgment to have the claims dismissed by reason of there being no cause of action against them.

The Defendants did not challenge his qualifications to give this evidence, however, at the conclusion of the expert's testimony the Defendants brought a motion to rule the testimony inadmissible arguing that the expert's «underlying methodology and science are so flawed that the evidence (does not meet the legal test for admissibility)» and that the expert was «biased and purposely misled the court to assist the plaintiff ``.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion and argued that Ms. Brown's claim should be dismissed as the limitation period had expired.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the action.

The court is precluded from questioning that assessment... The magistrates» court function is to check that the assessment relates to the defendant brought before the court and that the payments in question have become payable and have not been paid.

1 Feb. 19, 2016)(unpublished), parties got into a hotel management imbroglio where plaintiff sued defendants, and one defendant brought a cross-complaint in a back - and - forth matter, even in two prior appellate decisions, resulting «kinda» in a mixed decision.

A plaintiff must reasonably expect that the greater the number of defendants it brings into a lawsuit, the more likely it will be that the resulting costs of all defendants will exceed significantly the costs incurred by the plaintiff.»

The Defendant brought a motion asking the Plaintiff to produce a Pharmanet Printout, monthly statements from his student line of credit, and particulars of his wage loss claim.

In response to the decision, the defendant brought a motion to have the default judgment set aside.

The Defendant brought a short notice application to compel the Plaintiff to be assessed by a psychiatrist.

Take for example, the 2012 Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Al - Dandachi v. SNC - Lavalin Inc., in which the defendant brought a motion to strike out all references in a plaintiff's statement of claim relating to his human rights claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Defendant brought an application to re-open the case and call the doctor to prove the statement.

If, instead of bringing counterclaims in the original lawsuit, the defendant brings a separate lawsuit against the plaintiff, the plaintiff could seek to either (1) consolidate the cases if they are filed in the same court system (i.e. a federal case and a federal case, or a New York State case and a New York State case), or (2) move to dismiss the new lawsuit because the claims were required to be brought in the original lawsuit as mandatory counterclaims, or (3) move to stay proceedings in the second lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit, or (4) move to dismiss the claims in the second lawsuit on the merits if it is apparent from the face of the countersuit that it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted or was filed in the wrong court.

[1] The defendant brings this motion to have two documents, and any copies in the possession of the plaintiff, returned to it.

The Defendant brought a summary trial application seeking to dismiss the claim.

The Defendant brought a motion to compel the Plaintiff to attend an examination with an orthopaedic surgeon in order to obtain a «responsive» report.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss for delay.

The Defendant brought a motion to dismiss the Ontario action on the grounds that Ontario did not have jurisdiction over the claim.

On October 30, 2000, defendant brought the plaintiff to the operating room for an unrelated pelvic procedure.

By the time the Defendant brought the motion, more than two years had passed since the incident.

In order to bar a worker from suing, many defendants bring what's known as a «right to application».

No separate notice of motion needed to be brought under a different statutory provision given that the defendant brought a fee request under a provision saying it could be raised through opposition papers.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the claim on the basis that it was statute barred, in light of the three - year limitation period found in s. 138.14 of the Act.

Must the defendant bring a correlative «Wagg» motion to obtain the discovery evidence?

But, if a defendant brings a counterclaim arising under federal law in state court, the case can not be removed to federal court.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the Ontario action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

In last week's case (Dupre v. Patterson) the Defendant brought a summary trial application seeking to dismiss the Plaintiff's lawsuit.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim on the basis that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case and the plaintiff should have brought his matter before the Board.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under the section 137.1 (3) of the Courts of Justice Act, which was implemented to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (the «anti-SLAPP» provisions).

On November 25, 2014, counsel for the defendant brought a motion for a court order that would prevent the parties, their attorneys, and agents of both from «discussing this case with the media or making statements to the media or on the internet, including social media, other than matters of public record.»

The defendant brought a cross-appeal on the issue of whether the trial judge erred by excluding the decision on the threshold motion from the costs analysis.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside the judgment and enter a defence.

According to the court docket, there were 30 motions between 2011 and the delivery of the verdict in June 2014; the defendant brought 23 of these.

The defendant brought this motion without notice and Justice Beaudoin rejected the claim but recused himself nonetheless.