Sentences with phrase «disclosure under a claim»

Not exact matches

Entrants agree to release and hold harmless the Bloggin» Mamas, Heather Lopez Enterprises, LLC, Florida Prepaid, Moore Communications, Twitter, and any other organizations responsible for sponsoring, fulfilling, administering, advertising or promoting this giveaway, and their respective parent, subsidiaries, and affiliates and each of their respective officers, directors, members, employees, agents and subcontractors (collectively the «Released Parties») from and against any and all claims, expenses, and liability, including but not limited to negligence and damages of any kind to persons and property, including but not limited to invasion of privacy (under appropriation, intrusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light in the public eye or other legal theory), defamation, slander, libel, violation of right of publicity, infringement of trademark, copyright or other intellectual property rights, property damage, or death or personal injury arising out of or relating to a participant's entry, creation of an entry or submission of an entry, participation in this giveaway, acceptance or use or misuse of prize.

The Bulldog rescue group «sought specific information as to the LSPCA definitions, policies, procedures, and outcomes related to the evaluation, adoption, and / or euthanasia of surrendered / stray animals in control of the LSPCA,» information it was refusing to willingly disclose under the claim that as a private agency, it was not subject to public disclosure laws.

I accept that the disclosure of the report can not perhaps be fully justified under the claimed headline re: solar forcings.

H accepted, when cross-examined about this, that he deliberately chose not to disclose these facts to W. H claimed that, given the preliminary stage of the negotiations, he was not under a duty to disclose and, even if he was, disclosure of the details would not have caused the court to make a substantially different order.

The Information Commissioner's Office and the Information Tribunal (which already have notoriously large backlogs) will also be placed under additional strain, because it seems inevitable that private organisations will be more ready to seek to protect commercial interests by resisting disclosure on the basis of confidentiality and commercial sensitivity, and that such claims will be challenged by information requestors.

Without notifying Merck, Health Canada disclosed the records it held on Merck's new drug submission to the other parties; needless to say, when it learned of the disclosure Merck objected, claiming that the documents should not have been disclosed at all under certain exemption provisions in the Act, or that at the very least it should have received notice in advance.

... there is no need to protect the solicitor - client communication from disclosure to those very persons who are claiming under the estate.

He declined, and brought a claim for «compensation for detriment suffered by a worker as a result of the making of protected disclosures», under the «whistleblowing» legislation.

Her case was heard by the Honourable Justice Stinson, who found in favour of the unnamed woman, creating a new tort of «public disclosure of embarrassing private facts» and awarding over $ 100,000 in damages and costs (the plaintiff brought her action under the Simplified Procedure which limits a claim of damages to $ 100,000).

Tom acted for PDV Marina in this high value Commercial Court litigation concerning claims for hire ($ 65M +) under alleged charterparties and guarantees which settled shortly before trial after a series of contested specific disclosure applications.

In Rothmans, Justice Cyr of the New Brunswick Queen's Bench dismissed a similar application by PMI for disclosure of anonymized data related to health care benefits in an action under New Brunswick's comparable version of the Act.3 Interpreting provisions with identical language, Justice Cyr rejected the claim that anonymizing data from the databases would be sufficient to protect privacy.

As noted by way of an introduction to the critical statutory franchise rescission remedy in Ontario in a Law Works Franchise Justice Blog Post on September 8, 2013, «Terminating a Franchise Agreement: A Primer ``, if a franchisor fails to deliver a disclosure document as required under Ontario's Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 and its Regulation, General Ontario Regulation 581/00, a franchisee is entitled to cancel (legally «rescind») the entire purchase of the franchised business from the start of the transaction, including all franchise and related agreements, and claim a return of all his or her investment and losses.

MGDC and its affiliates claimed that their arrangement with Authentic Brands Group LLC was itself a «franchise agreement» under Ontario's Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, and that they were entitled to a rescission (cancellation) of the arrangement because they had not been provided with a franchise disclosure document.

It filed a certificate under section 37 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act, which establishes a procedure for objecting to the disclosure of evidence based on a «specified public interest» and which starts with a «first stage» hearing to determine whether the privilege has been validly claimed.

(C) A computation of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party, making available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary matter, not privileged or protected from disclosure, on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and

Third, a health plan may condition payment of a claim for specified benefits on obtaining an authorization under § 164.508 (e) for disclosure to the plan of protected health information necessary to determine payment of the claim.

Franchise rescission claims under provincial franchise disclosure legislation have been accelerating in recent years.

This cause of action (to which I will refer as a «section 7 claim») seeks damages for either (i) misrepresentation by a franchisor of a material fact, or (ii) failure by a franchisor to otherwise comply with disclosure obligations under the Act.

Nevertheless, Beatson J decided that, under the CPR, and in an extreme case, it may be just to order cross-examination, rather than simply determining that the claim to privilege had failed and ordering disclosure.

The decision, handed down in October 2013, held that state statutes and rules regulating an attorney's disclosure of client confidences were not pre-empted by the False Claims Act and that the former general counsel's decision to «spill his guts and freely disclose Unilab's confidential information» went well beyond anything that was authorized under the crime / fraud exception of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

A claim under section 7 of the Act seeks damages for either (i) misrepresentation by a franchisor of a material fact, or (ii) failure by a franchisor to otherwise comply with disclosure obligations under the Act.

2) premium of term plan with rider will remain constant in case you avail benefit under critical illness rider 3) under premium waiver, how does it work 4) in case you opt for 2 companies, disclosure to both is required, in case its not disclosed for general reason will it have impact on claim?

9 DOS 94 Matter of DOS v. Shane - motion for pre-hearing discovery beyond SAPA 401 (6) is denied; rules re: subpoenas in administrative proceedings reiterated; proper procedure of reserving right to file post-hearing memorandum of law; MLS form listing agreements are acceptable; individual license not sufficient to allow acting as representative of corporate licensee - need affiliated license; agreements procured by individual acting under name of firm but without affiliated license are illegal and unenforceable - no brokerage fee can be claimed; misrepresentation and execution of unauthorized extension; misrepresentation of law (distinction between canceling agency authority and abiding contract rights); RPL § 443 controls the disclosures required of licensees; subsequently licensed corporation not vicariously liable; failure to provide copy of agreement (19 NYCRR 175.12); inadvertence considered in determining penalty

79 DOS 99 Matter of DOS v. Pagano - disclosure of agency relationships; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; unauthorized practice of law; unearned commissions; vicarious liability; fraudulent practice; jurisdiction; ex parte hearing may proceed upon proof of proper service; DOS has jurisdiction after expiration of respondents» licenses as acts of misconduct occurred and the proceedings were commenced while the respondents were licensed; licensee fails to timely provide seller client with agency disclosure form prior to entering into listing agreement and fails to timely provide agency disclosure form to buyer upon first substantive contact; broker fails to make it clear for which party he is acting; broker violates 19 NYCRR 175.24 by using exclusive right to sell listing agreement without mandatory definitions of «exclusive right to sell» and «exclusive agency»; broker breaches fiduciary duties to seller clients by misleading them as to buyer's ability to financially consummate the transaction; broker breaches his fiduciary duty to seller by referring seller to the attorney who represented the buyers when he knew or should have known such attorney could not properly protect seller's interests; improper for broker to use listing agreements providing for broker to retain one half of any deposit if forfeited by buyer as such forfeiture clause could, by its terms, allow broker to retain part of the deposit when broker did not earn a commission; broker must conduct business under name as it appears on license; broker engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in preparing contracts for purchase and sale of real estate which did not contain a clause making it subject to the approval of the parties» attorneys and were not a form recommended by a joint bar / real estate board committee; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using sales contract which purported to change the terms of the listing agreement to include a higher commission; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using contracts of sale which were unclear, ambiguous, vague and incomplete; broker failed to amend purchase agreement to reflect amendment to increase deposit amount; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in back - dating purchase agreements; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in participating in scheme to have seller hold undisclosed second mortgage and to mislead first mortgagee about the purchaser's financial ability to purchase; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness by claiming unearned commission and filing affidavit of entitlement for unearned commission; DOS fails to establish by substantial evidence that respondent acted as undisclosed dual agent; corporate broker bound by the knowledge acquired by and is responsible for acts committed by its licensees within the actual or apparent scope of their authority; corporate and individual brokers» licenses revoked, no action taken on application for renewal until proof of payment of sum of $ 2,000.00 plus interests for deposits unlawfully retained