Susan Vella interviewed about the Soulpepper lawsuit (CBC) Judge rules
in favour of Plaintiffs in Oak Ridge action, refers to treatment as «torture» Class Action Launched On Behalf Of Canadian Users Of Abilify And Abilify Maintena Long - time baby powder users sue over ovarian cancer (CTV News) A New Study Says Your Fitbit Is Probably Wrong About Your Heart Rate (Fortune)
Belobaba J. discussed at some length the uncertainties surrounding the second branch of the leave test set out at s. 138.8 (1) of the Act: that is, that there is a reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved at
trial in favour of the plaintiff [1].
We also haven't seen any cases where a judge said that he or she, before Resurfice, would have found the factual causation
issue in favour of the plaintiff using Athey material contribution — finding factual causation on the balance of probability — but, as a result of Resurfice, is now required to use the but - for test and, on the facts, must find the plaintiff failed to establish factual causation on the balance of probability.
A Dutch court classifies Bitcoin as a «transferable value» after the court ruled
in favour of a plaintiff who was owed 0.591 Bitcoins (BTC), according to a court document published March 20.
«To succeed in an action for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove that the prosecution was: (1) initiated by the defendant; (2)
terminated in favour of the plaintiff; (3) undertaken without reasonable and probable cause; and (4) motivated by malice or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect,» said the ruling.
In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled
in favour of the plaintiff for materials and money supplied for a variety of construction projects.
«It's rather startling that in six provinces and three territories there wasn't a single
verdict in favour of the plaintiff in 2016,» says Gary Wagner of Wagners, a personal injury law firm based in Halifax that does medical malpractice cases in the four Atlantic provinces and some in Alberta.
All of this worry because I simply told the truth about what went down with his case, and also because I offered an opinion on same after the fact of the decision (which was
legally in favour of the plaintiff, decision-wise, but negative, financially, said plaintiff being my real estate client prior to my retirement from the business.).
«I am satisfied on the material before me that the action is being brought in good faith and there is a reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved at
trial in favour of the plaintiffs,» wrote Belobaba.
On July 6, 2015, the Federal Court of Appeal released its decision
in favour of the plaintiffs.
In Ontario, for example, the Securities Act states that the court must be satisfied that «there is a reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved at trial
in favour of the plaintiff,» as one of the conditions for granting leave.
Suffice it to say, on April 21, 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec made a decision
in favour of the plaintiff and ruled against the government of Quebec.
The initial motions judge, bound by the Court of Appeal's ruling in McNaughton, found
in favour of the plaintiffs.
In a recent 2016 decision, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled
in favour of the Plaintiff - employee, awarding him pay in lieu of reasonable notice following a termination.
The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge's decision
in favour of the plaintiff, indicating that the campaign did not explicitly make any promises and was carefully worded to avoid violation of the Act.
On April 21, 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec made a decision
in favour of the plaintiff and ruled against the government of Quebec.
When the Human Rights Tribunal rendered its decision
in favour of the plaintiff, on the basis of very tenuous «evidence», I was surprised and disappointed.
An Ontario Superior Court ordered the company to pay $ 237,000 in legal costs and found
in favour of the plaintiff, awarding her $ 20,000.