Sentences with phrase «rights under court order»

The loss of a child's service was not a necessary element of the tort, and a parent with legal custody and visitation rights under court order at the time of abduction is not required to plead or prove that he or she has suffered an economic loss due to the abduction and harboring of the child.

Not exact matches

Under the NDA's terms, Trump had the clear right to «immediately obtain, either from the Arbitrator and / or from any other court of competent jurisdiction, an ex parte issuance of a restraining order... without advance notice to [Daniels].»

Mr. Woyome state «The Attorney General and the entire Government of Ghana are bound by law to obey the order of the African Court on Human and Peoples» Rights; any violation of it will be unlawful under Ghanaian laws.»

To protect the Committee's fundamental rights under the United States and New York State Constitutions against the partisan use of state power, the Committee requests that the Court quash the subpoena and issue a protective order directing that the Committee need not respond to the subpoena's remaining demands.»

However, the president noted that — any Ghanaian can demand to know the assets declared by public officials with a court order or a petition to the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) under the current law.

She also wants the court to order Skye Bank to pay her damages in the sum of N200m for what she termed a violation of her right to own personal property under Section 44 of the Constitution.

; Patrick Akpolobolokemi, the former NIMASA Director - General was rough - handled and bundled into a van right in front of the court premises where a judge had just granted him bail; several persons are known to have been detained for periods far in excess of the constitutionally mandated 48 hours initially under spurious detention orders signed by magistrates courts in the Federal Capital Territtory!

The motion itself asks that the court allow LPO candidates be allowed on the ballot and that the LPO remain a legal political party in order to protect the its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of political speech and equal protection under the law.

This past October, a superior court judge concluded a yearlong legal battle, confirming that parents have the right under the parent trigger law to transform their school, while ordering the school district to abide by the parents» petition.

In B v S [2009] All ER D119 (Dec) the court had to consider whether committing the mother of a three month old child to prison following persistent breaches of a contact order would infringe her child's right to a private and family life (under Art 8 of the Human Rights Convention).

In particular, this judgment from the jurisdiction's apex court has clarified definitively the limits of an enforcing Court's power to order security as a condition on the right to have a decision of a properly arguable challenge under the New York Convention 1958 and the English Arbitration Act court has clarified definitively the limits of an enforcing Court's power to order security as a condition on the right to have a decision of a properly arguable challenge under the New York Convention 1958 and the English Arbitration Act Court's power to order security as a condition on the right to have a decision of a properly arguable challenge under the New York Convention 1958 and the English Arbitration Act 1996.

In a previous Supreme Court case, HM Treasury v Ahmed and others [2010] UKSC 2, the court held that the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 was ultra vires in that the Treasury had exceeded its powers under the United Nations Act 1946 by adversely affecting the rights of the citizen without clear Parliamentary authoCourt case, HM Treasury v Ahmed and others [2010] UKSC 2, the court held that the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 was ultra vires in that the Treasury had exceeded its powers under the United Nations Act 1946 by adversely affecting the rights of the citizen without clear Parliamentary authocourt held that the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 was ultra vires in that the Treasury had exceeded its powers under the United Nations Act 1946 by adversely affecting the rights of the citizen without clear Parliamentary authority.

Recently, the grant of a Norwich Pharmacal order came under close examination by the Supreme Court in The Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Limited (formerly Viagogo Limited)(In Liquidation)[2012] UKSC 55, [2012] All ER (D) 236 (Nov), which considered the facts of the case and balanced case law against the right to protection of personal data guaranteed by Art 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Finally, the court decided that the wife's mother would not be prejudiced from setting aside the order, being wealthy in her own right and not a party intended to benefit under the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Greene has not cited — and the Court has not found — a single statute, regulation, rule, or judicial opinion holding that a litigant has a right of access (under the First Amendment, the common law, or anything else) to communications between a judge and his or her law clerk, including draft opinions and orders.

The Supreme Court unanimously held the requirement in the Local Government Pension Scheme (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 that unmarried co-habiting partners must be nominated in order to be eligible for a survivor's pension, was interference with the appellant's right to property under article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR that could not be «objectively justified» for the purposes of art 14.

However, the Court of Appeal confirmed the broad remedial jurisdiction afforded to the Tribunal under the Ontario Human Rights Code to order a party to do anything the Tribunal thinks it should in order to promote compliance with the Act.

Whilst taking a slightly different route to get there, the Court of Appeal agreed that the High Court had jurisdiction to make blocking orders under section 37 (1) of the Senior Courts Act, as interpreted in light of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive (which provides that member states shall ensure that rights holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an IP right).

[1] Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta and the Deputy Minister of Justice of Alberta (hereinafter referred to as the Alberta Crown) seek an order to strike the Second Amended Statement of Claim under Rule 221 (1) of the Federal Courts Rules

That power belongs to the Attorney General of Ontario (the AG), which is statutorily authorized under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 (the Act) to commence proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court for an order requiring a wrongdoer to forfeit property in Ontario to the Crown in right of Ontario where the court finds that the property is the «proceeds of unlawful activity&raCourt for an order requiring a wrongdoer to forfeit property in Ontario to the Crown in right of Ontario where the court finds that the property is the «proceeds of unlawful activity&racourt finds that the property is the «proceeds of unlawful activity».

Thus the Supreme Court held that the policy of «deport first; appeal later» is a violation of human rights as an appeal against a deportation order by reference to a claim in respect of private and family life under ECHR, art 8 should be effective, and this means there must be an opportunity for appellants to give live evidence to assist the tribunal.

The fact that the exercise of Article 10 powers or their purported exercise may give rise to a conflict with the rights of the citizen under Article 3 or a conflict between the UAE's obligations under the New York Convention to enforce an Award can not affect the question whether or not the Court can order a means of service which is not in accordance with the sole means of service prescribed by Article 6.

In the United Kingdom High Court (Administrative) decision of DD v Secretary of State for Home Department [2014](«DD») Ouseley J was required to consider, on a preliminary basis, whether the imposition of a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure («TPIM»)(the successor of control orders) had violated the appellant's right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights («ECHR»).

The private right of action under CASL is a statutory cause of action under which persons who allege that they are affected by a CASL breach can apply to court for an order against the alleged violator.

Once the victim is granted exclusive possession under a protection or other court order for a specified period of time, then during that period of time the perpetrator would almost certainly have no right to a key or access to the residential premises, regardless of what the RTA says.

The duty of fairness was not excluded by (1) the statutory right under the Act of recourse to the courts after the direction, or (2) the fact that the order was subordinate legislation.

This means an individual whose rights have been violated — say, at the hands of CSIS agents utilizing their sweeping new disruption powers under Bill C - 51 — must challenge the law in court and win in order for the law to be struck down and their rights restored.

In Crouch, the court was asked to consider (1) whether to re-confirm the Protection Order under the Act, and (2) whether the Act violates the Charter by infringing on an individual's freedom of expression or by violating an individual's right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the detention of an individual following his breach of a civil contact order, where he had no legal representation, did not violate his rights under Article 5, ECHR (Right to Liberty and Security of PeRights has held that the detention of an individual following his breach of a civil contact order, where he had no legal representation, did not violate his rights under Article 5, ECHR (Right to Liberty and Security of Perights under Article 5, ECHR (Right to Liberty and Security of Person).

A majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding that Mr. Kokopenace's rights under sections 11 (d) and 11 (f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated because the jury roll from which his jury was selected was not sufficiently representrights under sections 11 (d) and 11 (f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated because the jury roll from which his jury was selected was not sufficiently representRights and Freedoms had been violated because the jury roll from which his jury was selected was not sufficiently representative.

As in the courts below, the appellant challenges the Production Order under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The provision would extend the powers and rights of audience of DCWs by enabling them to conduct: - summary trials in magistrates» courts; - certain proceedings in magistrates» courts, including proceedings relating to offences triable only on indictment by a judge and jury at the crown court; - applications and other proceedings relating to «preventative civil orders» such as anti-social behaviour orders; and - certain proceedings (other than criminal proceedings) assigned to the director of public prosecutions by the attorney general under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s 3 (2)(g).

«(1) If the Secretary of State orders a person's extradition under this Part he must --(a) inform the person of the order; (b) inform him in ordinary language that he has a right of appeal to the High Court; (c) inform a person acting on behalf of the category 2 territory of the order...»

The Federal Court of Canada released a landmark decision finding that the court has the jurisdiction to make an extra-territorial order with world - wide effects against a foreign resident requiring the foreign person to remove documents containing personal information about a Canadian citizen that violates the person's rights under Canada's privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPCourt of Canada released a landmark decision finding that the court has the jurisdiction to make an extra-territorial order with world - wide effects against a foreign resident requiring the foreign person to remove documents containing personal information about a Canadian citizen that violates the person's rights under Canada's privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPcourt has the jurisdiction to make an extra-territorial order with world - wide effects against a foreign resident requiring the foreign person to remove documents containing personal information about a Canadian citizen that violates the person's rights under Canada's privacy law, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

39 (1) The Ontario court may, on a party's motion, after taking into account any right of a government or delivery agent under section 45, vary a support order made or registered in Ontario under this Act or the former Act,

Waymo is bringing this suit under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which gives plaintiffs the right to ask a court to bring an immediate, temporary restraining order against Uber's robot car and truck experiments, as well as seize the products of the trade secret theft.

ISWs can be appointed in public and private court proceedings, e.g. under the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, whenever the court requires an independent social work view in order to make the right decision for a child.

(6) In any proceeding under this section, the court may not deny shared parental responsibility and time - sharing rights to a parent solely because that parent is or is believed to be infected with human immunodeficiency virus, but the court may, in an order approving the parenting plan, require that parent to observe measures approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States Public Health Service or by the Department of Health for preventing the spread of human immunodeficiency virus to the child.

Full rights under this subparagraph apply to either parent unless a court order specifically revokes these rights, including any restrictions on these rights as provided in a domestic violence injunction.

(1) Any act or thing done or omitted to be done before or after the commencement of this Part under or in relation to a right or liability conferred, imposed or affected by section 114MI in relation to an ineffective order of a court of summary jurisdiction:

Under Maine family law, the court is required to inform parents of their duty to provide notice, upon deciding to relocate, in all shared parental rights and responsibility custody orders.

However, if a father neglects his shared custody rights and responsibilities under the temporary custody order, the court will likely look upon this unfavorably when deciding permanent custody.

A mother's right to custody is automatic under Tennessee law, whereas the unmarried father must initiate juvenile court proceedings in order to gain custody rights.

(2) A person who is entitled to residential time or visitation with the child under a court order may not object to the intended relocation of the child within the school district in which the child currently resides the majority of the time, but he or she retains the right to move for modification under RCW 26.09.260.

(a) «Child» means any person who is under the jurisdiction of a state court pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act or is the subject of any order granting to a parent or other person any right to time - sharing, residential care, kinship, or custody, as provided under state law.

This solution would have been impossible in a court of law, as a judge would not be empowered to order a distribution of their assets without also ending their marriage (which would thereby end the husband's right to remain covered as a spouse under his wife's medical insurance policy).

Under proposed s 86B (4)(ea)(item 18), any submission made by the NNTT pursuant to its right of appearance under ss 86BA (1)[item 20] may be taken into account by the Court in making mediation orUnder proposed s 86B (4)(ea)(item 18), any submission made by the NNTT pursuant to its right of appearance under ss 86BA (1)[item 20] may be taken into account by the Court in making mediation orunder ss 86BA (1)[item 20] may be taken into account by the Court in making mediation orders.

«CONSIDERING that the Mother's behaviour is tantamount to constituting, according to the evidence, a case of parental alienation, while also ignoring that under Quebec law, both the Mother and the Father exercise jointly the parental authority over their child; FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT... MAINTAINS the Father's Motion; GRANTS joint legal custody of the child [orders mother to return child to the father at her own cost, psychosocial evaluation of the child, reserves right to father to bring motion for sole custody or to modify terms if mother stays in Canada longer than summer months].»

The ability for the Court to make orders concerning non-native title outcomes may provide a mechanism whereby agreement - makers are able to coordinate the multiple and complex agreements that they are party to under various legal regimes, including lands rights and heritage legislation.

The Court was unable to consider whether intellectual property rights were an incident of native title as section 213 (1) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) requires that the procedures of the NTA must be followed in order to make a determination relating to native title, and the applicant had not made an application under the NTA.