Sentences with phrase «found appellant»

On October 18, 2010, the New Jersey Real Estate Commission (NJREC or Commission) found appellant Douglas R. Tonge and his company Just New Homes, Inc., violated N.J.S.A. 45:15 - 17 (k) by paying rebates or compensation to persons not licensed by the Commission; N.J.A.C. 11:5 - 6.4 (a), breached the fiduciary duty owed to their customers; N.J.S.A. 45:15 - 17 (e), failed to deal fairly with all parties; and N.J.A.C. 11:5 - 6.1 (r), made false or misleading statements in promotional materials.

In January 2015, Varpio J. found the appellant in contempt of court after she brought proceedings in New York with respect to the New York property.

The motion judge found the appellant had breached the Final Order by commencing such proceedings because Koke J. had seized himself of the matter and para. 17 of the Final Order required only Koke J. to sign further final orders flowing from the minutes of settlement.

The Court of Appeal found the Appellant's framing of the action as a damage claim for negligence (distinct from the destruction of the diseased animals and treatment of the herd), does not place this case outside the scope of s. 9:

The Court of Appeal found the Appellant's case had merit, that there was «sufficient evidence on the record to establish that there are difficult questions of fact or law that can not fairly be resolved summarily.»

Consequently, he found the appellant was required to bear the costs and granted the application.

On the second ground, the majority of the Court of Appeal found the appellant failed to establish the trial judge erred in assessing the claim for loss of future income earning capacity.

However, at trial, the appellant provided an «insufficient factual underpinning» to ground compensation for loss of earning capacity; the Court of Appeal found this part of the claim failed because the judge found the appellant did not meet the burden described in the Perren decision — the trial judge simply did not accept the appellant's evidence of his limitations and anecdotal evidence from other witnesses did not shore up his testimony.

We do not know on what date the jury concluded the assault occurred, but we do have certainty as to the crucial issue — the jury found the appellant was the perpetrator.

Accordingly, the Court found the Appellant had been denied exclusive distributorship rights under the agreement and so remitted the issue of damages to the Trial Judge.

Justice Brown found the Appellant's submission in this regard to be misplaced.

In the arbitral award, the tribunal had found the appellant in breach of EU competition law and ordered it to pay damages.

In contrast, C.K., [2006] O.J. No. 4477 (OSCJ, Desmerais J) held: Failure to Reside 26 The Appellant also argues that the trial judge erred in finding the Appellant failed to reside.

The deceased returns to the living room to find the Appellant has not left.

A motions judge finds the Appellants are served validly in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg.

The Application Judge found the appellants are incorrect — the legal address of the property (as distinct from its «convenience address») had been zoned to permit restaurants.

The trial judge found the appellants, Moishe Bergman and Artcraft Company Inc., jointly and severally liable for the defamation.

The arbitrator, despite finding the Appellant lied twice and intended to claim a sick day when he was not sick, ruled the termination could not stand.

Not exact matches

«It is unlikely that the appellant would have successfully completed her degree without being reasonably competent in English,» the judge found.

The conviction was later overturned by the High Court, which found «there was no evidence to suggest that any of the followers of the appellant's «tweet» found it to be of a menacing character or, at a time when the threat of terrorism is real, even minimally alarming.»

«The learned trial judge did not find that the first appellant exercised his powers for unlawful purpose or in bad faith but bona fide.

Some of that information was presented to a court in Ontario in July 2011, in which Professor Carl Phillips was one of many knowledgeable experts who gave evidence, where the judges found that on the basis of extensive expert evidence led by the wind industry and the appellants that wind turbines can cause harm to health, but that further research is required.

The Appellant was later found in contempt of these injunctions, but from December 2009 on abided by their terms.

The judge found it particularly troublesome that many of the documents filed in the past by the Appellant were unintelligible and served no legal purpose.

It found that the Appellant had not identified any basis upon which it could be said that the judge misapprehended the evidence, and accepted as reasonable the chambers judge's conclusion that the absence of recent occurrences of disruptive behaviour was due to the injunction itself.

He found that the Respondent had not adopted and used the Appellant's mark in contravention of the Trade - marks Act, concluding that no one ever communicated any confusion or mistake as to whether the website belonged to the Appellant.

replete with such language: it disdains the district court's «abrupt handling» of Appellant's first case; sarcastically refers to Appellant's previous counsel's «new - found appreciation for defendant's mental abilities;» criticizes the district court's «oblique language» on an issue unrelated to this appeal; states that the district court opinion in Jones «revealed a crabby and complaining reaction to Project Exile;» insinuates that the district court's concerns «require -LSB--RSB- a belief in the absurd that is similar in kind to embracing paranormal conspiracy theories;» and accuses Appellant of being a «charlatan» and «exploit [ing] his identity as an African - American.»

While the Court acknowledged the difference between the tests, it found that official marks like any others serve an identification function, and it could not accept that the average Internet user would mistakenly think ICBCadvice.com referred to advice provided or endorsed by the Appellant.

The Court considered the claims of the groups of creditors that had assigned their actions to the Appellant, and found that to the extent those claims were personal — alleging misrepresentations to themselves personally, investments they made in reliance on those misrepresentations, and resulting personal loss — the Appellant could not pursue the claims on their behalf.

The Court found that it could be, and that the stay should be lifted to the extent of permitting the Appellant to pursue the fraudulent preference and constructive trust claims.

The facts of the case also do not support a finding of personal liability against the appellant Simonson.

In Wilson v State of Indiana,45A03 -1707-PC-1466 (2018) Correctly overrules the post conviction court for a faulty finding that the first appellant counsel was adequate as well.

It is therefore a misconception to hold that the Court below suo motu nullified the primary election conducted by the Appellant's Executive Committee... In the circumstance, this appeal is found to be misconceived, lacking in merits and liable to dismissal.»

However in this case the judge at first instance was entitled to find that the Appellant's failure to act was a «serious derelict of his duty» because of the critical role the survey played in the Respondent's culture.

There, appellant Roosevelt Lofts was found to have engaged in fraud in acquiring an easement from the District.

Mr. Nur the appellant, a first offender, was found to deserve a significant jail term against which the mandatory minimum was not found to be cruel and unusual or «grossly disproportionate».

Facts: On July 12, 2015 at just after midnight on a residential street in the Lower Mainland, BC the appellant, BF, was involved in a singular motor vehicle accident and moments later BF was found unconscious by another passing driver who saw the accident occur.

First, the Court found that the application judge had the requisite jurisdiction to make the order and declaration the appellant was required to transfer full ownership to the respondent.

For he said he would «prefer to resolve this case on administrative law grounds and find that it is unnecessary to address the broader constitutional issues raised by the appellants» (para. 70).

In considering the appellants submission that China was a more appropriate jurisdiction for the dispute, the motion judge found that the appellants did not discharge their burden to demonstrate that China was more appropriate than Ontario.

Summary: The appellant appealed a judgment by the Svea Court of Appeal to uphold an arbitral tribunal's finding that an arbitration clause applied to a dispute but to amend the tribunal's decision...

Consequently, the Court found the Chambers Judge did not err in finding the option was binding and that the Appellant must provide good and marketable title in fee simple.

Applying these principles in the present case, the Court of Appeal found that the appellant met the evidentiary threshold on the basis of the offer being a «rare and exceptional event».

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding that the Respondent had not erred in law in any of the ways submitted by the Appellant.

In this case, the finding against the appellant's credibility pervades the judge's rejection of his claim for greater damages.

The appellant was found guilty by Judge Michel Boudreault of the Court of Québec of having committed a number of sexual offences on his nephews and niece dating back to the 1960s.

The court was divided on one point: the consequence of their subsequent finding that the secretary of state's direction to Haringey to replace Shoesmith as director of children's services (DCS) was unlawful; this did not affect the outcome for the appellant.

It is not premised on a finding of fault on the part of the appellant but on the need to serve the environmental protection objective of the legislation.

and Semelhago v. Paramadevan [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415: For which see Siebrasse's critique, which interestingly quotes from oral argument an exchange between Gonthier J and John Swan as counsel., where the court's decision was based on a line of reasoning and authorities that were found nowhere in the appellant's or respondent's factums and were never canvassed in oral argument.

BACKGROUND: The Appellant, Cynthia Green, was found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the Hearing Committee of the Respondent Alberta Teachers»... [more]