Sentences with phrase «liberty claims in court»

While the case was decided 5 — 4, the opinions that accompanied the court's decision also signal that seven of the nine justices agree that businesses can make religious liberty claims in court — an important ruling, said Joshua Hawley, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

Not exact matches

Thus, the Court claims, there is precedent for the view that the procreative potential once thought essential to marriage is in fact no more central to the institution than the race, precedents embodied in the Court's previous affirmation of liberty rights to contraception and sodomy in Griswold and Lawrence.

The opinion [Scalia continues] in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court's claimed power to create «liberties» that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.

Notable mandates: Represented physicians involved in providing care to Ashley Smith during the 2013 coroner's inquest; acted for Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in a defamation action against Ontario Progressive Conservative party leader Tim Hudak and energy critic Lisa MacLeod; in Wise v. Iran, acted for a Canadian victim of a suicide bombing (executed by individuals who received material support from Iran) who sought leave to intervene in ongoing proceedings commenced by United States plaintiffs in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking orders recognizing the enforceability in Ontario of judgments they obtained from a U.S. court against Iran totaling about $ 370 million; in Khadr v. Edmonton Institution, acted as lead counsel for an intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, to argue that in interpreting Omar Khadr's sentence for the purpose of enforcing it in Canada, Correctional Services Canada was obliged to consider Khadr's right to liberty and principles of fundamental justice; acted for a physician in a malpractice claim in Moore v. Getahun, a precedent - setting case about restrictions on communication between counsel and experts in preparation of expert repCourt of Justice seeking orders recognizing the enforceability in Ontario of judgments they obtained from a U.S. court against Iran totaling about $ 370 million; in Khadr v. Edmonton Institution, acted as lead counsel for an intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, to argue that in interpreting Omar Khadr's sentence for the purpose of enforcing it in Canada, Correctional Services Canada was obliged to consider Khadr's right to liberty and principles of fundamental justice; acted for a physician in a malpractice claim in Moore v. Getahun, a precedent - setting case about restrictions on communication between counsel and experts in preparation of expert repcourt against Iran totaling about $ 370 million; in Khadr v. Edmonton Institution, acted as lead counsel for an intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, to argue that in interpreting Omar Khadr's sentence for the purpose of enforcing it in Canada, Correctional Services Canada was obliged to consider Khadr's right to liberty and principles of fundamental justice; acted for a physician in a malpractice claim in Moore v. Getahun, a precedent - setting case about restrictions on communication between counsel and experts in preparation of expert reports.

In addition, Russell has expertise in professional and clinical negligence and injury claims and acts for local authorities and healthcare trusts in consent and treatment cases including «best interests» applications, deprivation of liberty applications and under the Court's inherent jurisdictioIn addition, Russell has expertise in professional and clinical negligence and injury claims and acts for local authorities and healthcare trusts in consent and treatment cases including «best interests» applications, deprivation of liberty applications and under the Court's inherent jurisdictioin professional and clinical negligence and injury claims and acts for local authorities and healthcare trusts in consent and treatment cases including «best interests» applications, deprivation of liberty applications and under the Court's inherent jurisdictioin consent and treatment cases including «best interests» applications, deprivation of liberty applications and under the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

For example, although homeless people were successful in their Charter claim in Victoria (City) v Adams, this judicial bias is evident even in that case — the first to consider the relevance of international human rights law, including concerns and recommendations from the CESCR, to section 7 of the Charter.284 The BC Court of Appeal in Adams upheld the trial judge's decision that the City of Victoria was violating homeless persons» constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person by prohibiting them from erecting temporary overhead shelters in public parks.285 However the Court of Appeal was insistent on framing its decision as a negative «restraint» on government, rather than as a positive obligation.