Sentences with phrase «do as a trial judge»

Funt's actions were «well intentioned» even if they were outside what he was permitted to do as a trial judge, says Jeffrey Ray, who represented Bornyk at the Court of Appeal.

Not exact matches

Who are we to judge what God does or allows he has his reasons who can fathom his ways he sees the end from the beginning and is not limited to time or space like we are.Does God want anything the answer is Yes he wants a relationship with us that is why he sent his son because he had a purpose in creating us.However the wages of sin is death in this scripture alone regardless of what happens here we all deserve to die God could have wiped us all out with another flood for who of us is worthy.It is by grace that we live and yes bad things do happen to good people just as it does for the wicked is it to test our faith i do not know but i do know that God gives us the grace to endure through trials and difficulty and that all things do work for Good if we love him..

The trial judge had accepted that (para 239) the geographic dimension of any market for the wholesale supply of packaged groceries would be New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory» but «did not accept that the product dimension of the market should be delineated by reference to packaged groceries» as argued by the Commission.

The Huffington Post quoted one of its own writers, Kim Simon, in expressing her trials and tribulations, first as a mom who couldn't produce breast milk and was shamed by other parents, then as a breastfeeding - only mom who was judged when doing so in public.

In 2006, every single MP in the government voted in favour of the exact amendments that are once again being called for: that the United States should have to produce evidence in support of its extradition requests - as it is happy to do for almost every other country on the planet - and that a judge here should be able to take a view on whether a trial might best be heard here or in the US.

In my assessment, the judiciary has done all anyone can reasonably expect in supporting the current fight against corruption - anti-corruption cases have moved very fast to trial; and judges have imposed especially severe and onerous terms on accused persons brought before them for corrupt acts, with bail terms typically including deposit of their international passports, sureties and bail bonds with assets equivalent to the amount allegedly embezzled; and very high qualifications for standing as surety.

Berger's film spins off all sorts of jokey asides (Charlie's crime scene training video, a music video from a side project rock band one of the cops fronts), as well as a trial session framing device that features Sherilyn Fenn as a prosecutor and John Landis as the judge, and sometimes these bits don't connect.

It doesn't mean much, ultimately, as allowing the trial to continue doesn't commit the judge to rule one way or the other.

The objects of the Club shall be: (a) to encourage and promote quality in the breeding of purebred Great Danes and to do all possible to bring their natural qualities to perfection; (b) to urge members and breeders to accept the standard of the breed as approved by the American Kennel Club as the only standard of excellence by which Great Danes shall be judged; (c) to do all in its power to protect and advance the interests of the breed by encouraging sportsmanlike competition at dog shows and obedience trials; (d) to conduct sanctioned and licensed specialty shows and obedience trials under the rules and Regulations of the American Kennel Club.

Our goals are to encourage and promote the breeding of pure - bred Golden Retrievers and to do all possible to bring their natural qualities to perfection; to urge members and breeders to accept the standard of the breed as approved by The American Kennel Club as the only standard of excellence by which Golden Retrievers shall be judged; to do all in our power to protect and advance the interests of the breed by encouraging sportsmanlike competition at dog shows, obedience trials, agility trials, hunt tests and field trials; and to conduct sanctioned and licensed specialty shows, obedience trials, agility trials, and field trials under the rules of The American Kennel Club.

We can't always avoid doing things which cause grip problems, but as we all know, grips are judged in trials, and they should be judged in training as well, so we better make sure we help the dogs get back to where they work as well as they can.

(a) To encourage and promote quality in the breeding of apricot and red poodles and to do all possible to bring their natural qualities to perfection; (b) To urge members and breeders to accept the standard of the breed as approved by The American Kennel Club as the only standard of excellence by which they shall be judged; (c) To do all in its power to protect and advance the interests of the breed by encouraging sportsmanlike competition at dog shows and obedience trials;

Objectives of the Club To encourage and promote quality in the breeding of purebred Havanese and to do all possible to bring their natural qualities to perfection; To encourage the organization of independent local Havanese Specialty Clubs in those localities where there are sufficient fanciers of the breed to meet the requirements of The American Kennel Club; To urge members and breeders to accept the standard of the breed approved by The American Kennel Club as the only standard of excellence by which Havanese shall be judged; To do all in its power to protect and advance the interests of the breed and to encourage sportsmanlike competition at dog shows, obedience trials and agility events; To conduct sanctioned matches, specialty shows, obedience trials and agility trials under the rules of The American Kennel Club.

OHIP is the product of a socially conscious society, but we agree that in situations such as the instant one «an enlightened and compassionate society», to use the words of the learned trial judge, should do more.

In its decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted the trial judge «made many errors» stating the original interpretation did not take into consideration that a two - step process involving consultation by both the province and the federal government is unnecessary, as the treaty right is protected.

If you're prepared to presume, absent something relevant to the contrary, the validity of what amounts to an unexplained jury decision so long as the relevant evidence is capable of supporting that decision, what's the basis for your problem with what the trial judge did here (assuming you have a problem)?

... Nor did the trial judge identify any aspect of Simonson's conduct in making the impugned representations independent from his activity as a corporate officer.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resuTrial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resutrial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resutrial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resuTrial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resulted.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public interest.

Just as Judge Boswell correctly demanded a court cite for the ADA's assertion that Wilson did have the «right» to pro se, she should have made the demand of Wilson if for no other reason than a test of Wilson's ability to handle a trial.

In the case of R. v. Downey, the trial judge found that the accused's suspicion had been aroused to the point that there was a need for inquiry, but she deliberately did not inquire so as not to learn the truth.

As far as reasonableness of fees, the trial judge did discount for duplicative work between the two attorneys» SLAPP motions, including a substantial reduction for attorney # 2's fees — inefficiency / duplicative efforts were indeed factored into the ultimate awardAs far as reasonableness of fees, the trial judge did discount for duplicative work between the two attorneys» SLAPP motions, including a substantial reduction for attorney # 2's fees — inefficiency / duplicative efforts were indeed factored into the ultimate awardas reasonableness of fees, the trial judge did discount for duplicative work between the two attorneys» SLAPP motions, including a substantial reduction for attorney # 2's fees — inefficiency / duplicative efforts were indeed factored into the ultimate awards.

The problem with this approach, as Justice Butler makes clear, is that a trial judge can not do their job without all the issues before them.

Furthermore the Court of Appeal was of the view on the issue of credibility that it was not open to the trial judge to discount the claimant's reports to doctors as exaggeration because of his account of the accident unless the judge concluded the claimant was not so informed, a finding that the judge did not make and an issue he did not address.

If the trial does take place, you will give evidence to the Judge based on your witness statement, as well as any other witnesses who can give the Court useful information.

[76] The trial judge found as a fact that the hearing fees are unaffordable and therefore limit access for litigants who do not fall within the exemptions for the indigent and the impoverished.

[18] Moreover, the trial judge did not find that the employer's offer to provide the Respondent with an additional two weeks in exchange for a release was untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive as set out in Honda v. Keays.

Given that the two are necessarily bound up as part of a unitary determination by the trial judge, what clarification do we therefore have as to how the appellate courts should go about their role?

Law students, no matter what they end up doing later, should spend as much time as possible learning how trial courts work and how trial judges think.

Although in this case the trial judge did not find the mandatory minimum to be grossly disproportionate to the accused, a finding the Court upheld as deserving deference, the Court was forced to contemplate reasonably foreseeable situations where it would be grossly disproportionate.

The court upheld the trial judge's allocation — even though it was done as a lump sum under multiple benefit categories — because she adhered to the policy objective set out in the Insurance Act of avoiding double recovery.

Although Markman assigned claim construction to the trial judge, it did not expressly state whether factual findings subsumed in that issue are subject to de novo review (as normally would be the case for legal rulings) or to review for «clear error» (as normally would apply to judicial fact findings).

At trial, the judge considered the relevant and applicable statutory duties and obligations of the Plaintiff, as a pedestrian, under the Motor Vehicle Act, but did not do so for the driver.

[25] As noted by Mr. Finn, the trial judge did not go on to determine the question of causation because he found that Mr. Evoy met the duty of care.

Even a very incomplete list gives an impression of the large number of significant opinions he has written: seminal administrative law cases such as Chevron v. NRDC and Massachusetts v. EPA, the intellectual property case Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios (which made clear that making individual videotapes of television programs did not constitute copyright infringement), important war on terror precedents such as Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, important criminal law cases such as Padilla v. Kentucky (holding that defense counsel must inform the defendant if a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation) and Atkins v. Virginia (which reversed precedent to hold it was unconstitutional to impose capital punishment on the mentally retarded), and of course Apprendi v. New Jersey (which revolutionized criminal sentencing by holding that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maximums based on facts other than those decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

Several committee members cited to trial judges, who are elected in the state in nonpartisan races, as «accountable» and specified that they did not want term limits applied to trial court judges.

The majority's concerns flowed the opposite way, as their concern was that the use of amici to assist the trial judge in fulfilling their duty to assist self - represented accused might result in «a trial judge doing something indirectly that she can not do directly,» and that is give them strategic advice (para 54).

The main reason McLean County was cited in the report was primarily due to Judge Paul Lawrence's decision to compel the president of the Illinois Manufacturers Association to testify in a case that had nothing to do with the association and another case in which Lawrence and another local judge forced one company to appear as a defendant in two different trials at the same Judge Paul Lawrence's decision to compel the president of the Illinois Manufacturers Association to testify in a case that had nothing to do with the association and another case in which Lawrence and another local judge forced one company to appear as a defendant in two different trials at the same judge forced one company to appear as a defendant in two different trials at the same time.

The trial judge also did not review the expert evidence as it related to the speed of the Defendant driver.

[62] Although the trial judge essentially treated this as a situation of repudiation or anticipatory breach, she did not consider whether the appellants elected to accept or reject the repudiation.

law enforcement officers and employees — okay for judges to friend them as long as they do not discuss details of trials

While the majority did not say «logically and reasonably» as did Fish J, I think we should assume that that is what they meant by stating that the trial judge's decision «was reasonable and was supported by the evidence» (my emphasis).

C.A., Feb. 22, 2012)(34720) Jan. 24, 2013 Whether to self - instruct by a trial judge is discretionary, and there is no requirement to do so as a matter of law.

The trial judge failed to give the necessary explanations to Mr. Watterson, on the basis that doing so would be giving him advice as to how to conduct his trial.

In these circumstances, it was incumbent on the trial judge to explain that difference to Mr. Watterson [emphasis mine], to explain that the court could not treat the Defence as evidence, and that if he did not call a witness, or testify himself, the court would have no basis upon which to accept, as proven, the facts which the defendants had set out in their Defence.

... It does require that the trial judge treat the litigant fairly and attempt to accommodate the unrepresented litigants» unfamiliarity with the process so as to permit them to present their case.»

Even where the trial judge has expressed views as to the conduct of a non-party it does not necessarily constitute bias or the appearance of bias.

Otherwise, the trial judge would have said something like «the parties have agreed that the but - for test is the applicable test» and there would have been no reason for the trial judge to discuss his understanding of Resurfice material contribution as he did.

If, as seems to be the case, the trial judge in the new Fisher trial did apply the Snell robust and pragmatic common sense approach, then, assuming there is an appeal and assuming that Aristorenas is still good law once Clements is decided, the Court of Appeal may have to determine whether Fisher is consistent with Aristorenas.

And it doesn't matter whether the reviewing court rather than the trial court makes this finding.The crux of the decision lies in the fact that «the State failed to prove its case as a matter of law, not merely because [the judge], as a 13th juror, would have decided it differently from the other 12 jurors.»