Sentences with phrase «trial reasons for judgment»

Not exact matches

«The issue before the trial court was whether the 1st respondent (PDP) can rubbish the judgment / order of the court for whatever reason and set up a caretaker committee, other claims notwithstanding.

The order just entered by the Virginia Supreme Court was simply a formal statement for the record that, for the reasons stated in the April Opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Counsel for both parties declined an offer to poll the jury, and both parties replied negatively when asked by the trial court if there was «any reason that this should not be entered as a verdict and a judgment at this time.»

[1] The main question on this appeal is whether a trial judge's decision should be set aside because his reasons for judgment incorporated large portions of the plaintiffs» submissions.

In reasons for judgment released today, the BC Court of Appeal overturned the order of a Master denying the defendant costs thrown away in circumstances where the plaintiff was successful in obtaining an adjournment of an impending trial.

Impartiality as an issue of fair process: The main issue was «whether a trial judge's decision should be set aside because his reasons for judgment incorporated large portions of the plaintiffs» submissions.»

In reasons for judgment released this week, the Court of Appeal in Donaldson v. Dorworth, 2017 BCCA 236, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal of the trial judge's decision to uphold the defence jury notice.

On appeal, the plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for two reasons.

Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, finding a formal offer that was bested by 9 % and was delivered a few days prior to trial was capable of triggering double costs.

[1] The issues in this appeal are whether the trial judge's reasons for judgment were sufficient and whether the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof in a criminal case.

On January 26, 2016, the trial judge released supplemental reasons for judgment in which he reduced the special costs by 25 %.

L.R., etc., and, in particular, on - line resources, there are now enough easily accessible decisions from all provinces — perhaps not in P.E.I., though I haven't checked — that in many reasons for judgment at both the trial level and court of appeal the only decisions referred to are from the province in which the court sits.

A: 9 Supreme Court of Canada judges paying insufficient attention to the inconsistent text of their reasons for judgment and 1 trial judge applying a portion of those reasons literally.

For this reason, our Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the option of a summary judgment motion, which allows the moving party to proceed «directly» to a judge and make a pitch that this particular case can be decided by a motion judge and does not require a full triFor this reason, our Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the option of a summary judgment motion, which allows the moving party to proceed «directly» to a judge and make a pitch that this particular case can be decided by a motion judge and does not require a full trifor the option of a summary judgment motion, which allows the moving party to proceed «directly» to a judge and make a pitch that this particular case can be decided by a motion judge and does not require a full trial.

In the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling reported as R v Wagar, 2015 ABCA 327 Justice Brian K. O'Ferrall, speaking for a unanimous court, made short shrift of Justice Camp's judgment, at p. 1: ``... [W] e are satisfied that the trial judge's comments throughout the proceedings and in his reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way into the trial judge's judgment.»

In deciding that wrongful dismissal damages were not an appropriate matter for summary judgment, the court's reasoning expressly went beyond the question of the jurisdiction of a Master under the Court of Queen's Bench Act, but rather was based upon «the purpose and nature of summary judgment applications, trials and summary trials» (at paragraph 31).

Late last year reasons for judgment were released by the BC Supreme Court finding that Trial Management Conferences and Case Planning Conferences «are not generally the forum to determine contested applications.».

The judge hearing the summary judgment motion held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial for the following reasons: (i) there was no evidence that anyone died on the property, either by natural causes or some criminal act; (ii) the vendor was not required to disclose that someone had died on the property or that the property may be haunted; (iii) there was no evidence as to how the purchaser could prove... Read More

For this reason the Superior Court set aside the Small Claims Court judgment and directed the parties to have a new trial before a different Small Claims Court judge.

This application for judicial review was dismissed by the Superior Court of Ontario, but in Campbell J.'s reasons for judgment he made extensive statements regarding Mr. Groia's conduct during the trial (para. 12).

Even after the reasons for judgment were released and the defendants brought a motion for a mistrial, they did not base it on the drowsiness of the trial judge, or even raise the issue.

In one the first ICBC claims to head to trial under Rule 68 that I'm aware of reasons for judgment were released today awarding a Plaintiff over $ 180,000 in compensation including $ 75,000 for pain and suffering as a result of 2 motor vehicle accidents.

Specific topics covered include the role of the prosecutor, defendant and justice of the peace; the presumption of innocence; proof beyond a reasonable doubt and findings of credibility; elements of an offence; guilty pleas to an offence charged or another offence; mens rea, strict liability and absolute liability offences; defences to regulatory charges, including due diligence, reasonable mistake of fact and officially induced error; trial procedure; presentation of evidence; rules of evidence; the voir dire; dealing with the unrepresented defendant; Charter applications; access to justice issues; paralegals and lawyers in the courtroom; requests for a bilingual trial; articulating reasons for judgment; delivery of a judgment; sentencing; and trials of young persons.

Specific topics which have been covered in recent conferences include judicial ethics; interpreters; delivering reasons for judgment; assessing credibility; social media; technology and search warrants; managing a provincial offence trial; effectively communicating an oral judgment; risk assessment and indicators of lethality at bail hearings; the Youth Criminal Justice Act; eye - witness identification; conducting pre-trials; specific issues at trials of regulatory offences; fly - in - courts, residential schools; application of Gladue principles; mistrials and bias; accident reconstruction; search warrant issues; domestic violence issues; orders for examination under the Mental Health Act; child apprehension warrants under the Child and Family Services Act; evidentiary issues; discrimination and harassment in the workplace; stress management; and pre-retirement planning.

[42] The Supreme Court directed in Hryniak that: «Where a motion judge dismisses a motion for summary judgment, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, she should also seize herself of the matter as the trial judge.»

The Appeals Court reversed and remanded, reasoning that the trial court incorrectly converted the 12 (b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and failed to follow caselaw related to other similar statutes.

The pace picked up and the trial judge released his reasons for judgment on December 23, 2013.

What can also be seen from these decisions is that, in appeals alleging this type of processing error, the reasons for judgment of the trial judge take «centre stage.»

The mere absence of any reference to evidence in reasons for judgment does not establish that the trial judge failed to consider that evidence.

The failure to refer to evidence in the course of careful and detailed reasons for judgment suggests, not that the trial judge ignored that evidence, but rather that she did not regard that evidence as significant.

The reasons for judgment in this case leave no doubt that the trial judge knew this record, appreciated the contentious factual issues, and understood the positions of the parties and the evidence they relied on.»

I concur in the reversal, but dissent from leaving the case open for a new trial, believing that, for reasons stated in the concurring opinions of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and myself in the New York Times and Garrison cases, a libel judgment against Rosenblatt is forbidden by the First Amendment, which the Fourteenth made applicable to the States.

In my view, the judiciary should strive to have such a court reporting system implemented in trial courts as such a system would ensure that the trial judge had a command of the evidence during trial and had a text transcript of the evidence when preparing his / her reasons for judgment which would reduce factual errors which lead to expensive appeals and in some cases re-trials.

At the end of the reasons for judgment in Alberta's first electronic trial in 1159465 Alberta Ltd. v. Adwood Manufacturing Ltd.the Honourable Mr. Justice A.W. Germain of the Court of Queen's Bench provided a schedule to the reasons for judgment in which he reflects on the process and some of the legal issues to have cropped up.

«We conclude that the reasons for judgment must be rejected because they can not be taken to represent the trial judge's analysis of the issues or the reasoning for his conclusions,» Justices Risa Levine and Pamela Kirkpatrick said in 2011.

Throughout the judgment, the trial judge made findings of fact that amply justified the trial judge's ultimate credibility findings and fully explained to the reader the reasons for that finding.

For these reasons, the dissenting judge would have reversed the trial court's summary judgment.

Rule of Law Court of Appeal Varies Trial Decision in Chinn v. Hanrieder The Court of Appeal, in reasons for judgment released on June 27, 2013, in Chinn v. Hanrieder, 2013 BCCA 310 (CanLII), reversed the trial judge's holding that Ingrid Hanrieder held her interest in a family trust that held mineral rights on a secret trust for her late husband's two children, Bette Chinn and Dennis HanriTrial Decision in Chinn v. Hanrieder The Court of Appeal, in reasons for judgment released on June 27, 2013, in Chinn v. Hanrieder, 2013 BCCA 310 (CanLII), reversed the trial judge's holding that Ingrid Hanrieder held her interest in a family trust that held mineral rights on a secret trust for her late husband's two children, Bette Chinn and Dennis Hanritrial judge's holding that Ingrid Hanrieder held her interest in a family trust that held mineral rights on a secret trust for her late husband's two children, Bette Chinn and Dennis Hanrieder.

In his reasons for judgment the trial judge referred to the fact that one of the children was a law student at U of T — she was in my class.

However, while writing his reasons, the motion judge decided to resolve the motions on a fifth basis: he would grant a notional cross-motion by the respondents for partial summary judgment of their claim for breach of fiduciary duty and order a trial or additional summary judgment motions to prove victimization, harm and causation of harm, and to quantify the individual respondents» damages, if any.

After a five - and - a-half-week trial, in comprehensive reasons for judgment, the trial judge held that the birth injury was the sole cause of the numerous conditions that were negatively affecting SB.

«The reasons for judgment of Shabbits J. paint a picture of two parents who went from a good relationship during their marriage, to a workable relationship immediately after their separation, which devolved to highly acrimonious conflict beginning October 31, 2003, and lasting through to the trial....