Sentences with phrase «judgment motion decision»

The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment motion decision and argued that a six - year limitation period was applicable notwithstanding that they had conceded at the motion that the applicable limitation period was two years.

The Court of Appeal of Ontario decision in 1418885 Ontario Ltd. v. 2193139 Ontario Limited, 2018 ONCA 54, recently overturned a summary judgment motion decision which confirmed the importance of requisition letters in real estate transactions.

Not exact matches

A strategic decision to counter a Rule 21 motion would be to bring a Rule 20 cross motion for summary judgment.

A scheduling decision, released last week by Justice Brown of the Commercial List in Toronto, provides the first insight as to how summary judgment motions may be changing on a practical level.

On January 23, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the case of Hryniak v. Mauldin, in which it signaled a fundamental shift in the way that summary judgment motions are to be handled in the Province of Ontario.

Following the release of the SCC decision in Hryniak in January of this year, the widely held view was that the decision would deal a death blow to trials in Canada and would open the floodgates to summary judgment motions.

Researchers might conduct correlational studies of existing cases, as Long and Christenson did in their study of readability and success on appeal241 or as Moss did in his mixed - methods study of employment discrimination summary judgment motions.242 Or they might conduct an experiment asking participants to simulated cases, as in the proposed modification of Chestek's study of preferences for narrative elements in briefs.243 Alternatively, researchers could conduct qualitative studies of decision - makers believe that legal writing influences their decisions.

After a series of lower court decisions resulted in conflicting conclusions, the Appeals Court vacated a Superior Court judgment allowing the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of the three - year limitation period of G.L. c. 84, § 15.

Duty Room Handles various matters including motions for default judgment, decisions concerning applications for warrants to search, applications by the Clerk to strike improper or incomplete pleadings, motions to dismiss filed by the prosecutor pursuant to Criminal Rule 48, cognovit notes, motions to excuse jurors, probable cause hearings, and performing civil wedding ceremonies.

Another example is a motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule in the requester's favor because essential facts are no longer in dispute (perhaps because of what has been learned in discovery), making a jury's decision unnecessary on some — or all — points.

The decision replaces the previous decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, a special five - judge panel to hear five appeals over Rule 20 which then created a «full appreciation test» for summary judgment motions.

Microsoft also submitted Judge Posner's decision to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, where it has a summary judgment motion on Motorola's request for injunctive relief pending.

In response to the decision, the defendant brought a motion to have the default judgment set aside.

In the area of class actions, it is significant that a Respondent may now apply for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court granting a Motion for Authorization (Certification)(article 578), a move which will likely have an impact on strategy in first instance and Respondents» decisions whether to consent to authorization and proceed directly on the merits, or not.

Time will tell, on both fronts, but in the meantime it is safe to say that the Supreme Court decision will change summary judgment motions not only in a substantive, but also in a procedural, manner.

There is no shortage of rhetoric in the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision on the scope and interpretation of amendments to Ontario's Rule 20 governing motions for summary judgment.

In the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in 2147191 Ontario Inc. v. Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd., the plaintiffs brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking to rescind a franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the «Act»).

Weinstein said, «While no partiality could be construed in rejecting defendant's motion for summary judgment based on timeliness, recusal now is desirable to avoid the appearance of partiality by the undersigned judge in future decisions in the case.»

The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in 2337310 Ontario Inc. v. 2264145 Ontario Inc., 2014 ONSC 4370, addressed a partial summary judgment motion brought by the franchisee of a cafe seeking a declaration that it was entitled to exercise its right of rescission under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 («the Act»).

However, this principal may now be undermined given Ontario Court of Appeal's recent decision in an appeal on a summary judgment motion in Michela v. St. Thomas of Villanova Catholic School, where Justice Huscroft explicitly rejected Bohemier as it was applied in Gristey,

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff proceeded with the action in response to the insurer's decision to terminate accident benefits and would seek repayment of benefits paid pursuant to s. 47 (1).

In the recent decision of Covenoho v. Pendylum Ltd., the Ontario Court of Appeal awarded a former employee of Pendylum 40 weeks» pay ($ 56,000.00), overturning the ruling of the Motion Judge at summary judgment.

Much more recently, however, the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin held that «a trial is not required if a summary judgment motion can achieve fair and just adjudication... and is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial».

Thus, the high court reversed the lower court's decision to deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

However, the trial judge granted the motion for summary judgment and agreed that, although the decision was harsh, the plaintiff's notice was inadequate.

In response, some of the defendant insurers brought summary judgment motions seeking to relitigate this question of law and challenge the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision in McNaughton.

After a judge makes a decision at the hearing, the other spouse has 30 days to file a motion to overturn the default judgment.

For example, our firm recently acted for the Plaintiff, a U.S. judgment debtor, on a successful motion to dismiss a counterclaim brought to an Ontario judgment creditor — see the decision here.

A few months following the decision a motion was brought by the Defendant to set aside the default judgment.

The defendant did not file a statement of defence, and this decision was based on a motion for default judgment.

In another recent Ontario decision, Superior Court Justice David Corbett urged parties to treat a motion for summary judgment seriously, and warned against handling it as if it were «a speed bump on the long highway to trial.»

The resulting decision (s)(known to most as «Combined Air») provided, arguably, clarity to motion judges going forward and set out which types of cases are and are not suitable for summary judgment.

It is not clear at this time how the Supreme Court's decision in these two cases will impact the use of summary judgment motions in the province.

The Court of Appeal declined to interfere with the motion judge's cost award as the litigation reflected a profound lack of judgment on Raymond's part; Raymond failed to submit a bill of costs and the motion judge's decision was entitled to considerable deference.

Justice Bale found that the issue was whether the proposed summary judgment motion was likely to provide a «proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial», citing the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hyrniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.

A close look at the data and recent orders and motions will help inform a decision as to whether to file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a motion for new trial.

The Court considered the guidance recently provided in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, with respect to summary judgment motion principles before providing its analysis of the case.

Judge Taft - Carter's decision denying Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment is notable as the first instance in which a Rhode Island court has addressed the scope of duty an employer owes for «secondary» or «take - home» exposures.

Kemp v Boat Sales, Inc Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 217863 (February 23, 2001)(affirming decision to deny motion to set aside default judgment)

Although the additional time that the federal judges took to make decisions is not dispositive of the result, it adds to the possibility that state judges viewing the heavy burden on summary judgment were and are less willing to grant these motions as a threshold matter and instead prefer to let cases proceed to trial or settlement.112 By contrast, the federal judges who take more time in coming to decisions may put more weight on the summary judgment motions if they are, on the balance, more willing to grant them.

This last decision involved defendant in an indemnity action prevailing on a summary judgment motion.

My sense is that we are seeing more summary judgment motions being granted (although that's anecdotal, since I haven't run the pre-Combined Air decisions yet to compare), but that success is still highly dependent on making sure your case really meets the Combined Air criteria before bringing a motion.

Summary judgment motions have been a topic of great interest over the last few years, with a change in the Rules regarding summary judgment, and the release of the Combined Air decision late last year.

If a Georgia appellate court holds that a lawyer, judge or jury made an error during the trial, or that a judge made an error in deciding a motion for summary judgment, the appellate court can reverse the trial court's decision or order a new trial.

Because attorneys file summary judgment motions in state and in federal courts, we also test whether there is a differential impact of readability on judges» decisions in these two sets of courts.

With respect to the issue of summary judgment, Justice Pollak discussed the Hryniak decision and found that the evidence on the subject motion was sufficient and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the decision of the motion judge and granted summary judgment for rescission in favour of the franchisee purchaser, Mendoza, based on the disclosure deficiencies in AGR's disclosure document.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the published decision of the district court, which had denied insurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that a defect that is not apparent upon reasonable inspection, but only comes to light after an intensive post-failure expert examination, is a latent defect within insurance policy's latent defect exclusion.

The Court of Appeal determined both that the Motion Judge did not err in deciding the case by way of summary judgment, and that there was no basis to intervene in the decision itself.

Apart from a small correction to the partial summary judgment, the Court of Appeal finds no basis to interfere with the Motion Judge's decision.