Sentences with phrase «ought reasonably»

While some earlier cases read this definition as including requirement of malice into this definition, Justice McDougall considers that it included not only actions that had a «culpable intent» but also «conduct where harm was not intended, but ought reasonably to have been expected.»

Here, the motion judge found that Maple Leaf ought reasonably to have foreseen that the representative plaintiff would rely on its representation — namely, that the RTE meats were fit for human consumption and posed no risk of harm — and its reliance was reasonable in the circumstances.

You warrant as a strict condition of this agreement that as at the date hereof... (b) there are no circumstances of which you are aware or of which you ought reasonably to be aware which would constitute a repudiatory breach on your part of your contract of employment which would entitle or have entitled the company to terminate your employment without notice.»

Moses LJ observed: «Of course, the defendant ought reasonably to have anticipated that small children might escape the attention of parents and wander into places of danger.

(h) to do all other things that are necessary for the performance of the above tasks or ought reasonably to be done in connection with or in addition to them.

The defendant ought reasonably to have foreseen that students would rely on the statements included with the Student Guide and Calendar.

The answer seems to be — persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.

When the Animal Welfare Act 2006 comes into force on 8 April 2007, it will repeal PAA 1911 and bring into effect a new summary offence of unnecessary suffering, which will penalise pet owners or carers whose act or omission causes unnecessary suffering to the animal in circumstances where they «knew or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so» (s 4 (1)(b)-RRB-.

The Code defines harassment to mean engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.

A sexual solicitation or advance made to an individual by another individual where the other individual is in a position to confer a benefit on, or deny a benefit to, the individual to whom the solicitation or advance is made, where the individual who makes the solicitation or advance knows or ought reasonably to know that it is unwelcome.

The summary says that definition would require showing May engaged «in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker... that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.»

However, the unwelcome, rude, belittling or unprofessional behaviour could fall under the OHSA definition of «workplace harassment» as ``... a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.»

(a) engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, where the course of comment or conduct is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, or

Vice-Chair Kershaw found that Kulczycki's posting and comments were vexatious and constituted harassment within the meaning Section 10 (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which defines harassment as «a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably be known to be unwelcome,» on the basis of race, place of origin, ancestry and citizenship.

32.0.4 If an employer becomes aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that domestic violence that would likely expose a worker to physical injury may occur in the workplace, the employer shall take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of the worker.

The Employer has failed to do that in this case as it has created and facilitated a public forum where it knows or ought reasonably to know that members are being threatened, abused, and harassed.

[21] Based on a review of the evidence at trial, described in part above, and the cases cited, as well as a review of the submissions of counsel, I find that the offer to settle in the amount of $ 75,000 ought reasonably to have been accepted by the plaintiff having given consideration to the foreseeable credibility problems and the negative verdict of the jury.

Since June 15, 2010, the Ontario Occupational Health and safety Act violence and harassment prevention provisions (Bill 168) require an employer to take all reasonable precautions in the circumstances for the protection of all employees if a domestic violence situation is likely to expose a worker to physical injury in the workplace and the employer becomes aware or ought reasonably to be aware of the situation.

The Tribunal found the employer's comments and conduct to be vexatious «because they clearly distressed the applicant,» and that he «knew or ought reasonably to have known that any further sexual advances were unwelcome.»

is subject to subsections (3) and (4)(see below), adversely affects the worker's psychological or physical well - being and that the person knows or ought reasonably to know would cause a worker to be humiliated or intimidated; and

However, it seems that the main disagreement is with respect to whether an initial callous comment or remark relating to politics or someone's political opinion or leanings «ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome», and therefore considered to be harassment.

«Remember, in the definition of harassment under OHSA, it says that the act of harassment must be known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.

Under Ontario Health and Safety legislation, harassment in the workplace is defined as «engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to... Read More

(a) a sexual solicitation or advance made by a person in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the person where the person making the solicitation or advance knows or ought reasonably to know that it is unwelcome; or

«harassment» means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome; («harcèlement»)

In this case, the learned judge essentially concluded that, because defence counsel believed they had a reasonable opportunity of beating the plaintiff's offers, they were not offers that ought reasonably to have been accepted:

[32] Therefore, I can not be satisfied that either of Ms. Grace's formal offers ought reasonably to have been accepted.

The Ontario Human Rights Code defines harassment as a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known, or ought reasonably to be known, to be unwelcome.

Workplace harassment has been defined as «engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome».22 «Vexatious» is defined by Black's Law Dictionary23 as «without reasonable or probable cause or excuse».

Similar to the definition of harassment under the Canadian Human Rights Code, Ontario's Human Rights Code defines «harassment» as engaging in a course of vexatious comments or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.

Under the OHSA, workplace harassment means: «Engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.»

The Court awarded double costs to the Defendant from a period of time of seven days after the delivery of the second formal offer to settle, to the date of trial, ruling that the offer ought reasonably to have been accepted, in light of how the credibility problems may be perceived by the jury.

There is now general agreement on the law that, «in determining whether the offer to settle ought reasonably have been accepted the court does not consider the final result... The reasonableness of a decision not to accept an offer must be assessed... [by] the circumstances existing when the offer was open to acceptance:» [Ward at para. 36].

[24] As in Riley, Mr. Charland ought reasonably to have anticipated that his claim would be dismissed at trial.

Of the many considerations available to a Court when deciding on whether or not to award double costs, the Court focused on whether or not the Plaintiff's formal offer to settle was one that «ought reasonably to have been accepted», and cited the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Hartshorne v. Hartshorne.

The Court concluded that the Defendant's offer ought reasonably to have been accepted, given the tenuous connection between the Plaintiff's injuries, and the alleged financial losses.

[17] Mr. Wheeler submits that the offers were offers which ought reasonably to have been accepted.

As to Double costs it was clear that the claimant's offers of settlement ought reasonably to have been accepted.

Guidelines from Hatton appear to reflect the fact that foreseeability will depend on what the employer knows (or ought reasonably to know) about the employee.

(b) in respect of an occupant of an automobile at the time of the accident who knew or ought reasonably to have known that the driver was operating the automobile without the owner's consent;

(d) if the driver knew or ought reasonably to have known that he or she was operating the automobile without the owner's consent.

Bill 30 defines «harassment» to mean any single incident or repeated incidents of objectionable or unwelcome conduct, comment, bullying or action by a person that the person knows or ought reasonably to know will or would cause offence or humiliation to a worker, or adversely affects the worker's health and safety, and includes:

«Workplace sexual harassment» is now defined in the legislation to mean (a) engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, where the course of comment or conduct is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, or (b) making a sexual solicitation or advance where the person making the solicitation or advance is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the worker and the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the solicitation or advance is unwelcome.

Making a sexual solicitation or advance where the person making the solicitation or advance is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to a worker and the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the solicitation or advance is unwelcome.

Section 10 (1) defines harassment as, «a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome».

The liability of each principal for the acts and omissions of the ILP is more nuanced than that of an LPD: a principal bears responsibility only if the principal «knowingly authorized or permitted» the act (or omission), or if the principal «was in or ought reasonably to have been in a position to influence» [5] the relevant conduct of the ILP.

Under Ontario Health and Safety legislation, harassment in the workplace is defined as «engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.»

According to the Code, sexual harassment is considered «engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.»

«workplace sexual harassment»: (a) engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, where the course of comment or conduct is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, or (b) making a sexual solicitation or advance where the person making the solicitation or advance is in a position to confer, grant or deny a benefit or advancement to the worker and the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the solicitation or advance is unwelcome.

«workplace harassment»: (a) engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome, or (b) workplace sexual harassment.