Sentences with phrase «rejected appellants»

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants» submission that r. 6.1.01 applies to summary judgment motions.

Specifically, she rejected the appellants» contention that the monies advanced were a gift and not a loan and that they were interest - free.

The trial judge reasonably rejected the appellants» defence that they had discharged their duties as occupiers.

The applications judge rejected the appellants» application to quash the production order, and placed a temporary non-publication order on the unredacted information in the police material, which had been under a sealing order.

The Court rejected the appellants» submissions regarding the expert testimony of De Los Rios for three reasons.

The DJ rejected the Appellants» claim for rental, storage and moving costs as he took the view that the Appellants» refusal to sign the defects list offered by the Respondent's daughter was unreasonable and prevented the Respondent from rectifying the defects.

The appeals court also rejected appellants» argument that the service returns were defeated by their counter-affidavits in which they denied receiving the summons and complaint.

[9] The Court rejected the appellants» argument on the basis that municipal councils lack a legislative underpinning for an absolute privilege and lack the self - regulation controls over proceedings and members that are present in the provincial legislatures and Parliament.

[4] The application judge rejected the appellants» application to quash the production order.

The Court rejected the appellants» argument that the application of Trillium required «a broader, more contextual analysis when assessing the place of the contract for purposes of a jurisdictional determination.»

The Court rejected the Appellant's passing - off argument for the same reasons.

Summary: The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court a decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, which had rejected the appellant's application to declare an arbitral award invalid on the basis that...

Fourthly, in rejecting the appellant's argument that upholding the trial decision could lead to indeterminate liability, the Supreme Court implicitly capped the damages that can flow from a single audit opinion at one year — given that statutory audits must occur annually.

The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellant's submission that the Court's interpretation of the Charter in Legroulx was not sine qua non the question and that Charter values can still lend support for the argument against civil jury fees.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's argument and held that the application judge could properly find that the arbitral award met... Read More

While the Court of Appeal clearly rejected the Appellant's submission that the Motion Judge's comments raised a reasonable apprehension of bias in this case (describing the argument as «baseless» at para. 7), the Court of Appeal did not wholeheartedly endorse the approach taken by the Motions Judge either:

In a decision recently published on the Swedish Arbitration Portal, the Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, which had rejected an appellant's application to declare an arbitral award invalid on the basis that it violated public policy.

The ONCA allowed this ground of appeal, but rejected the appellant husband's costs argument, noting that there were many issues at trial and it was unclear that this error materially affected the trial judge's costs order.

The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Roden v. Toronto Humane Society.12 In Roden the Court enforced a contract that provided the employee would be provided with the minimum amount of notice «or payment in lieu thereof as required by the applicable employment standards legislation.»

In Sharma, the ONCA rejected the appellant's arguments that the trial judge erred in determining his income for support purposes and erred in granting a vesting order in favour of the wife.

R. v. W.E.B., 2014 SCC 2 (35089) Moldaver J.: «The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's submissions.

For the Court of Appeal, the substantial question was whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the appellant's evidence; whether the assessment was based upon a misapprehension.

He held that s. 27 created a low threshold to trigger the notice requirements, but rejected the appellant's position that there as an automatic right to notice,

The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellant Starbucks» submission the Trial Judge's decision improperly shifts responsibility from the municipality to storefront owners and occupiers, stating there is no «blanket rule».

The Ontario Court of Appeal also rejected the Appellant's argument that the Court should create a «cellphone exception» to the common law doctrine of search incident to arrest, concluding that the contents of a cellphone are no different than what an individual may carry in his purse or wallet.

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 trial judge began by rejecting the appellant's argument that because of his reputation as someone who is provocative and controversial, none of the words complained of were defamatory.

The Court of Appeal also rejected the appellant's contention that the motion judge relieved the Superintendent of his onus of proof or improperly lowered his evidentiary burden under s. 25 (1).

The judge rejected the appellant's application.

The Court rejected the appellant's argument that their proposed «global but for» test for causation would have resulted in a different verdict.

Not exact matches

And since appellants concede that the purchase and sale of their residence was not carried out by a QBU, the district court properly rejected their plea to treat the pound as their functional currency.

The Appellants» submission that any departure, other than one which was trivial, from the definition of a «controlled parking zone» in regulation 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 invalidated the entire controlled parking zone was rejected.

The appellant argued that the Secretary of State's refusal of her application was incompatible with the Directive in question, though the First - tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal all rejected this argument.

It followed the Court of Appeal in rejecting the second appellant's ground of appeal based on alleged unfairness as the Secretary of State had not failed to publicise the change of fees.

In this case, the appellant's concerns regarding a lack of procedural fairness for the retention monies, hydro seeding, and costs were rejected.

[62] Although the trial judge essentially treated this as a situation of repudiation or anticipatory breach, she did not consider whether the appellants elected to accept or reject the repudiation.

[775] In summary, it would be open to a jury to reject the evidence of the County Road witnesses who testified for the defence and to accept the evidence of the witnesses who testified for the Crown that the appellant and Lynne did not travel on the County Road north of the tractor trail, but must have turned down the tractor trail into Lawson's Bush where Lynne met her death.

The Court of Appeal rejected the submission that the appellant was seeking an extension of time by implication.

The appellant's internal challenge to the disclosure of this information via the procedure of the GMP was rejected.

The Appellants also applied for leave to adduce further evidence seeking to explain the inconsistency in the Appellants» evidence regarding the cost of rectification works, which was the main reason why the DJ rejected their claim for rectification works.

«It is submitted that not only have [the appellants] been denied procedural fairness on this issue, but also the public interest in showing the extent to which their allegations were accepted or rejected has been unlawfully frustrated,» he said.

In particular, the trial judge provided a long list of reasons for disbelieving the appellant and rejecting his testimony as incredible.

In rejecting this claim, the Court again relied on Marshall: «appellants» trial counsel did not object to this portion of the charge.

The Chief Justice rejects the distinction that the appellants and some interveners defended at oral argument between hearing fees and fees of other kinds (such as filing fees) which courts in every province levy.

The appellant's submissions were rejected by the Court of Appeal, which certified the following point of law of general public importance as involved in its decision for consideration by the House of Lords, namely, is it permissible for a defendant to be convicted where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive extent upon the testimony of one or more anonymous witnesses?

The respondent's submission that the commingling of the appellant's funds with funds in the accounts of JYC or Sunny Stable prevents their tracing was rejected.

Finally, to the extent that the appellants renew their challenge to the trial judge's decision based on the arguments advanced by them before the appeal judge, those arguments were fully considered by the appeal judge, and rejected, for cogent and clear reasons.

The court stated that the fact that the psychiatrist was the appellant's treating psychiatrist is not a proper basis for rejecting the evidence.

An immigration judge rejected this argument citing the fact that the appellant had not lived with her adoptive parents on a full - time basis, that they had already demonstrated their willingness and ability to make arrangements for her care and education in India, and there was nothing preventing the adoptive parents from making a formal application to adopt the appellant from within the UK by undertaking the steps necessary to obtain an assessment of their suitability from their local authority in accordance with the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting objection to the maintainability of the petitions filed by respondent No. 1 in the Delhi High Court merely because the appellant had earlier filed O.M.P. No. 179 of 2003 before the High Court.