Sentences with phrase «remedied by an order of the court»

Under the Alberta Business Corporations Act (or the federal one or any other provincial corporations act for that matter), any of these forms of «oppression» may be remedied by an order of the Court, which has a range of discretion under the legislation.

Not exact matches

«Finally, to ensure that the preparation of the Appropriation Bill is based on the Medium Term Expenditure Framework, passed by the National Assembly, signed into law by the President and implemented by the Executive arm of government Section 51 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act has specifically clothed every citizen with the necessary locus standi or legal capacity to enforce the provisions of the law by obtaining prerogative orders or other remedies at the Federal High Court, without having to show any special particular interest.»

Guaranteeing access to courts is not enough unless said courts can guarantee the appropriate remedy will be granted: «Of what value are the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter if a person is denied or delayed access to a court of competent jurisdiction in order to vindicate them?&raquOf what value are the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter if a person is denied or delayed access to a court of competent jurisdiction in order to vindicate them?&raquof competent jurisdiction in order to vindicate them?»

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Alaska injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

(school exclusion, fights and serious injury; bullying of assailant; Governors reinstated excluded child; victim (the bully) sought JR of that decision; Governors capitulated; excluded child arguing that in its discretion court should not order a re-hearing by Governors as alternative remedy and hardship to him as a third party; absence of reasons of Judge below).

(school exclusion, fights and serious injury; bullying of assailant; Governors reinstated excluded child; victim (the bully) sought JR of that decision; Governors capitulated; excluded child arguing that in its discretion court should not order a re-hearing by Governors as alternative remedy and hardship to him as a third party

FPR 2010 r 21.1 (1) anticipates such a list in the family court, but this is rarely anticipated, still less ordered, by the court (eg, most disclosure in financial remedy proceedings is dictated by production of documents with Form E (the parties» financial statement)-RRB-.

One of the key features of its mission and unifying nomophylactic essentially aimed at ensuring certainty in the interpretation of the law is the fact that, in principle, the current rules do not allow the Supreme Court to know the facts of a case unless they prove by deeds already obtained in proceedings in the pre-trial stages, and only to the extent that it is necessary to know in order to assess the remedies that the law allows you to use to motivate an application at the Court.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Georgia injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

One of the key features of its mis - sion and unifying nomophylactic essentially aimed at ensuring cer - tainty in the interpretation of the law is the fact that, in principle, the current rules do not allow the Supreme Court to know the facts of a case unless they prove by deeds already obtained in pro- ceedings in the pre-trial stages, and only to the extent that it is necessary to know in order to assess the remedies that the law allows you to use to motivate an application at the Court.

To prevent the judicial system from taking a role in setting educational spending priorities and remedies that could badly tilt educational priorities, the Province and the School Board asked the British Columbia Supreme Court for a judicial review of the Tribunal's decision or alternatively, to quash the remedial orders made by the Tribunal.

One of the remedies available under equity is an injunction: a court order requiring (or prohibiting) something to be done (or not be done) by someone.

Furthermore, although it is true that the procedure laid down in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument for cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the former provides the latter with the points of interpretation of EU law necessary in order for them to decide the disputes before them, the fact remains that when there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decision of a court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the former provides the latter with the points of interpretation of EU law necessary in order for them to decide the disputes before them, the fact remains that when there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decision of a court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before it...

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Tennessee injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Missouri injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a California injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

«The sanctions ordered by the Court far exceed the bounds of appropriate remedies for what this Court concluded were intentional misrepresentations, a conclusion that was reached without proper procedural protections and that lacks sufficient evidentiary support,» lawyers for the department said.

has no other specific legal remedy, this court ought to assist by mandamus, upon reasons of justice, as the writ expresses, and upon reasons of public policy, to preserve peace, order and good government.»

The entitlement to that remedy may be a matter of substantive law, but the trust itself is not created by the acts of the parties, or even by the obligation to make restitution, but by the order of the court.

I acknowledge and agree that violation of this Employee Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement by me may cause the Company irreparable harm, and therefore I agree that the Company will be entitled to seek extraordinary relief in court, including, but not limited to, temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions without the necessity of posting a bond or other security (or, where such a bond or security is required, I agree that a $ [NUMBER] bond will be adequate), in addition to and without prejudice to any other rights or remedies that the Company may have for a breach of this Employee Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a North Carolina injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Failure to sign documents can sometimes be remedied by getting an order to have the clerk of the court sign the documents as his court appointed agent.

Where any obligation imposed by this Part is not complied with, the collecting body may, in addition to any other remedy available, apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order directing compliance with that obligation.

A breach of the rules on conflicts of interest may lead to sanction by the Law Society even where a court dealing with the case may decline to order disqualification as a remedy.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a foreign injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

By analogy, when a state legislature fails to adopt a redistricting plan that complies with the constitution, which is normally a political question, this failure to act allows a federal court to craft a redistricting plan as a remedy for the failure of the legislature to act, in order to protect the constitutional rights of voters and candidates in future elections, even though no express language of the constitution or statute addresses the remedy when a state legislature fails to pass a redistricting plan.

However, if I were to rely on her evidence in making the proposed order, I would be doing precisely what I determined was an error by the arbitrator, that is, I would be relying on general evidence as to remedies for parental alienation without reference to the particular needs and circumstances of J.B.» B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.), 2009 CarswellOnt 2660, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3145, 66 R.F.L. (6th) 103 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2009)[¶ ¶ 32 - 33].

The possible sanctions include: compensatory time with the children; economic sanctions for costs incurred by the non-violator parent due to the other parent's custody or parenting time violation; modification of the existing transportation (pick up / drop off arrangements)-- including changing the exchange location to a public place; ordering counseling for either or both of the parties and / or the children at the expense of the violator; ordering a temporary or permanent modification of the parenting time and custodial arrangement if under the circumstances this relief is in the best interests of the children; ordering the violator to participate in a community service program; incarceration of the violator with or without work - release; issuance of a warrant to be executed if the violator persists in failing to comply with court orders; any other appropriate equitable remedy.

This is a similar system of sorts devised for home builders and consumers by builders via TARION Warranty Corporation, designed to remedy consumer complaints against builders in order to avoid court proceedings.

Even where the court - ordered remedy falls short of forcing the owner to sell and move out, courts will frequently force the owner to pay for any remediation or clean - up costs arising from his misconduct, and may even require payment of the legal costs incurred by the condo corporation to bring the matter before the courts in the first place.