Sentences with phrase «hear an application under»

(e) «Application Arbitrator» means an arbitrator appointed from the Centre's Panel by the Centre's Panel Committee to hear an application under these Rules;

Ontario Superior Court of Justice: a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has the discretion to sit with his or her counterparts in a location in or outside Ontario to hear applications under the 1986 - 1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement without the necessity of a video - conference link to a courtroom in Ontario, and may conduct the hearing in a location in or outside Ontario alongside the other supervisory judges from B.C. and Quebec.

Not exact matches

For months he heard that his application for $ 1,884,991 was still «under consideration.»

(1) In any State where there is no agreement in force between a State or its agency under subsection (a), the Secretary shall promulgate regulations for the performance of all necessary functions under section 426, including provision for a fair hearing for any worker whose application for payments is denied.

If you're hearing about Jane Iredale for the very first time (almost like me), the best way to explore the brand and to get to know it better is the Color Sample Kit * that combines 8 products under one compact roof of the palette plus two brushes for comfortable application.

Under R - 55, charter public schools will be voted on by local school boards who are required to hold public hearings to review applications.

-- On the application of a State or local government, the Attorney General may, in consultation with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, and after prior notice and a public hearing at which persons, including individuals with disabilities, are provided an opportunity to testify against such certification, certify that a State law or local building code or similar ordinance that establishes accessibility requirements meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of this Act for the accessibility and usability of covered facilities under this title.

I have never heard of anyone under the age of 64 having their initial application accepted.

You'll hear all about Zynga's CEO being under investigation for insider trading allegations, how Windows 8 could be a ticking time bomb for PC gaming, Metacritic becoming a requirement for job applications, and the glut of pointless downloadable content.

«The government clearly heard our perspective and adopted a balanced approach: There will be limited patent - term extensions in specified circumstances and a so - called «right of appeal» for brand - name manufacturers in applications under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.»

In fact, if the Court is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that an individual is dead, the judge hearing the application may instead make an order under the Absentees Act, if that is requested.

Under ERA 1996, s 129, the application will succeed if «it appears to the tribunal that it is likely» that at the full hearing it will be found that the reason for the dismissal was one of the reasons given in s 128.

The statute created a regime in Part I governing an application for a protection order made to a justice of the peace under s 5 (1) without notice of a hearing to the respondent.

The proposal is two levels of application fee involving a lower fee charged for the most straightforward cases and two subsequent fees charged at the initial resolution and final hearing stages under the public law outline — replacing the current protocol for case management — due in, with revised statutory guidance to local authorities and a new experts» practice direction, on 1 April 2008.

With respect, I think both Alberta courts which have heard this application have focused too much attention on the merits of the Ernst claim rather than on whether the AER / ERCB has satisfied the test to strike under rule 3.68.

If the application is made under section 21, the so - called accelerated procedure is used, and there is no hearing.

«In any proceedings in which a court is hearing an application for an order under Part IV or V, no person shall be excused from --(a) giving evidence on any matter; or answering any question put to him in the course of his giving evidence, on the ground that doing so might incriminate him or his spouse of an offence.»

In a subsequent hearing, the court granted permission for the claimants to bring an application under the new rules relating to contempt of court.

In his presentation, Mr. Giaimo covered the process of obtaining zoning relief in Massachusetts (both legal and practical considerations), how to analyze a project to determine what zoning relief is required, how to prepare and file an application for a variance or special permit, how to prepare for and represent an applicant at a hearing, and procedures and other issues related to zoning decisions under Massachusetts law and practice.

Order for hearing 536.4 (1) The justice before whom a preliminary inquiry is to be held may order, on application of the prosecutor or the accused or on the justice's own motion, that a hearing be held, within the period fixed by rules of court made under section 482 or 482.1 or, if there are no such rules, by the justice, to

21.10 (1) The Family Court may hear and determine an application under an Act to discharge, vary or suspend an order made by the Provincial Court (Family Division), the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice or the Unified Family Court.

Specific topics which have been covered in recent conferences include judicial ethics; interpreters; delivering reasons for judgment; assessing credibility; social media; technology and search warrants; managing a provincial offence trial; effectively communicating an oral judgment; risk assessment and indicators of lethality at bail hearings; the Youth Criminal Justice Act; eye - witness identification; conducting pre-trials; specific issues at trials of regulatory offences; fly - in - courts, residential schools; application of Gladue principles; mistrials and bias; accident reconstruction; search warrant issues; domestic violence issues; orders for examination under the Mental Health Act; child apprehension warrants under the Child and Family Services Act; evidentiary issues; discrimination and harassment in the workplace; stress management; and pre-retirement planning.

Under the old regime, arbitration applications in most instances were first heard by the district courts.

Following a hearing regarding claims made by seven claimants under TUPE on 6th and 7th May 2014, at the Bristol Employment Tribunal, at which the claimants succeeded, an application was made by the Treasury Solicitors, who were acting on behalf of the first respondents, for wasted costs under rules 80 — 82 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.

Applications under section 20 do not require a designated judge, but the FHRMIRA's definition of «Court» requires that this application be heard in a superior court, for example the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (FHRMIRA section 2, Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), section 2 (1)-RRB-.

This is seemingly a much lower test to meet than that employed by Justice Veldhuis in Arctos & Bird Management and the other leave applications she has heard under section 688.

In an application brought under R. v. Rogers Communications Partnership, 2014 ONSC 3853, an Ontario court has agreed to hear a Charter challenge brought by Rogers and Telus in response to a police request for «tower dumps» with records on over 40,000 calls or customers.

And we might also note that leave applications under the Municipal Government Act before Justice Veldhuis seem to turn primarily on whether the applicant can demonstrate it has a reasonable prospect of success if the matter is heard on its merits.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the application because a more effective remedy (a promotion) was available under the grievance procedure — a remedy that the court could not order.

Under pressure from the Supreme Court, Simon eventually conducted a hearing on Wendy V.'s application.

Except applications under article 814.9, no application that involves the interests of the parties and the interests of their children may be heard by the court if there is a dispute between the parties regarding child custody, support due to a party or to the children, the family patrimony or other patrimonial rights arising from the marriage or civil union, unless the parties have attended an information session on the mediation process and a copy of the mediator's report has been filed.

The Tribunal is vested with the jurisdiction to hear and dispose of applications under Parts VII.1 and VIII of the Act.

Under the law, the landlord must make available to you a copy of their «Application For An Above Guideline Increase» and inform you of the date for the hearing.

In an application filed under the Human Rights Code (Code) of Ontario, once the matter has been heard, and the Tribunal has found the respondent to be liable, the next stage is that of remedy.

Previously, the Board had stood quite firm that it had no authority to hear an application alleging a reprisal under the OHSA for a reprisal following filing of a workplace harassment complaint.

They can not touch an application under the Children Act 1989 unless relief is sought without notice, no ticketed judge is available and the order is limited in time until hearing before a ticketed judge.

Justice Eberle, who heard the matter, ultimately took the position that the application was premature given that no charges had yet been laid under the Competition Act.

The court did claim jurisdiction related to 4.6, 4.6.1, and 4.9.5, and noted that the broad language used under s. 14 meant that such applications were not a judicial review of the PCC's decision, but a de novo hearing altogether.

In late May, the court heard an application for judicial review in BMO v. Sasso seeking to set aside the order of an adjudicator made during a hearing under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code that dealt with documents the Bank of Montreal claimed were privileged.

The case stated asked whether, on an application by a nominated successor for a direction under s 53 of AHA 1986 entitling her to a tenancy on the retirement of the tenant, the nominated successor had to satisfy the livelihood condition in s 50 (2)(a) not only by reference to the seven years ending with the date of the giving of the retirement notice, but also by reference to the seven years ending with the date of the tribunal hearing.

The Court can not, in hearing a native title determination application or a compensation application, conduct a roving inquiry into whether anybody, and if so who, held any and if so what native title rights and interests in the land and waters under consideration.

State courts also have a limited jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975, you should check with your local state court as to whether they have the jurisdiction to hear and determine your type of application.

(6) If the power referred to in paragraph (1)(j) is delegated under subsection (1), a Registrar shall not exercise the power except in relation to costs of or in connection with an application heard by a Registrar.

107 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Sosis - subject matter jurisdiction; due process; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; deposits; fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restitution

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