Sentences with phrase «made part of the court order»

I and my ex spouse agreed under a separation agreement incorporated, merged into and made part of the court order for a settlement of Child Support, Spouse Support and Medical Support of $ 1,036,570.00 USD he has only paid $ 350,500.00 February 18th, 2013 but still owing $ 686,070.00 and the stipulated time for the completion of payment May 17th, 2013 has long elapsed.

If not, you may have to resort to these kinds of boundaries in order to maintain your sanity, and you would do best to legalize these kinds of rules by making them part of your court order.

Not exact matches

The accusations made against him in November 2004 formed part of an acrimonious public conflict playing out in the Family Court in respect of contested Contact and Responsibility Orders.

The people of Ghana should demand to know from Government how its Attorney General can — in enforcing the order of the Supreme Court for Woyome to refund the unconstitutional payments made to Woyome to the Republic of Ghana — accept a cheque of GHC4, 000,000.00 drawn by Woyome dated 4th November 2016 in favour of the Economic and Organized Crime Office as part payment of the monies ordered by the Court to be refunded.

The affidavit stated in part, «That the same Federal Government later went to Lagos and obtained another order made by Justice C.M.A. Olatoregun of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division on October 10, 2017 directing the managers of the Skye Bank, Ecobank Plc, Fidelity Bank Plc, Stanbic IBTC Plc, Zenith Bank Plc, and Diamond Bank Plc, to in the interim, freeze and attach the various sums of money in the accounts belonging to Dame Patience Jonathan, Finchley Top Homes Limited and Ariwabai Aruera Reachout Foundation.

The grounds of the application read in part, «That the ex parte order made on the 20th day of September 2017 by this Honorable Court was made without jurisdiction, as the order was granted against an entity unknown to law.

willfully, and otherwise than in obedience to an order of the Central Government or of a State Government, or of an officer specially authorized [by the Central or a State Government] to make the order, omits to transmit, or intercepts or detains, any message or any part thereof, or otherwise than in pursuance of his official duty or in obedience to the direction of a competent Court, discloses the contents or any part the contents of any message, to any person not entitled to receive the same, or

If payment of a lump sum is ordered by the court, or payment is made as part of a settlement of the parties» financial issues, they need to be clear what the intention of the payment is.

We say this because the division of powers part of the judgement (commencing at para 98) is full of all sorts of references to two levels of government (see e.g. para 141) and similar comments about «interlocking federal and provincial schemes» that make it abundantly clear that this Court has given no thought to the space within which indigenous laws may operate within the modern constitutional order (for recognition that the law making authority of aboriginal peoples pre-dated the Crown's acquisition of sovereignty, was not extinguished by that acquisition of sovereignty and was not impaired by the division of legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments in 1982 see Campbell v British Columbia (2000), 189 DLR (4th) 333 (BCSC) and Justice Deschamps in Beckman v Little Salmon / Carmacks First Nation, [2010] 3 SCR 103 at para 97).

The written separation agreement was properly made a part of the final decree by virtue of Virginia Code Section 20 - 109.1, and was enforceable as any court order, even though spousal support is different from other monetary obligations.

An order made by a circuit judge sitting in the county court that a fact finding hearing should be undertaken by a family proceedings court was set aside on six grounds including that a transfer down of a discrete part of proceedings could not be permitted (see Re C (a child)[2008] All ER (D) 168 (Apr)-RRB-.

In the Family Law Act 1986... there is a code for the recognition and enforcement of an order for custody made in one part of the UK by a court in another part of the UK and framework to determine declaratory relief in matters of marital status, legitimacy and legitimation and adoptions effected overseas.

Those claims are, in the most part, set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), which enables the court, upon divorce, to make a number of different types of order, ranging from lump sum and property adjustment orders through to pension sharing and maintenance orders.

It was Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 that provided a mechanism for someone who has not remarried or entered into a civil partnership to bring a claim in England and Wales against a spouse or former spouse even if a court has already made a financial order in divorce proceedings in another jurisdiction.

Last month, the Manitoba Court of Appeal commented on the practice in some Manitoba courts of ordering charitable donations be made as a part of sentencing in criminal or other quasi-criminal proceedings.

For a father who may want to be part of the child's life, the court can order visitation as well as rule on legal custody, which means the parent's right to make major life decisions on the child's behalf.

The CPRC has addressed this abuse of Part 36 by adding a new r 36.17 (5)(e) to the criteria that the court must consider in deciding whether it would be unjust to make the usual order, namely «whether the offer was a genuine attempt to settle the proceedings».

Before an order could be made under Part III, ``... there are two, inter-related, duties of the court before making an order under Part III.

That is not a problem because the Supreme Court's mandate, having granted leave, is to make the decision that ought to have been made by the lower court from which the appeal comes; or order a new trial if that is the proper decision (if the decision appealed from was «against the weight of the evidence); or remand the appeal or any part of the appeal to the court appealed from for additional consideration in accordance with the direction of the Court: the Supreme Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26Court's mandate, having granted leave, is to make the decision that ought to have been made by the lower court from which the appeal comes; or order a new trial if that is the proper decision (if the decision appealed from was «against the weight of the evidence); or remand the appeal or any part of the appeal to the court appealed from for additional consideration in accordance with the direction of the Court: the Supreme Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26court from which the appeal comes; or order a new trial if that is the proper decision (if the decision appealed from was «against the weight of the evidence); or remand the appeal or any part of the appeal to the court appealed from for additional consideration in accordance with the direction of the Court: the Supreme Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26court appealed from for additional consideration in accordance with the direction of the Court: the Supreme Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26Court: the Supreme Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S - 26, ss.

Malamas» allegations of improper activities on the part of the lawyers included fabrication of evidence, fraud on the court, making intentionally false statements, intentionally misdrafting court orders, and intentionally causing Malamas» court applications to fail.

(a) lawful authority refers to lawful authority other than (i) a subpoena or warrant issued, or an order made, by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or (ii) rules of court relating to the production of records; and (b) the organization that discloses the personal information is not required to verify the validity of the lawful authority identified by the government institution or the part of a government institution.

The Court considered that, whilst the fundamental principle underlying art 5 is the need to protect the individual from arbitrary detention, with an essential part being timely judicial control, art 5 must not be interpreted in such a way as would make it impracticable for the police to perform their duty to maintain public order and protect the lives and property of others.

BC Supreme Court Rule 5 - 2 (7) states that «proceedings at a case planning conference must be recorded, but no part of that recording may be made available to or used by any person without court ordeCourt Rule 5 - 2 (7) states that «proceedings at a case planning conference must be recorded, but no part of that recording may be made available to or used by any person without court ordecourt order ``.

Rule 5 - 2 (7) states that «proceedings at a case planning conference must be recorded, but no part of that recording may be made available to or used by any person without court order ``.

a) declared the U.S. Proceedings were a foreign main proceeding pursuant to Part IV of the CCAA; b) recognized Hartford as the Foreign Representative of the Chapter 11 Entities; c) appointed FTI Consulting Inc. as the court - appointed Information Officer in the proceedings; d) granted a stay of proceedings; and e) recognized and made effective in Canada certain first day orders granted by the U. S. Court including an Interim Utilities Order and an Interim DIP Facility Orcourt - appointed Information Officer in the proceedings; d) granted a stay of proceedings; and e) recognized and made effective in Canada certain first day orders granted by the U. S. Court including an Interim Utilities Order and an Interim DIP Facility OrCourt including an Interim Utilities Order and an Interim DIP Facility Order.3

In Priest, the self - represented appellant Mr. Reilly attempted to appeal a spousal support order made under Part III of the Family Law Act in the Hamilton Superior Court of Justice (Family Court) by proceeding directly to the Court of Appeal.

(4) Despite subsection (2), a court may decline to make an order under this Part if the court, having regard to the interests of the spouses and the ends of justice, considers that it is more appropriate for jurisdiction to be exercised outside British Columbia.

There is however no equivalent statutory regulation in relation to these type of orders when made by a court of another part of the United Kingdom.

(2) Despite any other provision of this Part, the Supreme Court has authority to make an order under this Part only if one of the following conditions is met:

191 The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act applies to an order, made by a court in another jurisdiction of Canada, that is similar to an order made under this Part.

However, the Divisional Court accepted the Secretary of State's argument that the only appropriate relief for this unlawfulness was declaratory, and that it was not appropriate to make an order disapplying the unlawful parts of the 2016 Act.

Under section 22ZA (iii), the court «must not make an order... unless it is satisfied that without the amount the applicant would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services for the purposes of the proceedings or any part of the proceedings».

8.18.1 The enforcement of orders made by the Supreme Court in England and Wales is dealt with in paragraph 13 of Practice Direction 40B which supplements Part 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

This provides for an application to be made in accordance with CPR Part 23 for an order to make an order of the Supreme Court (or the House of Lords) an order of the High Court.

The wording of R. 5 - 2 (7) is prohibitory in nature: «no part of that recording [of a CPC] may be made available to or used by any person without court order».

Interestingly, even if a court orders that ONE party be given exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, it can still direct that party to make periodic payments to the other spouse (among other things), pay for all or part of the repair and maintenance of the matrimonial home, and keep or remove certain contents of the matrimonial home.

In R. v. Zelensky, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that restitution orders fall under jurisdiction of the criminal courts because they are part of the sentencing process.

Although an order for restitution is made by a criminal court as part of an offender's sentence, it does have certain similarities to an order made in a civil court.

23 This Part applies in respect of support orders that are made in Ontario or made in a reciprocating jurisdiction and registered in an Ontario court under Part III or the former Act, but not in respect of provisional orders or provisional variation orders.

This Court shall now decide the effect of the order passed by this Court in the arbitration application filed under Section 9 by the claimant and also the effect of the order passed by the appeal court in the appeal filed by the respondent in view of the submissions made by the respondent that in view of such petition filed in this Court, Part - I of the Act including Section 34 for impugning the foreign arbitral award would aCourt shall now decide the effect of the order passed by this Court in the arbitration application filed under Section 9 by the claimant and also the effect of the order passed by the appeal court in the appeal filed by the respondent in view of the submissions made by the respondent that in view of such petition filed in this Court, Part - I of the Act including Section 34 for impugning the foreign arbitral award would aCourt in the arbitration application filed under Section 9 by the claimant and also the effect of the order passed by the appeal court in the appeal filed by the respondent in view of the submissions made by the respondent that in view of such petition filed in this Court, Part - I of the Act including Section 34 for impugning the foreign arbitral award would acourt in the appeal filed by the respondent in view of the submissions made by the respondent that in view of such petition filed in this Court, Part - I of the Act including Section 34 for impugning the foreign arbitral award would aCourt, Part - I of the Act including Section 34 for impugning the foreign arbitral award would apply.

Part of the gag order on Open Whisper Systems was lifted after a court challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union, and redacted versions of documents related to the information request were made public last week.

Courts may order alimony payments as part of a divorce decree and will typically order the paying spouse to make payments directly to the receiving spouse.

When a divorce court orders alimony, the order is made part of the original divorce decree.

Under this part, a court of this state may enforce an order for the return of a child made under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as if it were a child custody determination.

Note: Division 10 also allows a court to make an order for a child's interests to be independently represented by a lawyer in proceedings under this Part in which the best interests of a child are the paramount consideration.

If a court makes an order in proceedings under this Part, the court must inform the parties to the proceedings about the family counselling services, family dispute resolution services and other courses, programs and services available to help the parties adjust to the consequences of that order.

(1) With the consent of all of the parties to the proceedings, a court exercising jurisdiction in Part VIII proceedings may make an order referring the proceedings, or any part of them, or any matter arising in them, to an arbitrator for arbitratPart VIII proceedings may make an order referring the proceedings, or any part of them, or any matter arising in them, to an arbitrator for arbitratpart of them, or any matter arising in them, to an arbitrator for arbitration.

(1) In proceedings to make or vary a family violence order, a court of a State or Territory that has jurisdiction in relation to this Part may revive, vary, discharge or suspend:

The Courts have powers under Part VII - Division 6 of the Family Law Act 1975 in appropriate circumstances to make an order restricting a parent or other person from removing a child from Australia by adding them to the airport watch list.

(2) If a court makes an order under section 90UM setting aside a Part VIIIAB financial agreement in respect of which a payment flag is operating, the court may also make an order terminating the operation of the flag.