Funny how Toby et al consider a picture or sculpture of a naked woman an obscenity and their elected officials cover even «blind justice» statues, but they think that a PAID SALESMAN of a dead religion tormenting a dying nonbeliever
deserves no rebuke or prohibition.
What could I possibly have done wrong that
deserved a rebuke?
And perhaps
I deserved the rebuke, for the Judge, despite his coldness toward most of the world, including, usually, his children, was never anything but tender and affectionate with our mother.
My generation
deserve a rebuke for pretending Auerbach's genius was an outdated fashion.
Not exact matches
The school district, elected school board members and the powerful teachers unions have been handed a well -
deserved public
rebuke.
... come on Luke and Bazza, how can a statement like that get made and not
deserve a rude
rebuke??!
Pointing out the affirmative should hardly
deserve being
rebuked for an imaginary position against advocacy.
In Fong v. Lee, 2002 B.C.S.C. 678 — Mr. Justice Hood ordered special costs against defendant executors on the basis that their conduct
deserved reproof or
rebuke.
A British Columbia judge has awarded special costs to a food distribution company after finding its governmental opponents engaged in conduct that was «reprehensible and
deserving of
rebuke or reproof.»
The failure to honour the spirit of the settlement agreement was considered reprehensible conduct
deserving of
rebuke and special costs were awarded against the defendant by Master Taylor sitting as Registrar.
He found the Respondent's conduct
deserving of
rebuke, noting that it went beyond non-compliance to unilateral meddling with rents and credit cards, as well as business sabotage.
(For example, the BC College of Teachers involves a one - way costs system — costs can be awarded only against a respondent — but perhaps as a result, a practice has evolved such that historically, panels have not awarded costs against respondent teachers except to sanction conduct during a proceeding that is
deserving of
rebuke.)
The terms «scandalous, outrageous or reprehensible» and «
deserving of reproof or
rebuke» are used to describe the conduct of a party that warrants special costs: Camaso v. Egan, 2011 BCSC 954 at para. 6.
The Court of Appeal rejected both submissions and, applying the principles of Garcia v. Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. (1994), 9 B.C.L.R. (3d) 242 (C.A.) and Moon Development Corporation v. Pirooz, 2015 BCCA 213, held that Mr. Leon Lam produced «no effective answer to the allegation that he has engaged in reprehensible conduct
deserving of the Court's
rebuke».
It encompasses scandalous or outrageous conduct but it also encompasses milder forms of misconduct
deserving of reproof or
rebuke.
«Previous counsel's failure to provide the court with fair disclosure at the ex parte hearing was reprehensible and
deserving of
rebuke.
It encompasses scandalous or outrageous conduct but it also encompasses milder forms in its conduct
deserving of reproof or
rebuke.