Sentences with phrase «further judicial resource»

Not exact matches

Australia About Blog This site is designed to provide resources relating to Australia's competition laws, including links to legislative history, key cases, information about relevant guidelines, expert and judicial profiles, a chronology of Australian competition law, key links to further resources and more.

The Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, gave priority to criminal cases being tried within a reasonable timeline, resulting in criminal cases receiving the majority of judicial resources and civil cases being further delayed.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Alaska injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

It is also a waste of time and judicial resources because a trial court could have dealt with the issue when it heard the case, causing further delay.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Georgia injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

«If this works it could be revolutionary: it could free up scarce judicial resources and provide for a far less expensive dispute - resolution process,» says Winkler, principal and founder of Winkler Dispute Resolution.

Far too often, those with limited resources feel closed off from the judicial system because they do not know their rights and can not afford attorneys.

Without such a further shift in culture of the kind engendered by Lord Woolf, coupled with adequate judicial resources and administrative support for the civil court system, it is difficult to see further rule changes alone achieving what Lord Woolf desired but which for large and complex claims his reforms failed ultimately to deliver.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Tennessee injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Missouri injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a California injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Without criticizing those who had gone before within the Court (and who often lacked the training, time, experience and resources), it became obvious that truly valuable judicial education required far more time and resources than we had ever been able to put into it.»

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a North Carolina injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Legalize and Regulate Marijuana WHEREAS, despite almost a century of prohibition, millions of Canadians today regularly consume marijuana and other cannabis products; WHEREAS the failed prohibition of marijuana has exhausted countless billions of dollars spent on ineffective or incomplete enforcement and has resulted in unnecessarily dangerous and expensive congestion in our judicial system; WHEREAS various marijuana decriminalization or legalization policy prescriptions have been recommended by the 1969 - 72 Commission of Enquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, the 2002 Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, and the 2002 House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs; WHEREAS the legal status quo for the criminal regulation of marijuana continues to endanger Canadians by generating significant resources for gang - related violent criminal activity and weapons smuggling — a reality which could be very easily confronted by the regulation and legitimization of Canada's marijuana industry; BE IT RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will legalize marijuana and ensure the regulation and taxation of its production, distribution, and use, while enacting strict penalties for illegal trafficking, illegal importation and exportation, and impaired driving; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will invest significant resources in prevention and education programs designed to promote awareness of the health risks and consequences of marijuana use and dependency, especially amongst youth; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will extend amnesty to all Canadians previously convicted of simple and minimal marijuana possession, and ensure the elimination of all criminal records related thereto; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a new Liberal government will work with the provinces and local governments of Canada on a coordinated regulatory approach to marijuana which maintains significant federal responsibility for marijuana control while respecting provincial health jurisdiction and particular regional concerns and practices.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a foreign injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Further there was the general principle that judicial case management is designed to save expense and deal with matters in a way which is «proportionate to the financial position of the parties and allots an appropriate share of court's resources».

Yet, with smaller populations, a lower volume of cases, and far fewer demands on judicial resources, the problem that Hryniak seeks to address isn't as fully relevant across the region.

Australia About Blog This site is designed to provide resources relating to Australia's competition laws, including links to legislative history, key cases, information about relevant guidelines, expert and judicial profiles, a chronology of Australian competition law, key links to further resources and more.

Australia About Blog This site is designed to provide resources relating to Australia's competition laws, including links to legislative history, key cases, information about relevant guidelines, expert and judicial profiles, a chronology of Australian competition law, key links to further resources and more.