Most Ontario laws, from the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, contain
jurisdictional limits on their application, for example, to persons with disabilities or workplaces located within Ontario.
Not exact matches
Currently, through the use of conflicting and
limiting standing requirements and
jurisdictional ambiguity, many property owners are left in state courts where the burden is
on them to prove not only harm, but a «total loss of use» of their property as a whole.
In his opinion in Case C - 194 / 16 Advocate General (AG) Bobek suggests
limiting the
jurisdictional competence for infringements of personality rights of legal and natural persons
on the Internet to two venues: the place of the domicile of the publisher and the centre of interest of the company whose personality rights have been infringed.
Recent cases include: Axiom Litigation Financing Fund (acting for the «receiver / liquidator» of a Caymans Islands fund: # 110m dispute); Frauntled Management
Limited v Featherwood ($ 13m investment dispute before the BVI Court of Appeal); BBX Capital Asset Management v Royal Bank of Canada & Ors ($ 30m Cayman dispute relating to transaction to defraud creditors / sham trusts); Trinity Management Group Ltd v Burke Consolidated Ltd (s. 184I / s.175 BVI dispute); Maruti Holdings PTE
Limited v Sinclair Strategies
Limited (BVI
jurisdictional challenge); QVT Fund & Ors v China Zenix Auto International
Limited (s. 184I and s184C BVI dispute: interim injunction) In addition, the international nature of commercial fraud often results in Paul advising in relation to proceedings before off - shore courts such as in VTB v Nutritek (advised
on interim relief in Cayman Islands and maintenance of BVI injunction in light of UK Supreme Court decisions) and in other off - shore jurisdictions such as Jersey, Guernsey and Nevis.
In the commercial context, claims of this size (generally, between $ 1,500 and $ 25,000, though the
jurisdictional limits of actions heard in Small Claims Courts vary depending
on the state and county in which the claim is brought) typically arise from consumer disputes, or disputes among parties to a services contract.
To the extent that extrinsic restrictions
on class actions — i.e.,
limits on the ability of representative plaintiffs to appeal certification orders (as in Baker), and
jurisdictional restrictions
on bringing cases in «plaintiff - friendly» jurisdictions (as in Bristol - Myers)-- were tightened, class actions will become harder to maintain and litigate.
As I predicted, the Court unanimously (through Justice Ginsburg, who cares most deeply about these issues) held that FRAP 4 (a)(5)(C)'s 30 - day
limit on extensions to file notices of appeal was not
jurisdictional, then punted issues of waiver, forfeiture, and equitable exception to the Seventh Circuit for initial consideration.
Already, the English courts have signalled a
limited retreat from the advances widely thought to have been accomplished by Anisminic — in Cart the UK Supreme Court did not employ the concept of
jurisdictional error to determine how to control alleged illegalities committed by the Upper Tribunal and preferred to rely
on pragmatic considerations to
limit the scope of review.
Justice Ashcroft permitted the Ethics Commissioner to give
limited submissions
on the basis that the threshold issue appeared to be
jurisdictional, and further held that the Ethics Commissioner was in the best position to inform the Court as to its general legislative structure and function (McIver, at para 16).
To institute a divisional Multiple Listing Service based
on geographic lines within a Board
jurisdictional area
limits access to Board services and activities in a way which could be deemed and adjudged arbitrary and unreasonable.