Sentences with phrase «under appeal requires»

Not exact matches

Democracy requires accountability and transparency, neither of which have appealed to the Conservatives under Stephen Harper.

NYCOM said the Court of Appeals got it right when it said «local governments should not be required to surrender their authority and negotiate disciplinary procedures under circumstances when the Legislature has expressly granted disciplinary authority to local officials.»

In a unanimous ruling, the New York State Court of Appeals held last month that the Monroe - Woodbury school district was not required under state law to provide a separate facility for handicapped children from the Orthodox Jewish village of Kiryas Joel.

In June, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that a charter school student was not entitled to the evidentiary hearing required under Education Code section 48918 before being dismissed from a charter school for bringing a knife to school and threatening a fellow student (Scott B. v. Orange County High School of Arts 217 Cal.App.4 th 117 (Cal.App.

The debtor should not have been required by a lower court to enroll in a futile 25 year income - based repayment plan, where her future efforts to repay would be counted toward a showing of good faith under the third prong of the Brunner test, according to the appeals court.

This type of plan can be particularly appealing to a business owner who has no employees (or who has only family members for employees) because while no contributions are required each year, if the employer contributes any amount to a SEP IRA during any given year, contributions to the accounts of all employees who have performed services for the employer during that year become mandatory (certain employees who are under 21, earn less than $ 600 during the year or have not worked for the employer for three of the five preceding years may be excluded from participation) and contributions must be uniform among eligible employees.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, the Federal Court of Appeal agreed to hear an appeal by air passenger rights advocate Gabor Lukacs over whether the CTA has the jurisdiction to permit NewLeaf to operate without a licence, arguing that other companies that have operated under similar business models have been required to hold licAppeal agreed to hear an appeal by air passenger rights advocate Gabor Lukacs over whether the CTA has the jurisdiction to permit NewLeaf to operate without a licence, arguing that other companies that have operated under similar business models have been required to hold licappeal by air passenger rights advocate Gabor Lukacs over whether the CTA has the jurisdiction to permit NewLeaf to operate without a licence, arguing that other companies that have operated under similar business models have been required to hold licences.

Thus the strike out provision of FPR 2010, r 4.4 (1) under which the case had proceeded in the Court of Appeal has to be construed without reference to «real prospects of success» test (as required for civil proceedings under CPR 1998 r 24.2); and FPR 2010 Practice Direction PD4A para 2.4 is «an unhelpful curiosity [in the absence of] a power in FPR 2010 to give summary judgment».

Under s. 31 (1), they are limited to questions of law, and leave to appeal is required if the parties do not consent to the appeal.

The judge who granted leave to appeal acknowledged the decision's «importance to the profession, as well as to the administration of justice generally», and described the core issue raised by the decision to be whether «pre-approval to use discovery evidence under one of the exceptions contained in [Rule 30.1] is or is not required»: S.C. v. N.S., 2017 ONSC 2601 at para. 8.

The Court of Appeal affirms the powers of a municipality under the Municipal Act, 2001 (the «Act») to enact by - laws: to prevent blockades and work stoppages affecting development sites; to stop an organization other than the municipality, in this case the Haudenosaunee Development Institute («HDI»), from requiring fees, charges or other conditions to be met before permitting municipally - approved development in which it has an interest to proceed peacefully.

Before taking new matters into account based on statistics which have not been considered in the judgment under appeal, the adversarial process requires that the court ensure that the parties are given an opportunity to deal with the new information by making further submissions, oral or written, and allowing, if requested, fresh material in response.

[13] The threshold question on this appeal is whether the justice of the peace who issued the search warrant acted on reasonable and probable grounds, as required under both the Criminal Code and the Charter.

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.

(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.

Under the March 21 ruling, future reforms such as requiring the court's judges to be bilingual, or creating an intermediate court of appeal, will be far more difficult, they say.

The Court held that Cuozzo could not challenge the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision to institute inter partes review and that the USPTO reasonably exercised its rulemaking authority in requiring the PTAB to construe claims under review using the USPTO's «broadest reasonable interpretation» standard.

In addressing Quintana's appeal, the Fourth Circuit explained that under the FMLA, only the primary employer is responsible for giving required notices to employees seeking leave, providing FMLA leave, and restoring the employee to his or her old job following FMLA leave.

Conversely, even if the employer did not control the work place, the Appeals Officer recognized that an employer could ensure the safety of the equipment being used by its employees, as required under paragraph (t), so long as it controlled the employees» activity.

For example, the Appeals Officer recognized that if the employer does not own the buildings nor has a right to alter them, an employer can not ensure that those buildings meet prescribed standards, as required under paragraph (a).

In dismissing the appeal, the majority invited RBC to bring a motion for an order requiring a Scotiabank representative to be examined, after which time the Statement would be properly producible under law.

After the appellants failed to appear at the German arbitration and the Ontario application to enforce the German arbitral award, the appellants finally responded by bringing this appeal based on a technical argument under Article 35 (2) of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 9, which required the party relying on the foreign arbitral award to supply a certified copy of the original award to the application judge.

It also considered whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the maintenance standard under 1975 Act, was wrong to structure an award under the 1975 Act in a way which allowed the Respondent the preserve her entitlement to state benefits, and erred in its application of the balancing exercise required under the 1975 Act.

(3) There shall be such additional offices of judge of the Court of Appeal as are from time to time required, to be held by Chief Justices of Ontario and Associate Chief Justices of Ontario who have elected under the Judges Act (Canada) to perform only the duties of a judge of the Court of Appeal.

(4) There shall be such additional offices of supernumerary judge of the Court of Appeal as are from time to time required, to be held by judges of the Court of Appeal who have elected under the Judges Act (Canada) to hold office only as a supernumerary judge of the court.

The Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the USPTO acted within its authority in promulgating rules requiring the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to construe patent claims in inter partes review proceedings under the «broadest reasonable interpretation» (or «BRI») standard.

SAS appealed the PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the PTAB improperly based its decision on a claim interpretation different from the one adopted in its decision to institute, and on the grounds that the Board was required to address all challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 318 (a), As discussed previously, the Federal Circuit ruled that the PTAB erred in relying on a new claim construction with providing adequate notice to the patent owner.But the Federal Circuit ruled that the Board acted within its authority to omit some challenged claims from the final written decision.

In dismissing the appeal, Justice O'Connor Justices Laforme and Cunningham concurring) reviewed the statutory scheme pursuant to which a municipality is required to maintain highways under its jurisdiction.

Certainly, one could argue that public law adjudication requires a certain adjudicatory structure, such as the presence of an appeals mechanism and permanent courts with tenured judges; yet, this disregards that arbitration is not an infrequent mode of settling disputes between public law bodies and private actors also at the purely domestic level, and is obviously accepted under the constitutional provisions of the legal systems involved.

In particular, and without prejudice to paragraph 3, no special procedure shall be required for updating the civil - status records of a Member State on the basis of a judgment relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment given in another Member State, and against which no further appeal lies under the law of that Member State.

Daniel B. Rodriguez: And is that also true if and when the case goes to appeal, so if it goes up to the Federal Appellate Court, is the Federal Appellate Court too required under habeas doctrine to defer to the judgments of the State Courts?

The appeal dealt with (i) the required contents of a notice of rescission under the Condominium Act, 1998 (SO 1998, c 19)(the «Condominium Act»), and (ii) whether the two - year limitation period for a notice of rescission under the Act is trumped by the more extended limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act (RSO 1990, c L. 15)(the «RPLA»).

The applications judge allowed an appeal on the grounds Chubb was an «insurer» under the statutory regime because its policy was a «motor vehicle liability policy» and there was sufficient nexus between Chubb and Ms. Singh to require the payment of Statutory Accident Benefits.

(5) If a person or organization fails to comply with an order made under subsection (3) or (4) within the time specified in the order and no appeal of the order is made within the time specified in subsection 27 (1), a director may, subject to subsection (6), make an order requiring the person or organization to pay an administrative penalty in accordance with the regulations.

C.A. dismissed the appeal, finding that, in the absence of the Crown as a participant in the original application, the NEB was not required to determine whether the Crown was under a duty to consult, and if so, whether the duty had been discharged.

There has been a particular problem with the dates required to be given in the s 21 notice served on the tenant, but the recent Court of Appeal case of Spencer v Taylor [2013] EWCA Civ 1600 has made this easier for tenancies that began as fixed term tenancies, to the point where one judge commented that the failure rate for claims under the accelerated procedure has since fallen by two - thirds.

4 The following persons are excluded from serving as jurors: (a) members of the Privy Council, the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada; (b) members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and the Executive Council; (c) members of the council of a municipality or members of a board of trustees of a school district or school division; (d) judges of the Provincial Court, justices of the Court of Appeal and Court of Queen's Bench and justices of the peace, whether retired or not; (e) barristers and solicitors, whether or not they are practising, and students ‑ at ‑ law; (f) medical examiners under the Fatality Inquiries Act; (g) officers and employees of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta; (h) persons who (i) have been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted, or (ii) are currently charged with a criminal offence; (i) witnesses summoned to attend before the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly during the period that their attendance is required; (j) persons confined in an institution; (k) persons engaged in the administration of justice, including (i) members and employees of any police service, (ii) probation officers, (iii) employees of the Department of Justice, and (iv) employees of the Department of Justice of Canada or the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

On appeal, defendant contended that under the Colorado Constitution, the deployment of the drug dog was a search requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

The Court of Appeal found that a change of the terms under which an already - sentenced prisoner would be eligible for parole requiring him or her to spend more time in prison was, indeed, a form of punishment, and thus a violation of the Charter, which in its view the government failed to justify under s. 1.

Eventually, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that certain provisions of the MMAR were contrary to the rights to liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter, as they failed to provide reasonable access to a legal source of supply of marihuana for medical purposes, required some applicants to have the support of two specialists to establish medical need (depending on the nature of their illness), and exposed those in need of medical marihuana to criminal liability if they could not comply with the MMAR (see Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 231 D.L.R. (4th) 104, 2003 CanLII 30796 (ON C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2004] S.C.C.A. NAppeal found that certain provisions of the MMAR were contrary to the rights to liberty and security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter, as they failed to provide reasonable access to a legal source of supply of marihuana for medical purposes, required some applicants to have the support of two specialists to establish medical need (depending on the nature of their illness), and exposed those in need of medical marihuana to criminal liability if they could not comply with the MMAR (see Hitzig v. Canada (2003), 231 D.L.R. (4th) 104, 2003 CanLII 30796 (ON C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2004] S.C.C.A. Nappeal refused, [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 5).

On appeal the court overuled the trial judge's decision, concluding that the intensive therapy required by the plaintiff would not be covered under the benefits program and should therefore be compensated through the tort award (H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 SKCA 131 at paras. 259 - 63).

The first instance decision awarding the penalty stipulated in s 214 (4) to the tenant was overturned on appeal by HHJ Bullimore, who found that the landlord was not liable for the penalty where he had correctly protected the deposit but had simply failed to provide the information to the tenant — as required under s 213 (6)(a)-- within 14 days, as required by s 213 (6)(b).

At the end of the day the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge and held that an element of insurance was required to make a benefit deductible under s. 106, and the deduction was therefore denied.

Second, in Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers, the Court of Appeal reiterated that under HRA 1998 the public interest test has changed from the need to show exceptional circumstances which require disclosure of the information to a test of whether a fetter on the right of freedom of expression is «necessary in a democratic society» (para 67).

In the court's view, where, as here: (1) the Director under the OBCA issues a certificate pursuant to a rectification order; (2) the appellant could reasonably have sought a stay of the rectification order pending appeal; (3) the court is not satisfied that no third party acted, directly or indirectly, in reliance on the certificate issued pursuant to the rectification order and would not be prejudiced by its revocation; and (4) there are no special circumstances which justify exercising the power to cancel the certificate, thereby undermining certainty in a court - approved corporate fundamental change, the principle in Norcan requires the court to decline to exercise its authority to order the revocation of that certificate or otherwise unwind the court - approved corporate fundamental change.

The Son (Applicant) alleged that P lacked capacity, although Sir James Munby in considering the appeal indicated «the material put before me is... wholly unsatisfactory, falling far short even of what would be required even to meet the interim threshold under the Mental Capacity Act 2005».

(6) The Supreme Court may by order reduce the amount an appellant is required to deposit under this section, and, if the amount is reduced, the appellant must serve notice of the order on the other parties to the appeal.

The Court of Appeals of Washington concluded that the Rule of Reason required consideration of the impact of the activity upon competition in the relevant geographic market which, under antitrust law, is the area to which the purchaser can reasonably turn to obtain the product.