Sentences with phrase «year limitation period which»

The Plan provided for a one - year limitation period which began to run «from the date of the claim decision» or «claim review decision».

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.

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.

Until now, previous research used the dating method for rocks covering the upper sedimentary layer, in which such dating method with the relatively longer half - life period shows limitations in determining the time the basalt was formed about 10,000 years ago.

The researchers said there are limitations to the findings: The data is based on schools» self - reporting, which leaves room for error, and many schools have opened and closed during the five - year study period, yielding some data inconsistencies.

Doug Hoyes: And obviously all trustees aren't perfect either so that's one of the reasons we're doing this show to provide information to people that maybe you didn't know about, and let's face it, nobody has any incentive to publicize the fact that there is this limitation period which is two years both in British Columbia and in Ontario.

However, all of this changed last year when the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland, 1 a case in which, under Ontario's new Limitations Act, the plaintiff's attorney failed to issue the statement of claim within the limitation period.2 The Court of Appeal unanimously eliminated any discretion that the court had to extend limitation periods based on «special circumstances» and held, subject to only a few exceptions, that the expiry of the two - year limitation period in Ontario is a complete bar to a lawsuit.

In a case heard last month, the Pensions Ombudsman held that the date when the six - year limitation period relating to an action for the recovery of pension overpayments stopped was the date upon which the scheme administrator first notified the member of the overpayments and sought repayment.

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.

Whether a claim will come back to haunt you in retirement depends on the application of limitation periods, which can be affected by issues like delayed discoverability and whether potential claimants have been under a disability during the intervening years.

In Ontario, the general limitation period is two years, which means that you must commence legal action within two years of the day on which your claim was discovered (s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched.

Although there is a six - year statute of limitations period within which to bring a personal injury lawsuit and two years within which to bring a wrongful death lawsuit, it is important to investigate a motorcycle accident immediately after it happens.

Typically, the limitation period within which a legal action must be commenced in personal injury lawsuits is two years from the date of the accident, but for infants, the limitation period is postponed until two years after the infant attains the age of majority (19 years of age).

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.

Out-Law.com reports today that the European Court of Human Rights upheld an English defamation case in which the publication had been online for more than the usual one - year limitation period for defamation suits.

Any such policy that permits destruction within much less than ten years after an event probably fails to take reasonable account of the standard six year limitation period under the Limitations Act for actions in tort or contract, plus some period to allow for a discoverability period, which allows for discovery of the damage and those responsible prior to the commencement of the limitation period.

While construction law lawyers are aware of the two year limitation period contained in section 37 of the Construction Lien Act, on January 1, 2015, significant changes were made to Rule 48 of the Rules of Civil Practice, which require all litigation lawyers to modify their tickler systems for their non-lien actions.

Actually, married spouses have a two year limitation period in which to bring a claim for property division, after obtaining a divorce.

If no return was filed, or if during any four - year period less than seventy - five percent of the taxes due for that period was paid, the statute of limitations shall be no more than six years after the end of the calendar year in which the return for the period was due or the end of the calendar in which the return for the period was filed, whichever occurs later.

Although the province's Limitations Act sets a two - year deadline for court proceedings, a Superior Court judge struck the claim after finding it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board, which has a one - year limitation period set by Ontario's Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).

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;

Any complaints where the conduct occurred during or after 2002, and the service to which the complaint relates has not expired / been terminated more than six years ago can avail of this new limitation period.

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.»

735 ILCS 5/13-213 (d): Alternate limitation period Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (b) and (c), if the injury complained of occurs within any of the periods provided by subsections (b) and (c), the plaintiff may bring suit within 2 years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, of the existence of the personal injury, death, or property damage; but in no event may such an action be brought more than 8 years after the date on which the personal injury, death, or property damage occurred.

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.

The House of Lords overruled its own decision in Stubbings v Webb, which held that the victim of an intentional assault (sexual or otherwise) was bound by the non-extendable six - year limitation period laid down by the Limitation Act 1980, s 2 for torts ilimitation period laid down by the Limitation Act 1980, s 2 for torts iLimitation Act 1980, s 2 for torts in general.

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 periods.

So, in the cases of a car accident that was caused by another driver, the limitation period in which to make a claim arising out of that accident is 3 years from the date of the accident.

At that time, few would have predicted that the most troublesome and litigated section in Part XXIII.1 would be the section (s. 138.14) that created a seemingly simple three year limitation period after a public company's alleged misrepresentation was released within which to advance claims.

There are unique rules which apply to limitation periods in sexual abuse and assault cases which make it easier for these cases to proceed; despite years and years having passed.

Most wrongful death actions are governed by the 2 - year limitation period found in California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, which begins from the date of death.

The former imposes a six - year limitation period for actions in both contract and tort, which constitute the large majority of arbitration claims.

The Act also establishes an ultimate limitation period of 15 years that runs from the day the act or omission on which the claim is based takes place (section 15).

The High Court decision follows hard on the heals of the House of Lords» decision [2008] UKHL 6; [2008] 2 WLR 311, [2008] 2 All ER 1, of 30 January 2008, where the law lords effectively changed the law, (reversing a previous House of Lords» ruling in Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, 1993] 1 All ER 322, which held that claims arising from intentional assaults were governed by s 2 of LA 1980), and held that an intentional assault fell within LA 1980, s 11, and was therefore subject to a three - year limitation period, which could be extended by reference to knowledge (s 14), or at the court's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the court.

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 1623.

Thus intentional assault which causes personal injury is no longer subject to a fixed six - year limitation period, the primary limitation period is three years from accrual of the cause of action or date of knowledge and the court can choose to exercise its discretion if this three - year period has passed.

Further, any action in the Superior Court is governed by the Limitations Act which provides for a two - year limitation period.

In Ontario, the basic limitation period for when a legal action needs to be started is two years from the day on which the claim was discovered (Section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002).

In the meantime, two further secondary market liability cases had come before the Court of Appeal on appeal: Green v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2012 ONSC 3637), in which Justice Strathy reluctantly declined to certify a class action because it was time - barred by the three - year limitation period; and Silver v. IMAX (2012 ONSC 4881), in which Justice van Rensburg granted an order issuing retroactive leave under s. 138.8 of the OSA to allow the claim to proceed.

Car accident cases are different from municipal slip and falls - which have a 10 day written notice period followed by a 2 year limitation period.

Given the flexible application of the discoverability factor, the Limitations Act also provides for an ultimate limitation period of 15 years after the act or omission on which the claim is based took place.

We require covered entities to retain any documentation required under this rule for at least six years (the statute of limitations period for the civil penalties) from the date of the creation of the documentation, or the date when the document was last in effect, which ever is later.

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.

Stubbings argued that her action was one for personal injuries within LA 1980, s 11 for which the primary limitation period was three years, and further, that under s 11 this three - year limitation period did not start to run until her «date of knowledge» which was less than three years before she issued proceedings.

It provides a special three - year period of limitation from the starting date ie the date upon which the claimant first has the knowledge about its claim which the section requires.

Some of the more frequently overlooked (and therefore dangerous) limitation periods include: i) the limitation period set out in section 38 (3) of the Trustee Act which applies to certain claims brought by or against the estate of a deceased person; ii) the 6 month limitation period for dependent's relief claims that is set out in section 61 of the Succession Law Reform Act; and iii) the one year limitation period set out in section 259.1 of the Insurance Act, which applies to «a proceeding against an insurer under a contract in respect of loss or damage to an automobile or its contents».

It was based on his reasonable conclusions that (i) the parties» agreement provided for mediation as a precondition to arbitration; (ii) the requirement to mediate «in Delaware», which ran afoul of section 10 of the Arthur Wishart (Franchise Disclosure) Act, could be severed from the parties» agreement using the «blue pencil» approach, which kept intact the requirement to mediate, just not in Delaware; and (iii) applying the «appropriate means» branch of the discoverability test in s. 5 (1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002, the two year limitation period for arbitration commenced on the date that mediation was deemed completed.

Where, as a result of a circumstance which is beyond the control of the creditor and which he could neither avoid nor overcome, the creditor has been prevented from causing the limitation period to cease to run, the limitation period shall be extended so as not to expire before the expiration of one year from the date on which the relevant circumstance ceased to exist.

For example, if the hit and run driver is identified after the two - year limitation period in which to bring a lawsuit (talk to your injury lawyer about the exceptions to this rule), and you failed to name a John Doe in the lawsuit as a defendant, you can lose your right to compensation entirely.

B establishes an absolute two - year limitation period for contribution and indemnity claims, which commenced when Ms. L was served with Mega International's claim.