Sentences with phrase «year limitation period as»

However, if a policy does not specify a limitation period (or has a limitation period that is offside the Limitation of Actions Act), and the policy falls within the purview of the Insurance Act as a policy for life or disability insurance, an insured's claim will have a one - year limitation period as set out in the Insurance Act.2

Not exact matches

Actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied by forward - looking statements based on a number of factors, including, without limitation: (1) risks related to the consummation of the Merger, including the risks that (a) the Merger may not be consummated within the anticipated time period, or at all, (b) the parties may fail to obtain shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement, (c) the parties may fail to secure the termination or expiration of any waiting period applicable under the HSR Act, (d) other conditions to the consummation of the Merger under the Merger Agreement may not be satisfied, (e) all or part of Arby's financing may not become available, and (f) the significant limitations on remedies contained in the Merger Agreement may limit or entirely prevent BWW from specifically enforcing Arby's obligations under the Merger Agreement or recovering damages for any breach by Arby's; (2) the effects that any termination of the Merger Agreement may have on BWW or its business, including the risks that (a) BWW's stock price may decline significantly if the Merger is not completed, (b) the Merger Agreement may be terminated in circumstances requiring BWW to pay Arby's a termination fee of $ 74 million, or (c) the circumstances of the termination, including the possible imposition of a 12 - month tail period during which the termination fee could be payable upon certain subsequent transactions, may have a chilling effect on alternatives to the Merger; (3) the effects that the announcement or pendency of the Merger may have on BWW and its business, including the risks that as a result (a) BWW's business, operating results or stock price may suffer, (b) BWW's current plans and operations may be disrupted, (c) BWW's ability to retain or recruit key employees may be adversely affected, (d) BWW's business relationships (including, customers, franchisees and suppliers) may be adversely affected, or (e) BWW's management's or employees» attention may be diverted from other important matters; (4) the effect of limitations that the Merger Agreement places on BWW's ability to operate its business, return capital to shareholders or engage in alternative transactions; (5) the nature, cost and outcome of pending and future litigation and other legal proceedings, including any such proceedings related to the Merger and instituted against BWW and others; (6) the risk that the Merger and related transactions may involve unexpected costs, liabilities or delays; (7) other economic, business, competitive, legal, regulatory, and / or tax factors; and (8) other factors described under the heading «Risk Factors» in Part I, Item 1A of BWW's Annual Report on Form 10 - K for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, as updated or supplemented by subsequent reports that BWW has filed or files with the SEC.

The Forester's warranty is shorter, in terms of duration, but will remain in force for the three - year term as there is no limitation on kilometres travelled during the period.

Limitation period differs state to state and may be as short as two years or as long as twenty.

Only six states have a shorter time period (three years), while some states have statutes of limitations as long as 15 years.

So when you're dealing with somebody on the phone and they're saying just make a good faith payment of $ 25 or $ 50, what you may not understand is that you're resetting that limitations period every time you do that and it could be as short as two years.

In general, an ownership change occurs when, as of any testing date, the aggregate of the increase in percentage points is more than 50 percentage points of the total amount of a corporation's stock owned by «5 - percent stockholders,» within the meaning of the NOLs limitations, whose percentage ownership of the stock has increased as of such date over the lowest percentage of the stock owned by each such «5 - percent stockholder» at any time during the three - year period preceding such date.

Paper J notes that the anthropogenic effect on sea level rise in one region of the world (the Pacific Ocean) over one period of time (1993 - 2013) is too small to detect at a statistically significant level due to factors such as: a) small sample size (only 20 years), b) the effect of control variables (such as the IPO), c) limitations of satellite altimetry measurement, the technique being used to measure sea level in paper H. Paper K offers a contrasting account of paper J, noting that part of the Pacific sea level rise is anthropogenic.

«Both [Fall et al. 2011 and Menne et al. 2010](and cited by Muller et al) do an analysis over a thirty year time period while the Muller et al paper uses data for comparison from 1950 — 2010... I see this as a basic failure in understanding the limitations of the siting survey we conducted on the USHCN, rendering the Muller et al paper conclusions highly uncertain, if not erroneous... I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked... it appears they have circumvented the scientific process in favor of PR.»

For instance, where buses are owned by government institutions in British Columbia a six month limitation period will apply as opposed to the regular two year limitation period.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, joined by MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, agreed only with that part of the plurality opinion relating to the limitation of federal interest in the facilities to 20 years, concluding that a reversion of a facility at the end of that period to a parochial school would be unconstitutional as a gift of taxpayers» funds.

As such, the 407 ETR can't rely upon the 15 - year limitation period set forth in the Transponder Lease Agreement, as the 407 ETR does not fall within the exception set forth in s. 22 (5)(1) of the Limitations Act given that it only applies in respect of business agreementAs such, the 407 ETR can't rely upon the 15 - year limitation period set forth in the Transponder Lease Agreement, as the 407 ETR does not fall within the exception set forth in s. 22 (5)(1) of the Limitations Act given that it only applies in respect of business agreementas the 407 ETR does not fall within the exception set forth in s. 22 (5)(1) of the Limitations Act given that it only applies in respect of business agreements.

They also argued, by analogy if the 15 - year limitation period applied to all outstanding invoices, the 407 ETR would stand to make between $ 1.5 billion and $ 4.1 billion as a result of accrued interest.

In Gillis v. Law Society of NB, Justice Judy Clendening, of the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, summarily dismissed lawyer Rodney Gillis» claim as it was filed outside a two - year limitation period and the law society is immune to such actions.

In AS or B, DM and JP or W v Sister Bernard Mary Murray & Others [2007] CSIH 39, proceedings had been brought between 21 and 39 years after the acts complained of and the Inner House upheld the lord ordinary's decision to decline to disapply the limitation period.

As most lawyers know, section 15 of the Limitations Act, 2002 (the Act) sets a 15 - year ultimate limitation period from the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place, regardless of when the claim was discovered.

As framed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, there were three issues presented on the appeal: (1) whether the appellant, as a former employee of Pitney Bowes, was entitled to coverage under the Manulife Policy; (2) whether the appellant submitted a timely proof of claim; and (3) whether the one - year contractual limitation period in the policy barred the appellant's claiAs framed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, there were three issues presented on the appeal: (1) whether the appellant, as a former employee of Pitney Bowes, was entitled to coverage under the Manulife Policy; (2) whether the appellant submitted a timely proof of claim; and (3) whether the one - year contractual limitation period in the policy barred the appellant's claias a former employee of Pitney Bowes, was entitled to coverage under the Manulife Policy; (2) whether the appellant submitted a timely proof of claim; and (3) whether the one - year contractual limitation period in the policy barred the appellant's claim.

The first surgeon then brought a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff discovered her claim prior to January 1, 2004, and as a result, the one - year limitation period established in s. 89 (1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, S.O. 1991 applied.

The motion judge held that the provision in the policy limiting coverage to claims made within one year of the loss did not override the statutory two - year limitation period set out in s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24 lacked specificity to override the statutory limitation period and that in any event, the contract of insurance was not a «business agreement» as required under s. 22 (5) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

Such latent health and safety violations appear to be the principle reason for the alteration of the limitation period, and can reasonably be characterized as the government response to cases such as an unsuccessful OHSA prosecution involving the Corporation of the City of Guelph, (2012 ONCJ 251 (CanLII)-RRB-, where a wall in a municipal building collapsed and tragically killed a student five years after the wall was built.

Another type of exposure that may survive beyond the ultimate 15 - year limitation period would be a claim for contribution and indemnity, as anticipated by s. 18 (1) of the Act.

B, which is subject to postponement and extension for a variety of reasons, the two - year period in the case of death was always treated as a strict, inflexible limitation period not amenable to extension or postponement, no matter what the claim.

Many of them are consistently popular year to year, such as Peg Duncan's e-Discovery reading list, limitation periods charts, retainer precedents and various technology articles (such as Essential Smartphone Apps and The best Blackberry tips).

So if you have a litigator who does mostly PI work, but some general litigation as well, he needs to know other possibilities, such as a one year limitation period for defamation or, as I just mentioned, three months for things like employment matters.

Thus the applicable limitation period may be two years in Alberta, as held by the Alberta courts, but ten years in British Columbia.

The two - year limitation period under the insurance policy to bring an action had not elapsed as in Woodman.

As a rule, the limitation period for charges by CVM is of five years after the fact.

The right of a beneficiary of a trust to enforce his or her title as against the trustee is governed by the Real Property Limitations Act, which has a ten - year limitations period, but is subject to the principle of discoverability;

As the payment of unpaid amounts under the Shared Services Agreement was secured by a lien enforceable in the same manner as a mortgage in default, the condominium corporation's claim fell under the Real Property Limitations Act, which has «a ten - year limitation period for an action to recover out of any land any sum of money secured by a lien or otherwise charged upon or payable out of the land.&raquAs the payment of unpaid amounts under the Shared Services Agreement was secured by a lien enforceable in the same manner as a mortgage in default, the condominium corporation's claim fell under the Real Property Limitations Act, which has «a ten - year limitation period for an action to recover out of any land any sum of money secured by a lien or otherwise charged upon or payable out of the land.&raquas a mortgage in default, the condominium corporation's claim fell under the Real Property Limitations Act, which has «a ten - year limitation period for an action to recover out of any land any sum of money secured by a lien or otherwise charged upon or payable out of the land.»

Many of them are consistently popular year to year, such as Peg Duncan's e-discovery reading list, limitation periods charts, retainer precedents and various technology articles.

Based on the factums submitted to the SCC, the appellant (Yugraneft) is arguing that international arbitral awards should be considered, at least for enforcement purposes, equivalent to foreign judgments, and, as such, should benefit from the 10 - year limitation period under s. 11 of the Alberta Limitations Act.

In Yugraneft, there is no such issue, as domestic arbitral awards are subject to a mandatory two - year limitation period under the Alberta Arbitration Act, and the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that international arbitral awards are also subject to a two - year limitation period.

The loan is amortized over a much longer time period such as 15 or 30 years (i.e., payments are set so that the entire loan would be paid off after 15 or 30 years of equal monthly payments) at a fixed or limited interest rate, and after 5 years, the loan automatically converts to a variable interest rate loan or limitations on the amount by which an already variable interest rate loan can vary are lifted.

As well as differences in the basic periods which apply such as, for example, one year in Spain and 10 years in France, there are a raft of different rules governing questions such as what starts and stops the clock for limitation purposes as well as whether courts have discretion to extend those periodAs well as differences in the basic periods which apply such as, for example, one year in Spain and 10 years in France, there are a raft of different rules governing questions such as what starts and stops the clock for limitation purposes as well as whether courts have discretion to extend those periodas differences in the basic periods which apply such as, for example, one year in Spain and 10 years in France, there are a raft of different rules governing questions such as what starts and stops the clock for limitation purposes as well as whether courts have discretion to extend those periodas, for example, one year in Spain and 10 years in France, there are a raft of different rules governing questions such as what starts and stops the clock for limitation purposes as well as whether courts have discretion to extend those periodas what starts and stops the clock for limitation purposes as well as whether courts have discretion to extend those periodas well as whether courts have discretion to extend those periodas whether courts have discretion to extend those periods.

Discoverability may apply to the two - year limitation period for private actions under the Competition Act, but does not apply to the effects of a conspiracy, as they are not a part of the offence, the Federal Court of Appeal held.

If a civil suit is being considered as a potential course of action, it is important to keep in mind that there is a two - year limitation period to launch any civil action.

While claims asserted under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Equal Pay Act (EPA) typically do not permit emotional distress damages and limit punitive damages (also known as «liquidated damages») to the amount of the back pay award, they carry a two (2)- year limitations period which can be extended to three (3) years in the case of a willful violation.

In Kaynes v. BP PLC, 1 the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the interaction between the three - year limitation period for secondary market claims under the Securities Act (the Act) and the court's discretion under that regime to treat multiple misrepresentations as a single misrepresentation.

The Court confirmed that the discretion provided by s. 138.3 (6) of the Act to treat multiple representations as a single misrepresentation is not intended to and does not have the effect of modifying the three - year limitation period found in s. 138.14 of the Act.

Hence the alternative limitation period is the same as in tort — three years from date of knowledge.

As explained by counsel in that case, Mark West, in 2011 Civil Justice Quarterly 367, Hobhouse J had in fact been shown a «considerable volume of authority» which, in short, established and confirmed that common law counts for money had and received were actions upon the case, and were expressly accorded a six - year period (as were actions of account) by the terms of s 3 of the Limitation Act 162As explained by counsel in that case, Mark West, in 2011 Civil Justice Quarterly 367, Hobhouse J had in fact been shown a «considerable volume of authority» which, in short, established and confirmed that common law counts for money had and received were actions upon the case, and were expressly accorded a six - year period (as were actions of account) by the terms of s 3 of the Limitation Act 162as were actions of account) by the terms of s 3 of the Limitation Act 1623.

An action with respect to this statutory claim may be commenced only with leave of the court as prescribed by s. 138.8 and within the limitation period specified in s. 138.14, that is, three years after the date of the alleged misrepresentations in the instant cases.

That being the case, no limitation period issue arose because Nadeau, as the sole necessary party, commenced the action on the Note within two years of its due date.

If, however, the limitation period clock began to run on the date of the OSC Order (as the BCSC contended), the BCSC order would stand as the proceeding was commenced well within 6 years of the OSC Order.

Personal injury plaintiffs commonly rely on Section 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 in response to an allegation that their action is statute - barred as it was started after the basic 2 year limitation period.

If a claim is historical in nature — i.e., it happened many years ago, such as in childhood or adolescence — it is particularly important not to delay obtaining legal advice about your options because there may be limitations periods that apply to bar or stop a claim for compensation.

â $ cents Minimum 5 years of Litigation experience â $ cents Confident and dependable, with strong initiative and ability to work both independently and in a team oriented atmosphere â $ cents Organize and maintain client files â $ cents Experience liasing with clients, insurance adjusters and defence counsel â $ cents Prepare and edit correspondence and legal documents â $ cents Assist with authorizations, undertakings, discoveries and productions â $ cents Drafting pleadings, routine motions, affidavits of documents, pre - trial / mediation memos, etc. â $ cents Reviewing and summarizing medical documentation â $ cents Trial preparation â $ cents Responsible for tracking limitation periods â $ cents Prior experience working with Ontario & Superior Court of Justice â $ cents Draft and respond to correspondence â $ cents Initiate follow - up as required and communicate with clients â $ cents Calendar management, scheduling meetings and arrange examinations for discovery and mediations â $ cents Coordinate and monitor administrative functions to ensure completion of work accurately and in a timely manner â $ cents Act as liaison between clients and lawyers â $ cents Other duties as required

In SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Court of Appeals» decision and held that the equitable defence of laches can not be invoked against claims for patent infringement occurring during the six - year statutory limitations period, as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 286.

The Court held that s 7 (5)(a) should not be read narrowly, and therefore considered that the alleged infringement of Convention rights in this case arose from a single continuous course of conduct, as it could not have been the intention of Parliament that each step should be an «act» to which the one year limitation period should apply.

As stated before, the above ruling did not sit well with many interested stakeholders and a request for reconsideration was filed as to the one - year limitation period and the question of a series of incidentAs stated before, the above ruling did not sit well with many interested stakeholders and a request for reconsideration was filed as to the one - year limitation period and the question of a series of incidentas to the one - year limitation period and the question of a series of incidents.