Sentences with phrase «order against harm»

If you are confident that a protection order against harm to children is the correct application for you, click to jump to Step 2 below.

There are eight basic steps you must take to apply for a protection order against harm to children:

Not exact matches

This woman and her Fascist Right wing Nazis need to sit in prison for their crimes against humanity because I am not the only one these cold blooded lying murders did this to, and they deliberately will not have anyone obey Court Orders and get me Medical Records together, and get me Medical Doctors to address my Medical Concerns, and get all my Doctors on the same page, because they intended all along on messing up my Medical records while causing me serious medical harm, and then letting me die from Medical Neglect so that they could falsely blame me or environmental factors and they even have the Police deliberate to refuse to investigate why they removed Tests from my Medical Records that showed the harm that they caused.

Some temporary restraining orders were sought against the action to allow judicial review based on issues such as the inconvenience it would cause to the travelers and «irreparable harm» the delay would cause to various constituents.

(from NY Times) the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court - issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

If the Judge agrees that you have a «real threat of imminent harm against you and your pets,» then he may issue a permanent protective order against your neighbor.

South Carolina now allows a judge to issue a protective order that prohibits the harm or harassment against any pet animal owned, possessed, kept, or held by the petitioner; any family or household member designated in the order; or the respondent if the petitioner has a demonstrated interest in the pet animal.The law also allows the judge to issue a protective order that provides for temporary possession of the personal property, including pet animals, of the parties and order assistance from law enforcement officers in removing personal property of the petitioner if the respondent's eviction has not been ordered.

Something else that can harm the flow and enjoyment of the game are the slight difficulty spikes and the unfair nature of the game, which seems to effectively work against you in order to make you fail.

If I understand the case correctly, the final outcome of the judgement against tobacco companies was to order them to stop denying known harms of smoking and to publicize the falsity of their fraudulent statements.

APPEAL by accused against conviction on one count of assault causing bodily harm, sentence to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and order to provide DNA sample.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resulted.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation of her conduct — Section 730 of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases of this nature, provided that it was in best interest of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public interest.

Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was reorder to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was reOrder was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was reorder DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood of re-offending was remote.

Protective orders are designed to protect against physical harm.

Regina v. M.S. (2012) Application by complaint for a section 810 restraining order / peace bond against Mr. M.S. (former husband of the complainant) due to allegations of criminal harassment and threaten bodily harm, withdrawn prior to the hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. J.W. (2018) After having successfully appealed a conviction for Assault causing bodily harm, and having a new trial ordered, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met with the assigned Crown Attorney and it was determined that the charge against J.W. ought to be dismissed.

The party requesting an interim measure under paragraphs 2 (a) to (c) shall satisfy the arbitral tribunal that: (a) harm not adequately reparable by an award of damages is likely to result if the measure is not ordered, and such harm substantially outweighs the harm that is likely to result to the party against whom the measure is directed if the measure is granted; and (b) there is a reasonable possibility that the requesting party will succeed on the merits of the claim.

57 (1) If the commissioner has made an order under this Act against an organization and the order has become final as a result of there being no further right of appeal, an individual affected by the order has a cause of action against the organization for damages for actual harm that the individual has suffered as a result of the breach by the organization of obligations under this Act.

These types of lawsuits allow plaintiffs, or those that have been harmed, to join together in order to mount a case against a large company that likely has a sizeable legal team.

The law as it currently stands has weak annual reporting requirements from government agencies, does not provide much protection to Canadians from abusive treatment by foreign states, does not give the Privacy Commissioner order - making power, does not provide redress in cases involving harm, does not prevent over-collection of personal information, does not protect against surveillance where the data is not recorded, and does not feature security breach disclosure requirements.

This can in turn create a situations in which someone can feel like a group of people is against them, or voted down their content in order to harm them, or do not want to communicate their reasons to them (feeling of domination and exclusion can be reinforced if the person downvoted, as is often the case for a new user without «privileges»).

In considering whether to make an order, the judge would have to balance the need for the evidence in the circumstances of the case against what he assessed to be the potential for harm to the child.

The appeal court said in its decision that the personal concerns of public embarrassment are not enough by themselves to justify non-publication or sealing orders and said assessing emotional distress versus emotional harm is a matter of degree to be measured against the media's right to report on court proceedings.

«The Spanish Data Protection Agency has opened an investigation against Facebook in order to examine the possible harm caused to the Spanish users,» AGPD stated.

FAMILY LAW — CHILDREN — with whom the child lives — where there are allegations the father and paternal grandmother sexually abused the child — whether there is an unacceptable risk of harm to the child in the father's care — where the child has speech and language delays — where the child had spent unsupervised time with the father after separation — where the parties entered into final Consent Orders in October 2015 — where the allegations arose after that — where the child has been spending supervised time with the father since October 2016 — where the mother obtained a domestic violence protection order against the father in 2015 — where an order for equal shared parental responsibility is not in the child's best interests — where an unacceptable risk of harm is not found — where the mother is granted sole parental responsibility — where the child will continue to live primarily with the mother and spend unsupervised time with the father on an increasing basis

The court will look at all the circumstances of your case, but will also consider the likelihood of significant harm to you, your ex-partner and any children if an order is made, balanced against the likelihood of significant harm if an order is not made.

Under the consent order filed against Planet Home Lending, the company will directly pay harmed consumers a total of $ 265,000 in redress.