Sentences with phrase «motion judges under»

Most importantly, the new powers granted to a motions judge under Rules 20.04 (2.1) and (2.2) will theoretically expand the number of cases in which there will be no genuine issue requiring trial, as they permit motions judges to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility and draw reasonable inferences.

Not exact matches

In rendering her decision, District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn stated that the Coalition's motion should be granted because its proposed brief «provides a unique perspective» as the only filing party «representative of financial professionals in the United States already operating under a fiduciary standard.»

U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn stated the Coalition's motion should be granted because its proposed brief «provides a unique perspective» as the only filing party «representative of financial professionals in the United States already operating under a fiduciary standard.»

By putting forward the motion, Davis and Straw acknowledged the UK's treaty obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, while asserting that this is an issue to be decided by parliament, not judges in Europe.

The government opposed the motion, and the judge took the issue under advisement.

According to Judge Cote's decision, Apple's motion was denied under the Sherman Act; this ruling specifically addresses the alleged collusion that stemmed from Apple and the publishers working together to set the prices on ebooks.

The Judge granted the County's motion to dismiss on all claims, including a challenge under the Commerce Clause, Equal Protection Clause, federal and state law preemption, Contracts Clause, and vagueness.

The hearing Tuesday was an appeal to a judge denying National Review and CEI's motion to dismiss the lawsuit under D.C.'s Anti-SLAPP Act, which is designed to prevent costly defamation lawsuits that are destined to fail.

In overturning a motion judge's refusal to stay proceedings under... [more] Full article

The Supreme Court of Canada recently clarified how motion judges should exercise their fact - finding and summary judgment powers under rule 20.04 (2.1) and (2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The trial judge later granted a JNOV motion in HOA's favor on the nuisance claim, subsequently awarding HOA $ 707,117 as the prevailing party under Civil Code section 5975.

Under this new approach spelled out by the Court, summary motion judges still have considerable discretion to determine where a motion should be heard in the interests of justice.

Concluding the two trustees were «unable to work together in any reasonable and effective way,» Justice D.M. Brown said the competing sides «can not reasonably expect that unlimited judicial resources are available to devote to their internecine quarrels,» adding (with apparent frustration)(i) that the Commercial List in Toronto is «chronically short of judges,» (ii) that the «scheduling of criminal trials -LSB-...] has become particularly problematic» because it is «manifestly under resourced» and (iii) that «dates for one day civil motions are now being given out 8 to 9 months down the road.»

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's ruling that, by choosing Ontario law as the governing law, the parties imported the obligations under the Act but not the jurisdictional limit contained within the Act.

Judge Reiss granted the defendants» motion for summary judgment, finding that «the only reasonable interpretation of that language is that it requires Killington Ltd. to provide the designated passholder free use of all ski lifts operated by Killington Ltd. at the Killington Ski Area so long as it operates in that area... «The term corporation, she wrote, «clearly refers to the named corporations, Sherburne and Killington Ltd.» and «reveals no intention to bind Killington Ltd's successors... To the contrary, Killington Ltd.'s obligations under the passes clearly terminate with its cessation of operations in the area.»

[14] According to the Justices, an objective standard would «ensure that when a recusal motion is brought based on a judge's having received campaign contributions, the motion would be evaluated under an objective test rather than the judge's subjective determination.»

The motion judge held that the provision in the policy limiting coverage to claims made within one year of the loss did not override the statutory two - year limitation period set out in s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24 lacked specificity to override the statutory limitation period and that in any event, the contract of insurance was not a «business agreement» as required under s. 22 (5) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

Significantly, subsection 137.1 (7) of the CJA provides that if a judge dismisses an action under s. 137.1, then the moving party is prima facie entitled to costs of both the motion and the proceeding on a full indemnity basis.

However, the motion judge then went on to exercise his discretion, under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, to grant a stay of proceedings, stating that «because Chevron Corp does not have assets here, and there is no reasonable prospect that it will do so in the future, there is no prospect for any recovery here.»

Costs if motion to dismiss denied 9 If a judge does not dismiss a proceeding under this section, the responding party is not entitled to costs on the motion, unless the judge determines that such an award is appropriate in the circumstances.

Limit on cross-examinations 7 (1) Subject to subsection (2), cross-examinations on any documentary evidence filed by the parties shall not exceed a total of seven hours for all plaintiffs in the proceeding and seven hours for all defendants (2) A judge may extend the time permitted for cross-examination on documentary evidence if it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice Costs on dismissal 8 (1) If a judge dismisses a proceeding under this section, the moving party is entitled to costs on the motion and in the proceeding on a full indemnity basis, unless the judge determines that such an award is not appropriate in the circumstances.

However, it remanded to the trial judge to explore whether fees were justified under a renewed fee motion because plaintiff was a catalyst for changing City changing its behavior (it was looking into amendments of the general plan) because of and in the manner sought by the litigation.

Having decided as a matter of contract interpretation that the Luso mortgages are unambiguously excepted from coverage under Schedule B, we need not opine whether the motion judge was correct in concluding that Private Lending is also barred from recovery by an «Exclusions from Coverage» provision, which excludes from coverage loss or damage arising by reason of encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters «created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant.»

While recusing himself in Floyd v. Cosi, 14 - cv - 3772, Weinstein denied Cosi summary judgment but gave it permission to renew the motion before another judge, after discovery was conducted «under close supervision of the magistrate judge.»

(2) The judge on a motion under subrule (1) may dismiss the motion, amend the judgment or direct that a motion for a re-hearing be made to the Court in accordance with Rule 76.

The judge treated the motion for access as one by the requester's counsel, and not as one by the requester, in order to enable counsel to argue whether those records should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

He said this motion was merely to carry out the idea which he had expressed the other night — that he believed under the peculiar circumstances in whihc the Province of Quebec was situated, and its special system of laws, of which the Judges from the other Provinces who might be selected for this court would be entirely ignorant — it was essential in order to arrive at a good and sound interpretation of the laws of that Province, that two of these Judges, at least, should be selected from the bar of Lower Canada... [C] onsequently he believed and in fact was perfectly satisfied that no member in this House, and no man in the country, would doubt it, that Judges selected from the bar of the Province of Québec would be as comptent to administer justice as those selected from the bar of any other Province.

[21] The motion judge found that the internal review process under canon law meets the requirements of natural justice.

Moreover, the wide construction made sense from a practical point of view in this case: given the allegations of forgery made by the claimant, the judge hearing the claimant's I (PFD) A 1975 claim might exercise the court's power to call in the grant of its own motion under the Supreme Court Act 1981, s 121 — which could result in further, and potentially unnecessary, expense for a modest estate.

Under AB 8408 judges considering motions or verdicts in non-jury trials would have 9 months from submission of the motion / case to render an opinion.

Under the bill judges considering motions or verdicts in non-jury trials would have 9 months from submission of the motion / case to render an opinion.

[11] The motion judge's assessment and application of real and substantial connection test in this case would lead to the surprising proposition that a Canadian corporation headquartered in Ontario can not use Ontario courts to enforce legal obligations owed to it under Ontario law by current and former senior officers who routinely traveled to Ontario on company business and who were in daily contact with the company in Ontario.

To follow up on our story about Kentucky's Massey mine that is so unsafe that the Labor Department has moved to shut it down under federal supervision, last week, a federal judge rejected Massey's motion to dismiss the government's claim.

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.

5 Feb. 13, 2018)(unpublished), County defensed an ex-employee's FEHA harassment / retaliation claims through a summary judgment motion, with the trial judge later awarding County fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038, which allows trial courts to award public entities the attorney's fees they incur for «unmeritorious and frivolous» lawsuits if the action was not brought in good faith and with reasonable cause.

He's still trying some cases as a senior judge, is a member of the ABA Board of Governors and now a Legal Rebels Trailblazer, and he's engaged in so many other endeavors that he never seems to be (under immutable laws of motion) a body at rest.

(2) A motion in the Court of Appeal and an appeal under clause 6 (1)(c) shall be heard and determined by one judge.

The trial judge denied the defense's post-trial motion to recover costs shifted under section 998, including $ 96,192.86 in claimed expert witness fees, based on Sanford v. Rasnick, 246 Cal.App.4 th 1121 (2016).

It is regrettable when a motion judge fundamentally misapplies well - established legal tests under the Rules of Civil Procedure, such as the test under a rule 21 motion to strike.

See All in Good Time: No Time Limit on Appraisals Under the Insurance Act for a summary of the motion judge's findings.

The motions judge found that Wilk was not an «owner» under the DOLA and held that she could maintain those claims against Arbour.

The question was whether the memo was privileged under the laws of British Columbia and Alberta, not whether the motion judge agreed with the policy rationale for CIP or preferred the law of CIP that applied in some U.S. jurisdictions.

The motion judge agreed, ostensibly under a broad discretion to do so under the Ontario Family Law Act and the federal Divorce Act.

(1.2) A judge who is directed to hear all motions under subrule (1) and a master to whom a motion is referred under subrule (1.1) may, in respect of the motions, give such directions and make such procedural orders as are necessary to promote the most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding.

The Court of Appeal decision was a sharp rebuke of the decision of the motion judge, Dunphy J., who the Court found to have repeatedly misapplied the test under rule 21, and to have embarked on a flawed approach (at paras 47 - 49):

Leave may be granted under (a) where there is a conflicting decision by another judge or court in Ontario or elsewhere on the matter involved in the proposed appeal and it is, in the opinion of the judge hearing the motion, desirable that leave to appeal be granted.

Based on his findings, the motion judge ruled that the third party claims were statute - barred by the absolute limitation period under section 18 of the Act.

The motion judge found the filing of the lien bond by Dominion satisfied its trust obligations to Structal under the Act and, upon receipt of the progress payments from the owner, Dominion could disperse them to other creditors without being in breach of the trust provisions of the Act.

The Ontario C.A. quashed RBC's appeal because the motion judge's order was interlocutory, finding RBC should seek to examine a Scotiabank representative and obtain the statement by motion under Rule 60.18 (6)(a) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure.

When the motion judge exercises her new fact - finding powers under Rule 20.04 (2.1)[the Rule 7 - 2 equivalent] and determines whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, this is a question of mixed fact and law.