Sentences with phrase «motion judge erred»

The appellants argue that the motion judge erred in reaching the conclusion that the policy was only for the mortgagees» benefit.

Given the conclusion that the motion judge erred in her duty of care analysis, it was unnecessary to consider this argument on appeal.

The court held that the motion judge erred in law in holding that the Limitations Act, 2002, s. 18 creates an absolute limitation period of two years for the commencement of contribution and indemnity claims.

Although the motion judge erred in stating categorically that pleadings are not evidence, nothing turned on that error.

The motion judge erred in failing to apply Aecon's remedy of staying the claim of the party that did not immediately disclose a litigation agreement.

The court was not persuaded that the motion judge erred in balancing the children's best interests or that the appeal judge erred in his consideration of the appeal.

Second, the motion judge erred in conflating Apotex's product and submission.

a. Whether the motion judge erred by not accepting facts pleaded in a civil court proceeding as evidence in the current proceeding.

Whether the motion judge erred by shifting the onus to Ms. Punzo to prove that Mr. Punzo is hiding income.

First, the motion judge erred in concluding that the high - fat study played no part in the final review process.

The court therefore held that the motion judge erred in his interpretation of s. 18.

Whether the motion judge erred by finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred.

Third, the motion judge erred by substituting his determination as to the sufficiency of Apotex's submission for that of the Minister.

The Court held that the motion judge erred in two ways.

b. Whether the motion judge erred in not finding that the Support Order imputed income to Mr. Punzo.

All of these arguments are variations on a theme: the motion judge erred concerning the significance of the high - fat study to the Minister's decision.

The motion judge erred in failing to consider the scope of the proximate relationship or scope of any such duty arising from it.

The Court held that the motion judge erred in making his damage award in favour of all of the respondents, as only the corporate litigants were parties to the agreement.

The motion judge erred in law by failing to conduct such an analysis.

In light of the agreement of counsel as to the issue to be argued before the Second Motion Judge, this appeal falls to be determined on whether or not the Second Motion Judge erred in concluding that the amendments to the statement of claim did not constitute a new cause of action.

Finally, the court rejected the appellant's submission that the motion judge erred in finding that the respondent was a bona fide purchaser because he had obtained access to all of the stolen funds through his knowing participation in an illegal underground currency exchange that engaged in money laundering.

The appellant submitted that the motion judge erred in law by misinterpreting the guarantee.

• First they argued the motion judge erred in relying on the school's alleged financial difficulties to reduce the notice period.

We also agree with the Crown's submissions that properly interpreted, s. 5.1 (4) constitutes a complete bar to the claim, and that the motion judge erred by applying the doctrine of equitable fraud to overcome the Crown's limitations defence.

[49] In the present case, I conclude that the motion judge erred in holding that the appellant knew or ought to have known that its proceeding was appropriate as early as April 2010, when it received the CRA's Notices of Assessment disallowing its tax credits.

[18] Jaffer submits that the motion judge erred in finding that the action related to a matter of academics and therefore in finding that the court had no jurisdiction to hear an action based in contract and tort.

AACR Inc. v. Lixo Investments Limited (2018 ONSC 2774) motion judge erred — unjust enrichment — quantum meruit — costs — contract Justices K. Swinton, H. Sachs, and S. Corthorn

The motion judge erred in concluding otherwise.

The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in denying the request for a second adjournment of the respondent's motion for summary judgment.

After hearing from both parties, it was the Court of Appeal's view that it was unnecessary to determine whether the motion judge erred in making the order in question.

In finding that the motion judge erred in concluding that there was no consideration for the termination clause and that therefore the clause was invalid, the Honourable Justice Sarah E. Pepall wrote the following on behalf of the Court of Appeal:

The plaintiff appealed on two grounds: that the motion judge erred in i) interpreting the scope of the forum selection clause and ii) staying the action against the defendants who were not party to the... Read More

The appellants contended that the motion judge erred in failing to find that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed as to whether 111 had made a valid equitable assignment to Nadeau of an October 19, 2011 promissory note executed by Caparelli and another in favour of 111 (the «Note») and guaranteed by 229.

(3) that the motion judge erred by not holding a «hearing» in connection with the CAS motion to withdraw pursuant to s. 47 (1) of the CFSA and then further erred in finding that the children were not in need of protection;

The father appealed to the ONCA, arguing that the motion judge erred in finding no material change in circumstances.

(1) that the motion judge erred in finding a material change in circumstances warranting a variation of the joint custody order;

(1) that the motion judge erred in making credibility and reliability findings on the basis of affidavit evidence;

When determining the scope of the arbitration agreement, the Court held that the motion judge erred in determining that the arbitration agreement did not extend beyond contractual claims.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in concluding that the 2010 dealer agreements could not constitute a «grant of a franchise», and that this determination could only be made based on a full record.

(2) the motion judge erred in failing to terminate the father's child support obligation for the daughter as of the date that the daughter moved to live with the father full - time;

(5) the motion judge erred in directing that the father's spousal support obligations be subject to a charging order over some of the father's assets;

The Court of Appeal recently overturned a summary judgment, finding that the motion judge erred by allowing the dispute to proceed by way of summary judgement due to the fact that the case presented serious evidentiary difficulties which could not be properly addressed in the context of a simplified procedure under rule 76 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal rejected the entirety of the above analysis and found that the motion judge erred in several ways.

At issue in this particular appeal was whether the summary judgment motion judge erred by retroactively reducing the Husband's spousal support obligation and terminating it entirely, effective November 1, 2016.

The husband cross-appealed, arguing that the motion judge erred by refusing to rescind or set aside a consent order (which he had long alleged was a result of negligence on the part of his counsel) and by holding that the parties» marriage contract (entered into the day before the wedding) was not valid.

(2) The motion judge erred in holding that the Superior Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over Father Hart's claim; and

Overall, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred by granting the stay for a variety of reasons.

In their cross-appeal, the Ecuadorian plaintiffs asserted that the motion judge erred by granting a stay of their action on his own discretion.

[44] I am not persuaded that the motion judge erred in his consideration of the evidence of N.D. that he would not file a defence and the plaintiff could do what she needed to do.

The Court held that the motion judge erred in allowing summary judgment on the negligence claim against the Pearlmans where there were issues of material fact whether Samantha knowingly permitted Thomas to operate her car in violation of a provision of G.L. c. 90 and whether that violation was causally related to the accident.