Sentences with phrase «superior courts of the jurisdiction»

Only qualified lawyers possessing the right to conduct litigation and / or a right of audience before the superior courts of the jurisdiction in which they practice civil and commercial law are currently eligible for accreditation.

Not exact matches

The Enrollment Program also authorizes a superior court to have jurisdiction over enrollees by allowing it to «appoint a receiver, monitor, conservator, or other designated fiduciary or officer of the court for a defendant or the defendant's assets,» as well as authorizes the Commissioner of Business Oversight to «include in civil actions claims for ancillary relief, including restitution and disgorgement, on behalf of a person injured, as well as attorney's fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to $ 25,000» for up to four years after the purported violation occurred and «refer evidence regarding violations of the bill's provisions to the Attorney General, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, or the district attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, who would be authorized, with or without this type of a reference, to institute appropriate proceedings.»

The authority of this Court, like other superior courts of inherent jurisdiction, does not flow from legislation, as does, for example, the Provincial Court of Alberta.

The notion of «inherent jurisdiction» arises from the presumption that if there is a justiciable right, then there must be a court competent to vindicate the right... the doctrine of inherent jurisdiction requires that only an explicit ouster of jurisdiction should be allowed to deny jurisdiction to the superior court.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered this inherent substantial jurisdiction of provincial superior courts in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net, 1998 CanLII 818 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626 at para. 32:

Any superior court of this state shall have jurisdiction in equity to restrain and enjoin the violation of any provision of this title.

«Concurrent jurisdiction over lawyers, shared between superior courts and law societies, is an ordinary aspect of the dual identities of lawyers as officers of the court and members of a regulated profession,» she wrote.

However, in cases where a failure to give proper disclosure has made a fair trial impossible, or prevented the court from doing justice, or in instances of a flagrant abuse of process, a superior court will exercise its inherent jurisdiction — its power to control its own procedure so as to prevent it from being used to achieve injustice — to strike out the case before or during a trial (see for example Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others [2006] EWHC 1315 (Ch) and CPR 3.4 (5)-RRB-.

The provincial «superior» courts have inherent jurisdiction over all causes of action that have not been explicitly provided elsewhere.

83 The inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to stay proceedings as a measure of control over the judicial process was affirmed in R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128 (S.C.C.).

A defendant in a criminal proceeding may petition to the superior court for a writ of prohibition to prevent an inferior court from proceeding with the case because it does not fall under its jurisdiction.

As can be seen in this appeal, the creation of national classes also raises the issue of relations between equal but different superior courts in a federal system in which civil procedure and the administration of justice are under provincial jurisdiction.

Criminal Law: Inmate Transfer; Habeas Corpus; Standard of Review; Concurrent Jurisdiction Mission Institution v. Khela (B.C.C.A., Nov. 9, 2011)(34609) Mar. 27, 2014 Federal inmates can access provincial superior courts.

Therefore, hearing fees that deny people access to the courts infringe the core jurisdiction of the superior courts and impermissibly impinge on s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.»

CanLII's original objective was to build a case - law database for the superior and provincial courts of each jurisdiction with a minimum depth of 10 years.

Though a well - established feature of contemporary sentencing hearings (at least in superior courts) VISs remain controversial in common law jurisdictions.

When the appellate court received the Special Action Petition, the Court of Appeals ordered both parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to issue its order, since it addressed the same subject on which the superior court had previously rcourt received the Special Action Petition, the Court of Appeals ordered both parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to issue its order, since it addressed the same subject on which the superior court had previously rCourt of Appeals ordered both parties to file simultaneous briefs addressing whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to issue its order, since it addressed the same subject on which the superior court had previously rcourt had previously ruled.

In our view, superior courts retain wide jurisdiction to relieve taxpayers from the effect of their mistakes.

(a) where the essential character of the dispute involves an academic matter, the superior court will demonstrate institutional deference and defer its jurisdiction to the university, except of course on an application for judicial review of the matters arising from the university's own academic appeal processes;

v. Durrani, 2008 ONCA 856 (CanLII), at para. 16; This results from the definitions of «superior court of criminal jurisdiction» and «judge» in sections 2 and 493 of the Criminal Code including both judges of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario and the Ontario Court of Apcourt of criminal jurisdiction» and «judge» in sections 2 and 493 of the Criminal Code including both judges of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario and the Ontario Court of ApCourt of Justice of Ontario and the Ontario Court of ApCourt of Appeal.

As mentioned in Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court before the California Supreme Court and as brought in the Wikipedia article on precedent: «under the doctrine of stare decisis, all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction.»

Provincial superior courts recognized by s. 96 «have always occupied a position of prime importance in the constitutional pattern of this country», and the Federal Court, by contrast, «has only the jurisdiction conferred by statute», and being a statutory court, created under the constitutional authority of s. 101, does not have inherent jurisdiction (emphasis in origiCourt, by contrast, «has only the jurisdiction conferred by statute», and being a statutory court, created under the constitutional authority of s. 101, does not have inherent jurisdiction (emphasis in origicourt, created under the constitutional authority of s. 101, does not have inherent jurisdiction (emphasis in original).

I think each of the expressions means that a judge of a superior court is protected when he is acting in the bona fide exercise of his office and under the belief that he has jurisdiction, though he may be mistaken in that belief and may not in truth have any jurisdiction.

«What is the test upon which the judges of the superior courts are thus immune from liability for damages even though they are acting without jurisdiction?

Unfortunately, in addition to refusing rectification, the Court, fearful of «pump [ing] theoretical steroids into the rectification doctrine and [giving] it the strength or force that the Supreme Court of Canada recently and consistently has declined to do» 10 also declined to recognize the general equitable jurisdiction of the superior courts to do justice between parties suffering from the unintended consequences of their mistakes.

The applicant, citing TCR Holding Corp. v Ontario, 7 sought alternative relief on the broader basis that «superior courts have equitable jurisdiction to relieve persons from the effect of their mistakes.»

487.01 (1) A provincial court judge, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 may issue a warrant in writing authorizing a peace officer to, subject to this section, use any device or investigative technique or procedure or do any thing described in the warrant that would, if not authorized, constitute an unreasonable search or seizure in respect of a person or a person's property if

In cases where a trial judge is not assigned, such as pending preliminary inquiry, a review may be initiated in the superior court of criminal jurisdiction.

Section 13 (2) of the Judicature Act, which provides for the granting of injunctions, has also been seen as providing superior courts with jurisdiction to grant restraining orders (see RP v RV, 2012 ABQB 353 (CanLII)-RRB-.

This results from the definitions of «superior court of criminal jurisdiction» and «judge» in sections 2 and 493 of the Criminal Code including both judges of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario and the Ontario Court of Apcourt of criminal jurisdiction» and «judge» in sections 2 and 493 of the Criminal Code including both judges of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario and the Ontario Court of ApCourt of Justice of Ontario and the Ontario Court of ApCourt of Appeal.

the jurisdiction of the courts has been accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by the spouses and by the holders of parental responsibility, at the time the court is seised, and is in the superior interests of the child.

The court of appeals hears and decides cases in three judge panels, has jurisdiction in all matters properly appealed from the superior court and reviews all decisions properly appealed to it.

Finally, the Federal Court was not the appropriate forum in which to address the issue, given the minor role the court plays in issues under the Divorce Act and the breadth of the jurisdiction and expertise of the provincial superior courts in matters related to divorce and child supCourt was not the appropriate forum in which to address the issue, given the minor role the court plays in issues under the Divorce Act and the breadth of the jurisdiction and expertise of the provincial superior courts in matters related to divorce and child supcourt plays in issues under the Divorce Act and the breadth of the jurisdiction and expertise of the provincial superior courts in matters related to divorce and child support.

The report noted this review could be administered either by a statutory appeal provision in the tribunal's governing legislation or via the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court to engage in judicial review, but the report advocated more strongly for the statutory appeal over judicial review because: (1) the basis of the statutory appeal could be wider in scope and in remedies than judicial review; (2) the statutory appeal mechanism could be crafted to the unique characteristics of the impugned tribunal and direct the appeal to a particular level of court; and (3) the appeal would be less costly and more expeditious than judicial review.

Although the province can establish hearing fees under its power to administer justice under s. 92 (14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the exercise of that power must also comply with s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which constitutionally protects the core jurisdiction of the superior courts... the fees impermissibly infringe on that jurisdiction by, in effect, denying some people access to the courts».

The supreme judicial and superior courts shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction of all cases and matters of equity cognizable under the general principles of equity jurisprudence and, with reference thereto, shall be courts of general equity jurisdiction, except that the superior court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all actions in which injunctive relief is sought in any matter involving or growing out of a labor dispute as defined in section twenty C of chapter one hundred and forty - nine.

Although the province can establish hearing fees under its power to administer justice under s. 92 (14) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the exercise of that power must also comply with s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which constitutionally protects the core jurisdiction of the superior courts.

In this example, the magistrate is referring somewhat wryly to the substantial increase in magistrates courts» jurisdictions as a result of moves in several states and territories to cut costs and reduce pressure on the superior courts.

And of course the issue of the respective jurisdictions of superior and provincial courts directly concerns the federal government, which would have to pick up a substantial tab for the salaries of additional section 96 appointees if Québec's Superior Court judges are successful.

In Justice Rothstein's view, the hearing fees do not trench on the superior courts» core jurisdiction; limits on access are not the same thing as removals of jurisdiction.

As a result, hearing fees that deny people access to the courts infringe the core jurisdiction of the superior courts.»

The Charter, as the lawyer representing B.C. pointed out yesterday, does not protect any civil procedure rights, and section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as he also pointed out, has so far only been read to protect the jurisdiction of, not to apply to the procedure before, superior courts.

Indeed, even the respondent, as well as some of the other provinces, conceded that at some hypothetical level, hearing fees would be so high as to prevent superior courts from having any litigants before them, thus infringing this core jurisdiction, although they argued that the fee regime at issue was not problematic in this way.

They do not, in other words, interfere with these courts» jurisdiction as it had been understood in the s. 96 jurisprudence, which has always been concerned with the removal of types of cases (e.g. judicial review of administrative tribunals) from the superior courts» purview.

In Trial Lawyers the majority addressed the constitutionality of hearing fees, concluding that, if they are set so high as to prevent people accessing superior courts, they would contravene section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which had previously been held to protect the «core» jurisdiction of the courts to which it refers.

[w] e must hope that, in light of the problems presented by such an expansive view of superior courts» inherent jurisdiction, in future cases the Supreme Court will be very careful in broadening its interpretation of what constitutes an infringement of section 96.

To prevent this business being done strikes at the core of the jurisdiction of the superior courts protected by s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

In the event, the Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of s. 96, holding that excessive fees were an interference with the «inherent jurisdiction» of superior courts.

The separation of powers argument led them to invoke section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which the Supreme Court has read as protecting a core of jurisdiction of which superior courts can not be deprived.

This is unlike the superior courts of the provinces that have «inherent jurisdiction».