Sentences with phrase «require application to the court»

Presumably judicial review would be available, but that would require an application to the Court of Queen's Bench with considerable costs and delay, making such an application unfeasible for most victims of domestic violence.

[1] Where circumstances arise that in the opinion of the lawyer require an application to the court for leave to withdraw, the lawyer should promptly inform Crown counsel and the court of the intention to apply for leave in order to avoid or minimize any inconvenience to the court and witnesses.

Not exact matches

The group is asking the court to require DHS to implement the rule and begin processing applications.

Apple wrote in its court filings: «Apple respectfully requests that the court deny the government's application for an order requiring Apple to perform extraction services on the Apple - manufactured device in the government's custody,»

The Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB) has filed an application with the Federal Court of Appeal to stay the Competition Tribunal's June 3 order, which requires TREB to, in part, stop its «anti-competitive practices» and not exclude sold and other disputed data from its virtual office website (VOW) feed.

To the extent permitted by law, we will disclose your information to government authorities or third parties if: (a) required to do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawTo the extent permitted by law, we will disclose your information to government authorities or third parties if: (a) required to do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto government authorities or third parties if: (a) required to do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto do so by law, or in response to a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto a subpoena or court order; (b) we believe in our sole discretion that disclosure is reasonably necessary to protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto protect against fraud, to protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto protect the property or other rights of us or other users, third parties or the public at large; or (c) we believe that you have abused the Sites or the Applications by using them to attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto attack other systems or to gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto gain unauthorized access to any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto any other system, to engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto engage in spamming or otherwise to violate applicable lawto violate applicable laws.

Justice Kolawole after listening to both counsel, said that there is no need to speculate on the court proceedings since the judicial process requires the defendants to take their plea before there can be hearing on bail application.

(4) The independent panel shall report as approved for each judicial position all highly qualified persons who make application to the panel, provided that if the number of highly qualified applicants exceeds three times the number of existing vacancies to be filled in such position (determined as of the time the panel renders its report), the independent panel shall report as approved the most highly qualified applicants in a number equal to three times the number of vacancies to be filled in such position, provided further that if the number of highly qualified applicants is less than three times the number of vacancies to be filled in such position the independent panel shall report as approved the most highly qualified applicants in a number equal to not less than two times the number of such vacancies, provided further that the following categories of applicants who are eligible for reelection or reappointment shall be reported as approved if their performance during their term of office merits continuation in office, and no other applicants shall be reported as approved for their vacancies: (a) a judge or justice completing a full term of office seeking re-election to that office, or (b) an interim Supreme Court justice who has been appointed by the Governor to fill an existing vacancy no later than the previous June 1 after approval of the Governor's screening panel, who has been confirmed by the State Senate and has assumed office no later than the date the panel renders its report, and who otherwise would not be required to make application to the independent screening panel pursuant to the provisions of sub-paragraph (3).

(3) Neither the Executive Committee nor the County Leader shall designate, nominate or propose any candidate for judicial offices which are to be elected county - wide in New York County, or which are to be proposed for appointment by the Mayor of the City of New York or by the Governor of the State of New York, exclusive of recommendations for interim appointment by the Mayor or the Governor, unless such candidate shall have been approved in that calendar year for such office by the independent panel., except that once a candidate for the office of Justice of the Supreme Court has been reported as highly qualified by at least two of the last four independent screening panels for that office, that candidate shall be considered as having been approved by the panel for such office during each of the four calendar years after the year in which the candidate shall have last achieved such status, (not counting a year in which there are no vacancies for the office of Justice of the Supreme Court other than a vacancy resulting from the expiration of the term of office of a justice eligible for and seeking re-election to that office, or a vacancy which has been filled by an interim Supreme Court justice seeking re-election who has been appointed by the Governor and who satisfies the requirements of sub-paragraph 4 (b), provided in each case that such justice has been determined by the independent panel to merit continuation in office), and such candidate shall not make application to the panel during any of such years unless the Committee on the Judiciary shall require the candidate to make such an application.

(a) Whenever there shall be a violation of this section an application may be made by the attorney general in the name of the people of the state of New York to a court or justice having jurisdiction by a special proceeding to issue an injunction, and upon notice to the defendant of not less than five days, to enjoin and restrain the continuance of such violation; and if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court or justice that the defendant has, in fact, violated this section, an injunction may be issued by the court or justice, enjoining and restraining any further violations, without requiring proof that any person has, in fact, been injured or damaged thereby.

Upon application for Judicial Review, the High Court found that Ofsted's complaints process was defective because it did not permit a substantive challenge to the most serious criticisms, namely, when a school was found to have serious weaknesses or requiring special measures.

(b) If the respondent named in a charge filed under section 706 fails or refuses to comply with a demand of the Commission for permission to examine or to copy evidence in conformity with the provisions of section 709 (a), or if any person required to comply with the provisions of section 709 (c) or (d) fails or refuses to do so, or if any person fails or refuses to comply with a demand by the Commission to give testimony under oath, the United States district court for the district in which such person is found, resides, or transacts business, shall, upon application of the Commission, have jurisdiction to issue to such person an order requiring him to comply with the provisions of section 709 (c) or (d) or to comply with the demand of the Commission, but the attendance of a witness may not be required outside the State where he is found, resides, or transacts business and the production of evidence may not be required outside the State where such evidence is kept.

The court filing notes that the plaintiff «was the first to file a device so designed and aggregated,» but admits that the patent application was declared abandoned in 1995 because Ross never paid the required application fees.

The Court is further advised that, in the event that the Plaintiff loans are repurchased and in the IBR, no trial in this adversary proceeding will be required as to ECMC or DOE, and being further advised that both the Plaintiff and ECMC and DOE have agreed to the dismissal of this adversary proceeding as to ECMC and DOE only so that Plaintiff may proceed with the application process, good cause appearing, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby

If a creditor opposes your discharge, if you do not complete your required bankruptcy duties or this is your third bankruptcy, then your trustee will be required to apply to the court for an application for discharge.

The Court further reminded that the Qualification Directive (Directive 2011 / 95 / EU) requires the Member States to grant the refugee status when a third country national or a stateless person meets the relevant conditions under that Directive, and then pointed out that «after the application for international protection is submitted in accordance with Chapter II of Directive 2011/95, any third - country national or stateless person who fulfils the material conditions laid down by Chapter III of that directive has a subjective right to be recognised as having refugee status, and that is so even before the formal decision is adopted in that regard».

From a criminal perspective, we continue to require accused persons to appear before the court for administrative remands when the system, particularly for those with representation, could easily be moved to an electronic format (I addressed this specifically in my blog.There is still a requirement to file paper - heavy applications, along with casebooks, when it would be very easy to provide the judiciary and opposing counsel with electronic copies that could be used inside courtrooms.

-- that regulation does not preclude the application of a provision of national procedural law of a Member State which, with a view to avoiding situations of denial of justice, enables proceedings to be brought against, and in the absence of, a person whose domicile is unknown, if the court seised of the matter is satisfied, before giving a ruling in those proceedings, that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith have been undertaken with a view to tracing the defendant.

However, the General Court accepted Gifi's argument that the Board failed to examine all the evidence it had produced, and the Board's judgment did not mention several of the designs cited: «In the present case, it is clear that, in the light of the Board of Appeal's assertion that it was required to re-examine the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety, followed by a one - by - one examination of the contested design in relation only to Designs D 1 to D 17, it is impossible to infer from the wording of the contested decision, or the context in which it appears, what is the implied reasoning justifying the failure to take into account Designs D 18 to D 22.»

First, the Court found that the application judge had the requisite jurisdiction to make the order and declaration the appellant was required to transfer full ownership to the respondent.

The court has used its discretion to deny an application for the production of documents in the following two circumstances: firstly, where thousands of documents of only possible relevance are in question; and secondly, where the documents sought do not have significant probative value and the value of production is outweighed by competing interests such as confidentiality and time and expense required for the party to produce the documents: Park at para. 15.

the court can confine its consideration to factors relevant to the variation application — although MCA 1973, s 31 (7) requires the court to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, that is not the same as requiring the court to undertake the exercise under MCA 1973, s 25 afresh; and

If the Canadian patent office requires that a divisional application be filed pursuant to Section 36 (2.1) of the Patent Act, a court has held that it would «be unfair and inequitable» (see Abbott Laboratories v. Canada (Health), 2009 FC 648 and Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Sask.)

Applying that approach to the facts in Morris, the Court of Appeal considered that the judge's approach to the application had not been too restrictive: it had been light touch, but, in the circumstances, not to the extent that the judge could be said to have failed to undertake the statutory exercise required by MCA 1973, s 31.

One of the oddities of family law, at least from a client's perspective, is that while the client may view «their case» in the singular, in reality, there may be several separate strands before the court, for example, the divorce (usually straightforward), financial provision (generally one application before the court, but with the potential to branch off down different routes particularly if enforcement is required), and arrangements for any children (hopefully, in most cases, capable of agreement without proceedings being issued, but sometimes not).

Unfortunately, since the Court decided against the applicability of the Visa Code in the case of X and X, it was not required to look further into the question of whether Member States» authorities should assess applications made under Article 25 of the Visa Code in the light of Articles 4 and / or 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights or any other international obligation by which they are bound.

Nothing was said by the Court of Appeal in Nipa Begum which showed either that the approach of the county court on s 204 appeals was identical to the powers of the High Court on a judicial review application or that it was required by an enactCourt of Appeal in Nipa Begum which showed either that the approach of the county court on s 204 appeals was identical to the powers of the High Court on a judicial review application or that it was required by an enactcourt on s 204 appeals was identical to the powers of the High Court on a judicial review application or that it was required by an enactCourt on a judicial review application or that it was required by an enactment.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for judicial review on the grounds that it lacked the jurisdiction to grant some of the relief sought and there were complex questions of fact and law that required a trial.

Two questions arose: (i) whether s 204 contained an express requirement under which the county court was required by an enactment to make a decision applying the principles that were applied by the court on an application for judicial review, thus placing s 204 appeals within the public law category; and (ii) if not, whether there were any other reasons requiring the application of judicial review principles with the result that s 204 appeals fell within the post-LASPO 2012 civil legal aid regime.

If you have a properly executed and signed written agreement dealing with all issues arising from the breakdown of your marriage which does not require updating, amendments or variation, and would like an uncontested divorce in Nova Scotia, we expect to charge between $ 1,000.00 — $ 2,000.00, plus disbursements & HST to complete the court application.

Documents which are commonly required for the application include: the application form signed and fully completed, a completed personal information form, a criminal record check, a copy of the court record pertaining to past convictions, proof of citizenship, a copy of your fingerprint chart (which can be obtained from a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer), and a statement indicating your intended activities in the United States.

The application will be accompanied by a statement from the applicant setting out clearly and candidly the reasons why the injunction is sought, and the applicant is required to undertake to pay damages to the respondent and any third parties for any losses incurred by them as a result of the injunction, should the court later decide that that is appropriate.

And so it could hedge its bets and formulate the norm as prohibiting Member States «to remove from the jurisdiction of their own courts, and hence from the system of judicial remedies which the second subparagraph of Article 19 (1) TEU requires them to establish in the fields covered by EU law, disputes which may concern the application or interpretation of EU law.»

(i) where there is a breach of a right afforded under EU law, article 47 of the Charter is engaged; (ii) the right to an effective remedy for breach of EU law rights provided for by article 47 embodies a general principle of EU law; (iii)(subject to exceptions which have no application in the present case) that general principle has horizontal effect; (iv) in so far as a provision of national law conflicts with the requirement for an effective remedy in article 47, the domestic courts can and must disapply the conflicting provision; and (v) the only exception to (iv) is that the court may be required to apply a conflicting domestic provision where the court would otherwise have to redesign the fabric of the legislative scheme.

(6) Where a local authority refuse an application for a licence under section 37 of this Act or revoke or, otherwise than on the application of the holder, vary such a licence they shall state their grounds for doing so in writing to the applicant or, as the case may be, the holder of the licence; and the applicant or holder may appeal to a magistrates» court or, in Scotland, the sheriff, against the refusal, revocation or variation, and against any condition subject to which the licence is granted or any approval is given, not being a condition which the local authority are required to impose.

agree to remove from the jurisdiction of their own courts, and hence from the system of judicial remedies which the second subparagraph of Article 19 (1) TEU requires them to establish in the fields covered by EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, C ‑ 64 / 16, EU: C: 2018:117, paragraph 34), disputes which may concern the application or interpretation of EU law.

The Court of Appeal found that the Regulations were unlawful as they required «verifications of domestic violence to be given within a 24 - month period before any application for legal aid» and because they did «not cater for victims of domestic violence who have suffered from financial abuse».

As the corporation was not fully recompensed for the costs it incurred, the unrecovered costs will be included in the corporation's common expenses payable by all of the unit owners, including those who undertook the required remedial work to their own fireplaces without the necessity for a court application, and those who did not have a fireplace in their unit.

The judge decided not to strike the claims on the basis of court rules, which require an extremely high threshold to be met on application to strike at this preliminary stage.

Today the women's health care providers who jointly filed suit last month on behalf of their patients have filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate an injunction granted by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel on October 28 blocking a Texas provision requiring doctors who provide abortions to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital — a requirement that leading medical associations oppose and only results in women losing access to safe medical care.

The application was made after the expiry of the deadline for service of expert reports under R. 11 - 6 (3) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules and the claimant was therefore not required to attend.

The court directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to post guidance on re-opening the renewal process, but does not require DHS to accept first time DACA applications.

This applies both where that advice is limited in time, eg until after a criminal defence statement has been filed and served and, worse still, the advice is given not to make such a response at all; • (f) the date on which a party to care proceedings is to file and serve a criminal defence statement in linked criminal proceedings is wholly irrelevant to the court's determination of the date on which that party should file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement in the care proceedings; • (g) the mere fact that a party is ordered to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement before the date a criminal defence statement is to be filed and served in criminal proceedings is not a ground for failing to comply with the former order; • (h) it [is not] a ground for an application to extend the time for compliance with an order to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement until a date after the criminal defence statement has been filed and served; and • (i) any issue about alleged prejudice to a defendant in criminal proceedings based on him being required to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement before the date of a criminal defence statement is to be filed and served, or at all, only arises and is only potentially relevant if and when an application is made by the police and / or a co-accused for statements and documents filed in the family proceedings to be disclosed into linked criminal proceedings [see Re C (A Minor)(Care Proceedings: Disclosure)[1997] Fam 76, [1997] 2 WLR 322, sub nom Re EC (Disclosure of Material)[1996] 2 FLR 725, CA].

According to the Supreme Court, determining the application of the commercial activity exception requires a two - step analysis: first, determining the nature of the activity, and second, whether the proceedings were «related to» the activity.

I object to it for legal reasons — EU law requires that member states, when they implement EU law, respect the Charter rights, and the Court is charged by the Treaties to ensure that, in the application of the Treaties, the law is observed.

ICBC brought an application to compel the second exam but this was dismissed with the Court finding that the first report strayed beyond what was required for a Part 7 exam.

Even in the context of zoning, which has purportedly been the subject of a «bright line rule,» this Court has not been able to agree on which cases require an application...

As is well known, the without notice application requires full and frank disclosure from the applicant, and the court is astute to police breaches of the obligation.

In both cases, if a deposit has been paid by the Tenant, the Landlord is required to show that the deposit is held in one of the approved schemes before the Court can entertain any application.

While the authorities indicate that the Court has a discretion as to whether to permit the accused to conduct a voir dire in relation to the alleged Charter violation and that in determining how to exercise that discretion the Court may require the accused to summarize the evidence he intends to rely upon, they do not suggest that a notice must include all of the facts which the applicant intends to prove to meet the onus which rests on him in the application.