FD: FD: DT:D DN: 977/88 STY: HRYHORUK v. EASBY PANEL: Strachan; Cook; Nipshagen DDATE: ACT: 15, 8(9) KEYW: Section 15 application; In the

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "FD: FD: DT:D DN: 977/88 STY: HRYHORUK v. EASBY PANEL: Strachan; Cook; Nipshagen DDATE: ACT: 15, 8(9) KEYW: Section 15 application; In the"

Transcription

1 FD: FD: DT:D DN: 977/88 STY: HRYHORUK v. EASBY PANEL: Strachan; Cook; Nipshagen DDATE: ACT: 15, 8(9) KEYW: Section 15 application; In the course of employment (reasonably incidental activity test); In the course of employment (access roads); In the course of employment (personal activity). SUM: A collision occurred on the main access road through the employer's parking lot involving the plaintiff, who was leaving after completion of his shift, and the defendant, who was arriving for his shift. The accident occurred about 45 minutes after the completion of the plaintiff's shift and about 20 minutes prior to the start of the defendant's shift. The passage of time following completion of work may gradually transform an activity from one that is reasonably incidental to work to one that is primarily of a personal nature. The plaintiff had been sitting in his car talking to a friend, past the time that would have been best to leave the parking lot. By the time he left, the traffic flow was primarily incoming. This incoming flow could take up all the lanes of traffic. The primary flavour of the worker's acitivity was personal. He was not in the course of employment. His right of action was not taken away. PDCON: TYPE:15 DIST: DECON: Decision No. 150 (1986), 1 W.C.A.T.R. 201; Decision Nos. 553, 547/87 BDG:Claims Services Division Manual, s.3(1), p.47, Directive 21 IDATE: HDATE: TCO: KEYPER:R. Mahoney; W. Linden; D. Forster XREF: COMMENTS: TEXT:

2 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 977/88 IN THE MATTER OF an application pursuant to section 15 of the Workers' Compensation Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.539, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF an action commenced in the Supreme Court of Ontario at the City of Toronto as Action 14524/86. B E T W E E N: JOHN HRYHORUK Applicant in this application and Defendant in the Supreme Court of Ontario Action. - and - STEVEN EASBY Respondent in this application and Plaintiff in the Supreme Court of Ontario Action.

3 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 977/88 IN THE MATTER OF an application pursuant to section 15 of the Workers' Compensation Act. AND IN THE MATTER OF an action commenced in the Supreme Court of Ontario, at the City of Toronto, as Action No /86. B E T W E E N: JOHN HRYHORUK Applicant/Defendant - and - STEVEN EASBY Respondent/Plaintiff WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT SECTION 15 APPLICATION

4 WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 977/88 This Section 15 Application was heard on February 22, 1989, by: I.J. Strachan: Panel Chairman, B. Cook : Tribunal Member representative of workers, G. Nipshagen : Tribunal Member representative of employers. THE SECTION 15 APPLICATION This application under section 15 of the Workers' Compensation Act (the "Act") arises out of a motor vehicle accident on April 4, A collision between the plaintiff's motorcycle and the defendant's four-wheel vehicle gave rise to the plaintiff's general action for damages. The Applicant is the defendant John Hryhoruk represented by his lawyer R. Mahoney of the law firm Lyons, Goodman, Iacono, Smith & Berkow. The Respondent is the plaintiff Steven Easby represented by his lawyer W. Linden of the law firm Perry and Outerbridge. General Motors of Canada Ltd. was represented by its lawyer, D. Forster, a member of its legal department. THE EVIDENCE The Panel had before it the Applicant's Section 15 Statement together with the Respondent's Section 15 Statement. Both Mr. Hryhoruk and Mr. Easby testified at the hearing. The Panel received submissions from Mr. Mahoney and Ms. Linden. THE NATURE OF THE CASE At approximately 4:15 p.m. on April 4, 1986, two vehicles collided on the main driveway of the General Motors parking lot, located adjacent to Park Road South in the City of Oshawa. The plaintiff was proceeding westbound along the driveway on his 1981 Yamaha motorcycle, intending to begin his shift at General Motors at 4:42 p.m. The defendant had completed his shift at General Motors at 3:31 p.m. and was making a right turn in his 1980 Suzuki automobile to proceed in an easterly direction along the main driveway. The main driveway will accommodate three lanes of traffic. Both Mr. Hryhoruk and Mr. Easby were, at the time of the accident, employees of General Motors. Both men worked on the assembly line. The main driveway and parking lot are maintained, serviced and controlled by General Motors' personnel. The basic facts of the accident are not in dispute.

5 The primary issue before the Panel is whether Messrs. Easby and Hryhoruk were in the course of their employment at the time of the accident and whether the right of action against the Applicant can be sustained. Section 15 of the Act provides: 15 Any party to an action may apply to the Appeals Tribunal for adjudication and determination of the question of the plaintiff's right to compensation under this Part, or as to whether the action is one the right to bring which is taken away by this Part, or whether the action is one in which the right to recover damages, contribution, or indemnity is limited by this Part, and such adjudication and determination is final and conclusive. Section 8(9) of the Act provides: 8(9) No employer in Schedule 1 and no worker of an employer in Schedule 1 or dependent of such worker has a right of action for damages against any employer in Schedule 1 or any executive officer or any director or any worker of such employer, for an injury for which benefits are payable under this Act, where the workers of both employers were in the course of their employment at the time of the happening of the injury, but, in any case where the Board is satisfied that the accident giving rise to the injury was caused by the negligence of some other employer or employers in Schedule 1 or their workers, the Board may direct that the benefits awarded in any such case or a proportion of them shall be charged against the class or group to which such other employer or employers belong and to the accident cost record of such individual employer or employers. (emphasis added) If the Panel concludes that Mr. Hryhoruk and Mr. Easby were in the course of their employment, then the plaintiff's right of action is taken away by reason of section 8(9) of the Act. THE PANEL S REASON (i) WCB policy As noted in numerous Tribunal decisions, case law generally supports the proposition that injuries sustained by a worker on a parking lot owned and operated by an employer as part of the employer's business premises, are compensable. WCB Directive 21 includes parking lots controlled by the employer in the definition of "Employer's Premises". However, the Board Directive then attempts to remove incidents involving automobiles, motorcycles, or bicycles

6 from the compensation plan by introducing into the directive the concept of an "instrument of added peril". WCB Directive 21, under section 3(1) in the Claims Services Division Manual, adopts this position and provides in Part A of the Directive, which Part is entitled "In The Course Of Employment": The employer's premises are defined as the building, plant or location in which the worker is entitled to be, including entrances, exits, stairs, elevators, lobbies, parking lots, passageways and roads controlled by the employer for the use of the workers as access to and egress from the work site. (emphasis added) Part B of the Directive entitled "Arising Out Of Employment" provides: An accident shall be considered to arise out of the employment when it happens on the employer's premises as defined, unless at the time of the happening of the accident: - the accident is occasioned by the injured worker using, for personal reasons, any instrument of added peril such as an automobile, motorcycle or bicycle, except when the accident was caused by the condition of the road or happening under the control of the employer, or - the worker is performing an act not incidental to his work or employment obligations. Directive 21 recognizes that the worker may move outside the course of his employment by reason of a change in the nature of this activity, i.e., by "performing an act not incidental to his work or employment obligations". The Applicant in this case argues essentially that the two workers were performing acts incidental to their employment obligations. The Respondent argues that the acts were not incidental to their employment obligations. (ii) The Applicant's position - WCAT Decision No. 150 In Decision No. 150, the Panel concluded that a worker, who had exited from a parked vehicle on the employer's lot, was in the course of employment when he injured his leg. The Panel found, at page 6 of that decision, that the worker "...had crossed over the line between rider and walker and hence was in the course of his employment, about to embark towards his place of work on his employer's premises." Although it was not necessary to consider WCB Directive No. 21 to reach the above conclusion, the Panel in Decision No. 150 went on to comment on that Directive. In so commenting, the Panel indicated its approval of a geographic test to determine whether a worker was in the course of employment at the time of an accident. That panel noted that "it is much easier and less contentious to draw a distinct line, either at the entrance to the parking lot or at the entrance to the plant, than it is to embark on a scrutiny of the movements of

7 the worker and the employer in order to decide whether the injury is covered by the Act". Essentially the Panel indicated approval of a test whereby the parking lot entrance could determine compensable or non-compensable incidents and did so essentially on grounds of administrative convenience. Counsel for the applicant cited the following remarks at page 5 of Decision No. 150: It is reasonable to conclude that a worker is "in the course of his/her employment" within the meaning of the Act, upon arrival at the employer's premises, including the company owned parking lot, for the purposes of reporting to work to carry out duties for the employer. This is certainly an activity incidental to the worker's employment. The accident would then be presumed to have arisen out of the employment. The presumption in section 3(2) could then be rebutted by finding that the worker's conduct is of a purely personal nature. Or, in some circumstances, compensation may be denied on the basis of the worker's serious and wilfullness conduct. However, the mere fact of driving a vehicle on the employer's parking lot does not necessarily change the character of the resulting accident. Counsel for the Applicant noted that WCAT Decision No. 553 held that the use of a company parking lot was not an act of a purely personal nature taking the employee out of the course of employment. Since both Mr. Easby and Mr. Hryhoruk were on the employer's parking lot or driveway, the geographic test suggested by Decision No. 150 would lead to the conclusion that both workers were in the course of their employment. Accordingly section 8(9) of the Act would apply to remove the plaintiff's right of action. (iii) The Respondent's position - WCAT Decision 547/87 The Panel in Decision 547/87 disapproved of the application of the geographical test as the primary test and concluded that the major factor in determining whether a worker is in the course of his employment is the nature of the activity performed at the time of the accident. The majority in that decision characterized this approach as a "work relatedness test". In commenting on the geographic test suggested in Decision No. 150, the majority in Decision 547/87 stated: Location of the accident may be one factor in determining whether or not the worker was in the course of his employment at the time of the accident, but it should rarely be the determining factor. Other factors such as: 1. the nature of the activity itself; 2. time of the accident (whether within normal working hours);

8 3. control over the activity exercised by the employer; 4. relationship to the principal occupational activities; and 5. the type of equipment involved in the accident; are also important factors. The minority opinion in Decision 547/87 also indicated that the primary focus should be upon the nature of the activity performed at the time of the accident and whether that activity is reasonably incidental to employment, but disagreed with the other factors proposed by the majority. Counsel for the Respondent submits that focusing on the nature of the activity performed at the time of the accident and the actual time of the accident leads to the conclusion that the Applicant, Mr. Hryhoruk, was not in the course of his employment. (iv) The Panel's conclusions The Panel has concluded in this case that it is not necessary to enter into a detailed analysis of Decisions 150 and 547/87 or any other parking lot decisions released by the Tribunal. The Panel is in agreement that the major factor in determining whether the workers were in the course of employment was the nature of the activity performed at the time of the accident. With respect to this factor, the testimony of Mr. Hryhoruk is instructive. Mr. Hryhoruk testified that the main driveway runs down the centre of the parking lot and represents the only exit or entrance. Incoming and outgoing vehicles must both use this driveway to enter and exit. There are no lines on the main driveway and no mechanical signalling devices to control traffic. Depending upon the time of day, incoming and outgoing traffic ebbs and flows like a tide. The evidence indicates that immediately prior to the commencement of a shift, all three lanes are virtually filled with incoming traffic. Immediately after the conclusion of a shift, all three lanes are virtually filled with outgoing traffic. At other times, two lanes head in one direction (either incoming or outgoing) and one lane in the other direction. It appears to the Panel to be the epitome of chaos and a prescription for disaster when it comes to traffic control. Mr. Hryhoruk testified that he completed his shift at 3:31 and headed directly for his vehicle in the parking lot. He testified that, because it was Friday and a payday, he agreed to drive his friend from the parking lot to the bank in order to cash his paycheque. Mr. Hryhoruk also testified that it was his intention to return from the bank with his friend to the General Motors parking lot, where his friend could then pick up his car and drive home. He indicated that the trip to the bank would take approximately 15 minutes and it was not on his way home. He testified that his vehicle was parked in an aisle approximately 60 feet from the Park Road exit. He also testified that a motor vehicle accident on Park Road had impeded the flow of traffic. Mr. Hryhoruk testified that he and his friend sat in Mr. Hryhoruk's vehicle and talked. He could not recall whether the motor was running or

9 whether the radio was on. He testified that, although he had completed his shift at 3:31, he did not attempt to leave the parking lot until 4:15 because he was talking to his friend and waiting for a suitable opportunity to leave the parking lot. The Panel is satisfied that the collision between the plaintiff's motorcycle and the defendant's automobile took place in the most southerly lane or the southerly side of the centre lane. The Panel also concludes from both workers' testimony that by 4:15, the outbound stampede of vehicles following the conclusion of the 3:30 shift had subsided and the predominant traffic flow was in the westbound direction into the parking lot and plant. The accident took place approximately 45 minutes after the conclusion of the dayshift (i.e. the 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift) and approximately 20 to 25 minutes before the commencement of the 4:42 p.m. shift. Mr. Hryhoruk testified that he and his friend simply sat in his vehicle, talked and watched the accident on Park Road while waiting for an appropriate opportunity to exit on the main driveway. The question arises as to whether Mr. Hryhoruk was in the course of his employment and whether his conduct was reasonably incidental to his employment obligations. Even if the use of the parking lot at the end of or beginning of the work day constitutes activity which is reasonably incidental to a worker's employment obligations, for a worker to be in the course of employment the activity must be reasonable having regard to all of the circumstances surrounding the accident. Normally an employee using an employer's parking lot would be expected to exit from that lot within a reasonable time from completion of a work shift. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the passage of time following completion of the work shift may gradually transform the activity from one reasonably incidental to an employment obligation to one that is primarily of a personal nature. If the activity is primarily of a personal nature, it is no longer reasonably incidental to employment and the worker cannot be said to be in the course of employment. To take an extreme example, if a worker elects to spend the night in his vehicle on the employer's parking lot following completion of a day shift, it is unreasonable to expect that the Act should cover that individual simply because of the geographical location of his automobile. There may be some element of "work relatedness" in that situation; however it is not sufficient, in the opinion of this Panel, to bring the worker within the ambit of the Act. In the case before the Panel, when Mr. Hryhoruk chose to remain in his vehicle until 4:15, despite having completed his shift at 3:30 p.m., his activity gradually took on the character of a primarily personal activity. We are of the opinion that, if as he stated, his purpose was to await the best opportunity to leave the parking lot, the best opportunity would have occurred when all three lanes of the main driveway were occupied with outgoing traffic. At the very least, it would be expected that a person interested in leaving the parking lot would exit when two of the three lanes were outgoing. Leaving the parking lot at a time when the traffic flow had reversed and was primarily incoming, suggests that the primary reason for the delay in departure was the socializing between Mr. Hryhoruk and his friend. The primary flavour or character of the activity is personal. Since the activity is primarily of a personal nature, Mr. Hryhoruk is not considered to have been in the course of his employment.

10 THE DECISION The application is denied. The plaintiff's right of action is not taken away by the provisions of the Act. DATED at Toronto, this 10th day of April, SIGNED: I.J. Strachan, B. Cook, G. Nipshagen.

The right of action was taken away since the parties were in the course of employment at the time of the accident. [10 pages]

The right of action was taken away since the parties were in the course of employment at the time of the accident. [10 pages] DECISION NO. 270 / 93 SUMMARY Right to sue; In the course of employment (parking lots); Legal precedent (consistency). The defendant in a civil case applied to determine whether the plaintiffs right of

More information

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 846/93 STY:Holt Renfrew Canada v. Nicol PANEL: Moore; Jackson; Chapman DDATE: ACT: KEYW: Right to sue (wrongful dismissal).

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 846/93 STY:Holt Renfrew Canada v. Nicol PANEL: Moore; Jackson; Chapman DDATE: ACT: KEYW: Right to sue (wrongful dismissal). FD: FD: DT:D DN: 846/93 STY:Holt Renfrew Canada v. Nicol PANEL: Moore; Jackson; Chapman DDATE:130694 ACT: KEYW: Right to sue (wrongful dismissal). SUM: The defendant in a civil case applied to determine

More information

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 357/93 STY:Ontario Hydro v. Frontier Hydraulics Ltd. PANEL: Faubert; M. Cook; Ronson DDATE: ACT: *10(12) KEYW: Right to sue

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 357/93 STY:Ontario Hydro v. Frontier Hydraulics Ltd. PANEL: Faubert; M. Cook; Ronson DDATE: ACT: *10(12) KEYW: Right to sue FD: FD: DT:D DN: 357/93 STY:Ontario Hydro v. Frontier Hydraulics Ltd. PANEL: Faubert; M. Cook; Ronson DDATE:220793 ACT: *10(12) KEYW: Right to sue (third party claims); Damages, contribution or indemnity.

More information

FD: ACN=4836 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 816/87 STY:Pritchett et al. v. O'Sullivan et al. PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Preston DDATE: ACT: 15, 8(9),

FD: ACN=4836 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 816/87 STY:Pritchett et al. v. O'Sullivan et al. PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Preston DDATE: ACT: 15, 8(9), FD: ACN=4836 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 816/87 STY:Pritchett et al. v. O'Sullivan et al. PANEL: Thomas; Robillard; Preston DDATE: 021087 ACT: 15, 8(9), 8(10), 8(11) KEYW: Right to sue; Supplier of motor vehicle,

More information

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 613/90I2 STY:Barton v. Air Ontario Inc. PANEL: Moore; Jackson; Apsey DDATE: ACT: KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 613/90I2 STY:Barton v. Air Ontario Inc. PANEL: Moore; Jackson; Apsey DDATE: ACT: KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of FD: FD: DT:D DN: 613/90I2 STY:Barton v. Air Ontario Inc. PANEL: Moore; Jackson; Apsey DDATE: 091092 ACT: KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of employment (travelling); Jurisdiction, Tribunal (right to sue)

More information

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 650/91 STY:N. Turk Investments Ltd. v. Opar PANEL: Hartman; Ferrari; Chapman DDATE: ACT: KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 650/91 STY:N. Turk Investments Ltd. v. Opar PANEL: Hartman; Ferrari; Chapman DDATE: ACT: KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of FD: FD: DT:D DN: 650/91 STY:N. Turk Investments Ltd. v. Opar PANEL: Hartman; Ferrari; Chapman DDATE: 080792 ACT: KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of employment (parking lots). SUM: The defendants in a

More information

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 211/88 STY: GREEN FOREST LUMBER LTD. et al. v. FORSTER et al and one other action PANEL: Newman; Cook; Apsey DDATE: ACT: 15;

FD: FD: DT:D DN: 211/88 STY: GREEN FOREST LUMBER LTD. et al. v. FORSTER et al and one other action PANEL: Newman; Cook; Apsey DDATE: ACT: 15; FD: FD: DT:D DN: 211/88 STY: GREEN FOREST LUMBER LTD. et al. v. FORSTER et al and one other action PANEL: Newman; Cook; Apsey DDATE: 040688 ACT: 15; 8(9) KEYW: Section 15 application; Independent operator;

More information

FD: FD: DT: D DN: 637/93 STY: Sharman v. Allard PANEL: Moore; M. Cook; Chapman DDATE: ACT: KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of employment

FD: FD: DT: D DN: 637/93 STY: Sharman v. Allard PANEL: Moore; M. Cook; Chapman DDATE: ACT: KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of employment FD: FD: DT: D DN: 637/93 STY: Sharman v. Allard PANEL: Moore; M. Cook; Chapman DDATE: 040595 ACT: KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of employment (travelling); Employer (definition of) (contract of hiring);

More information

Right to sue; In the course of employment (proceeding to and from work).

Right to sue; In the course of employment (proceeding to and from work). SUMMARY 892/91 DECISION NO. 892/91 Brunino v. Principe PANEL: McCombie; Thomspon; Nipshagen DATE: 11/05/92 Right to sue; In the course of employment (proceeding to and from work). Two defendants in a civil

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2003 ONWSIAT 1955 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 234/03 [1] This right to sue application was heard in London on February 4, 2003, by Vice-Chair M. Kenny. THE RIGHT TO SUE

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1945/10

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1945/10 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1945/10 BEFORE: HEARING: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair B. Davis : Member Representative of Employers A. Grande : Member Representative of Workers

More information

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL

NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Applicant: [X] Respondents: [X] and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) SECTION 29 APPLICATION DECISION Representatives: [X] Action:

More information

MEMORANDUM. The facts and issues are more particularly set out below under the heading FACTS AND ISSUES.

MEMORANDUM. The facts and issues are more particularly set out below under the heading FACTS AND ISSUES. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: CC: RE: Lawyer-client Virtual Associate Project Manager, Taran Virtual Associates Client-Matter reference DATE: November 5, 2007 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ASSIGNMENT You have asked us to

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 BEFORE: R. McCutcheon: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 28, 2015 at Toronto Oral hearing Post-hearing activity completed on September 10, 2015

More information

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT RB Panel: Teresa White Decision Date: March 23, 2005

Noteworthy Decision Summary. Decision: WCAT RB Panel: Teresa White Decision Date: March 23, 2005 Noteworthy Decision Summary Decision: WCAT-2005-01460-RB Panel: Teresa White Decision Date: March 23, 2005 Extension of time Election Section 10 of the Workers Compensation Act Policy item #111.22 of the

More information

WCAT. Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. WCAT Decision Date: March 18, Guy Riecken, Vice Chair. WCAT Reference Number: A

WCAT. Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. WCAT Decision Date: March 18, Guy Riecken, Vice Chair. WCAT Reference Number: A WCAT Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal 150 4600 Jacombs Road Richmond, BC V6V 3B1 Telephone: (604) 664-7800 Toll Free: 1-800-663-2782 Fax: (604) 664-7898 Website: www.wcat.bc.ca WCAT Decision Number:

More information

JOANN E. LEWIS OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No November 1, 1996

JOANN E. LEWIS OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No November 1, 1996 Present: All the Justices JOANN E. LEWIS OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No. 960421 November 1, 1996 CARPENTER COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND T. J. Markow, Judge

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 4, 2002 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 4, 2002 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 4, 2002 Session HANNAH ROBINSON v. CHARLES C. BREWER, ET AL. A Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. C99-392 The Honorable Roger

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: Date: 20120215 Docket: CA039639 Ingrid Andrea Franzke And Appellant (Petitioner) Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal Respondent (Defendant) Before: The Honourable

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16 BEFORE: S. Martel: Vice-Chair HEARING: January 21, 2016 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: March 23, 2016 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016 ONWSIAT

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 955/09 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 13, 2009 at Ottawa Oral DATE OF DECISION: June 16, 2009 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2009 ONWSIAT 1450

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D02-58

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D02-58 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2002 JOHN WILLIAM WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D02-58 RING POWER CORPORATION, d/b/a DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and FRANK

More information

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL Date of Hearing: Panel: Daphne Simon, Chair: (Hedy) Anna Walsh and Aly N. Alibhai, Members Re: Aziz Ahmad (Report No. 6707) Holder of Toronto Vehicle-For-Hire

More information

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 30th day of October, 2009.

In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 30th day of October, 2009. VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 30th day of October, 2009. Joanna Renee Browning, Appellant, against Record No. 081906

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs ) Defendant ) DECISION ON COSTS

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs ) Defendant ) DECISION ON COSTS BROCKVILLE COURT FILE NO.: 05-0083 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: DUSKA BARKLEY, PEYTON BARKLEY, Jonathan A. Schwartzman, for the Plaintiffs MARATHA BARKLEY, by their Litigation Guardian,

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 19, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-974 Lower Tribunal No. 10-38782 Racetrac Petroleum,

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 2004 ONWSIAT 2252 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1562/02 [1] This right to sue application was heard in Toronto on November 7, 2002, by a Panel consisting of: N.A. Ross :

More information

The Honorable Janice G Clark Judge Presiding

The Honorable Janice G Clark Judge Presiding STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2011 CA 0007 JAMES A WILSON AND BRENDA M WILSON VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT Judgment Rendered AUG

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ORDER. Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge. HOWARD PILTCH, et al.. Plaintiffs - Appellants

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ORDER. Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge. HOWARD PILTCH, et al.. Plaintiffs - Appellants UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse Room 2722-219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 Office of the Clerk Phone: (312) 435-5850

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as Collins v. W. S. Life Ins. Co., 2008-Ohio-2054.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO CONNIE COLLINS, vs. Plaintiff-Appellee, THE WESTERN SOUTHERN LIFE

More information

REPORTED OF MARYLAND. No. 751

REPORTED OF MARYLAND. No. 751 REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 751 September Term, 2001 JOSE ANDRADE v. SHANAZ HOUSEIN, ET AL. Murphy, C.J., Sonner, Getty, James S. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ. Getty, J.

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1464/16

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1464/16 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1464/16 BEFORE: V. Marafioti : Vice-Chair M. Christie : Member Representative of Employers A. Grande : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:

More information

Berger, Nazarian, Leahy,

Berger, Nazarian, Leahy, UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2067 September Term, 2014 UNIVERSITY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, INC. v. STACEY RHEUBOTTOM Berger, Nazarian, Leahy, JJ. Opinion by Nazarian, J. Filed:

More information

By-Law 16-94, as Amended by By-Law (Hospital Consolidated By-Law)

By-Law 16-94, as Amended by By-Law (Hospital Consolidated By-Law) By-Law 16-94, as Amended by By-Law 15-2003 (Hospital Consolidated By-Law) Note: This consolidated by-law is prepared for the purposes of convenience only. For accurate reference, recourse should be made

More information

Guide. Applying for Compensation for a Death. Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Guide. Applying for Compensation for a Death. Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Providing fair and accessible justice Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Guide Applying for Compensation for a Death 0311E (2018/02) Disponible en français Page 1 of

More information

The Dallas City Code CHAPTER 30 NOISE

The Dallas City Code CHAPTER 30 NOISE Print The Dallas City Code CHAPTER 30 NOISE Sec. 30 1. Loud and disturbing noises and vibrations. Sec. 30 2. Loud and disturbing noises and vibrations presumed offensive. Sec. 30 2.1. Presumption. Sec.

More information

New York City Administrative Code - Title 20Consumer Affairs

New York City Administrative Code - Title 20Consumer Affairs New York City Administrative Code - Title 20Consumer Affairs 20 465 Restrictions on the placement of vehicles, pushcarts and stands; vending in certain areas prohibited. a. No general vendor shall engage

More information

HOT TOPIC ISSUE: SPOILATION. General Liability Track, Session 3 Fifth Annual General Liability & Workers Compensation Seminar

HOT TOPIC ISSUE: SPOILATION. General Liability Track, Session 3 Fifth Annual General Liability & Workers Compensation Seminar HOT TOPIC ISSUE: SPOILATION General Liability Track, Session 3 Fifth Annual General Liability & Workers Compensation Seminar Carlock, Copeland & Stair Speaker: Scott Huray, Partner WHAT IS IT? Spoliation

More information

2018 IL App (1st) U. No

2018 IL App (1st) U. No 2018 IL App (1st) 172714-U SIXTH DIVISION Order Filed: May 18, 2018 No. 1-17-2714 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95

IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95 IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ERIE

More information

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District STEVE SAUNDERS, v. KATHLEEN BASKA, Appellant, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) WD75405 FILED: April 16, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PLATTE COUNTY THE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 19, 2008

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 19, 2008 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 19, 2008 CHERYL L. GRAY v. ALEX V. MITSKY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-2835 Hamilton V.

More information

Toronto Local Appeal Body Public Guide

Toronto Local Appeal Body Public Guide Toronto Local Appeal Body Public Guide Revised on August 15, 2017 Contact information: Toronto Local Appeal Body 40 Orchard View Boulevard Suite 211 Toronto, ON M4R 1B9 Tel: (416) 392-4697 Web: www.toronto.ca/tlab

More information

Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator. October 3, 2014

Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL. Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator. October 3, 2014 Order F14-44 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Elizabeth Barker, Adjudicator October 3, 2014 Quicklaw Cite: [2014] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 47 CanLII Cite: 2014 BCIPC 47 Summary: The applicant, on behalf of

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 808/15

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 808/15 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 808/15 BEFORE: J. Josefo: Vice-Chair HEARING: April 23, 2015 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: May 13, 2015 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2015 ONWSIAT 1038

More information

CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (A1307 CAMBRIDGE ROAD, LINTON) (BUS LANES) ORDER 201#

CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (A1307 CAMBRIDGE ROAD, LINTON) (BUS LANES) ORDER 201# CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (A1307 CAMBRIDGE ROAD, LINTON) (BUS LANES) ORDER 201# Cambridgeshire County Council ( the Council ) in exercise of its powers under Section 1(1), 2(1) to (3), 4 and Part IV

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-203 ROSEMARY WATERS VERSUS BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY ************** APPEAL FROM THE ALEXANDRIA CITY COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, DOCKET NO. 101,398 HONORABLE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 14, 2005 Session. DONALD SHEA SMITH v. TEDDY W. CHERRY, ET AL.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 14, 2005 Session. DONALD SHEA SMITH v. TEDDY W. CHERRY, ET AL. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 14, 2005 Session DONALD SHEA SMITH v. TEDDY W. CHERRY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 50000298 Ross H. Hicks,

More information

SAM OOLIE, HAROLD OOLIE, Davidson Circuit No. 95C Plaintiffs, Hon. Walter Kurtz, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

SAM OOLIE, HAROLD OOLIE, Davidson Circuit No. 95C Plaintiffs, Hon. Walter Kurtz, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT NASHVILLE SAM OOLIE, HAROLD OOLIE, Davidson Circuit No. 95C-2427 and FRANCES CHAFITZ, C.A. No. 01A01-9706-CV-00240 VS. Plaintiffs, Hon. Walter Kurtz,

More information

Reversed and Rendered; and Opinion Filed January 16, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No.

Reversed and Rendered; and Opinion Filed January 16, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. Reversed and Rendered; and Opinion Filed January 16, 2014 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00705-CV CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. BRIAN LONCAR, SUE LONCAR, ET AL., Appellees

More information

Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2007] O.J. No.

Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2007] O.J. No. Page 1 Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants [2007] O.J. No. 1414 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 844 49 C.P.C. (6th) 311 2007 CarswellOnt 2191

More information

TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 610, PENALTIES, ADMINISTRATION OF. Chapter 610 PENALTIES, ADMINISTRATION OF. ARTICLE 1 General

TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 610, PENALTIES, ADMINISTRATION OF. Chapter 610 PENALTIES, ADMINISTRATION OF. ARTICLE 1 General 610-1.1. Definitions. 610-1.2. General. 610-2.1. Penalty notice. TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE 610-2.2. Review by a screening officer. 610-2.3. Review by a hearing officer. Chapter 610 PENALTIES, ADMINISTRATION

More information

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL Date of Hearing: Panel: Aly N. Alibhai (Chair); (Hedy) Anna Walsh and Keith Cooper, Members Re: Kevin Singh (Report No. 6888) Applicant for a Tow

More information

ORDINANCE COVER SHEET

ORDINANCE COVER SHEET ORDINANCE COVER SHEET Bill No. 2015-08 Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BOLIVAR MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 611, PROVIDING FOR PAN-HANDLING AND SOLICITATION REGULATION. Filed for public

More information

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN November 3, 1995 DELMOS BOBBITT, ET AL.

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN November 3, 1995 DELMOS BOBBITT, ET AL. Present: All the Justices KIMBERLY DAWN RAMEY, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC. v. Record No. 950217 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN November 3, 1995 DELMOS BOBBITT, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WISE COUNTY

More information

Interrogatories. As I have previously written, interrogatories are one. The building blocks of your client s case. Discovery. by Thomas J.

Interrogatories. As I have previously written, interrogatories are one. The building blocks of your client s case. Discovery. by Thomas J. 12 The Journal of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, Volume 24 Number 4, 2013 Discovery Interrogatories The building blocks of your client s case by Thomas J. Curcio As I have previously written,

More information

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE COURT FILE No.: Halton - Burlington 1260-88072586 DATE: 2009 01 30 Citation: R. v. Trevisan, 2009 ONCJ 34 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen AND Jessica M. Trevisan Before Justice

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 3, 2001 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 3, 2001 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 3, 2001 Session JANICE SADLER, d/b/a XANADU VIDEO v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission No. 303688 No. M2000-01103-COA-R3-CV

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE B ~ and ~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE B ~ and ~ SCHEDULE OF COSTS PRECEDENTS PRECEDENT C IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1999 - B - 9999 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION BRIGHTON DISTRICT REGISTRY BETWEEN AB ~ and ~ CD Claimant Defendant CLAIMANT'S BILL OF COSTS

More information

CITY OF EAST LANSING ORDINANCE NO. 1360

CITY OF EAST LANSING ORDINANCE NO. 1360 Introduced: Public Hearing: Adopted: Effective: CITY OF EAST LANSING ORDINANCE NO. 1360 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 108.2 AND 108.4 OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, 2006 ED, AS ADOPTED

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT Case No. 1745/2011 MAURICE GUMEDE And THE ARMY COMMANDER MBUSO ABRAHAM SHLONGONYANE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PLAINTIFF 1 ST DEFENDANT 2 ND DEFENDANT 3 RD DEFENDANT Neutral

More information

PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Stephenson, S.J.

PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Stephenson, S.J. PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Stephenson, S.J. PATRICIA CROCKER OPINION BY v. Record No. 060469 SENIOR JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR. January 12, 2007 RIVERSIDE

More information

DECISION NUMBER 345 / 91 SUMMARY

DECISION NUMBER 345 / 91 SUMMARY DECISION NUMBER 345 / 91 SUMMARY W was the owner of two companies, an outpost camping company and a commercial air service which transported clients to the camp sites. R was an employee of the camping

More information

Aviva Canada Inc. & Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Defendants

Aviva Canada Inc. & Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Defendants SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Romanko v. Aviva, 2017 ONSC 2393 COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-38350PD2 DATE: 20170419 RE: BEFORE: Omelian Romanko & Neonila Romanko, Plaintiffs AND: Aviva Canada

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 10, 2002 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 10, 2002 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 10, 2002 Session TROI BAILEY, SPRINT LOGISTICS, LLC AND SPRINT WAREHOUSE AND CARTAGE, INC. v. CITY OF LEBANON, TENNESSEE. Direct Appeal from the

More information

LOCAL COUNCILS POWERS TO PROVIDE PARKING SPACES

LOCAL COUNCILS POWERS TO PROVIDE PARKING SPACES Legal Topic Note August 2013 LOCAL COUNCILS POWERS TO PROVIDE PARKING SPACES Introduction 1. Parking can be a particular problem in a local council s area. On-street parking is the responsibility of the

More information

TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 7, 2017

TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 7, 2017 TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 7, 2017 The combined public/work session meeting of the Board of Adjustment held at the Municipal Building, 475 Corporate Drive, Mahwah, NJ, beginning

More information

2009 CA 0120 VERSUS. Judgment Rendered JUL PlaintifflAppellant Michael Hudspeth. DefendantslAppellees. Ginalyn McConnell and Allstate

2009 CA 0120 VERSUS. Judgment Rendered JUL PlaintifflAppellant Michael Hudspeth. DefendantslAppellees. Ginalyn McConnell and Allstate NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 0120 @ MICHAEL HUDSPETH VERSUS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND CINALYN McCONNELL 1 jlp6t Judgment Rendered JUL 1 7

More information

SCR Introduced by Senators Smith, Lesko: Begay, Burges, Farnsworth D, Griffin, McGuire, Yee; Representatives Finchem, Kern, Mesnard

SCR Introduced by Senators Smith, Lesko: Begay, Burges, Farnsworth D, Griffin, McGuire, Yee; Representatives Finchem, Kern, Mesnard REFERENCE TITLE: photo radar prohibition State of Arizona Senate Fifty-second Legislature Second Regular Session SCR 00 Introduced by Senators Smith, Lesko: Begay, Burges, Farnsworth D, Griffin, McGuire,

More information

Unftefr j^tate fflcurt ni JVp^^tb

Unftefr j^tate fflcurt ni JVp^^tb In ike Unftefr j^tate fflcurt ni JVp^^tb No. 14-1965 HOWARD PILTCH, et ah, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, etal, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2015-CA-00903

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2015-CA-00903 E-Filed Document May 23 2016 10:57:29 2015-CA-00903-COA Pages: 13 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO.2015-CA-00903 MARKWETZEL APPELLANT VERSUS RICHARD SEARS APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE

More information

Guide. Applying for Compensation for an Injury. Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Guide. Applying for Compensation for an Injury. Social Justice Tribunals Ontario. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Providing fair and accessible justice Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Guide Applying for Compensation for an Injury 010E (2016/12) Queen s Printer for Ontario, 2016

More information

LICENSE OF OCCUPATION

LICENSE OF OCCUPATION LICENSE OF OCCUPATION Country Gardens RV Park Ltd. (Owner) - AND Name: Date of Birth: (Site User/Contracting Party: hereinafter the OCCUPANT ) #1 Name: Date of Birth: (Site User/Contracting Party: hereinafter

More information

v No Wayne Circuit Court MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN, also LC No NF known as MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY,

v No Wayne Circuit Court MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN, also LC No NF known as MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY, S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ROBERT L. CORNELIUS, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 27, 2018 v No. 336074 Wayne Circuit Court MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN, also LC

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004 INGRID HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D03-3679 MILDRED FELICIANO, Appellee. / Opinion filed December 23, 2004 Appeal

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In re: City of Detroit, Michigan, Debtor. Bankruptcy Case No. 13-53846 Honorable Thomas J. Tucker Chapter 9 CITY OF DETROIT

More information

F 3.201(2)(A) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS ) JOHN D. DOE, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THOMAS M. SMITH, ) ) Defendant.

F 3.201(2)(A) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS ) JOHN D. DOE, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THOMAS M. SMITH, ) ) Defendant. F 3.201(2)(A) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS ) JOHN D. DOE, ) ) Case No. Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) THOMAS M. SMITH, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Interrogatories from Plaintiff to Defendant 1. Please

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G DONALD MULLENIX CLAIMANT CITY OF CASH RESPONDENT EMPLOYER

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G DONALD MULLENIX CLAIMANT CITY OF CASH RESPONDENT EMPLOYER BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. G004869 DONALD MULLENIX CLAIMANT CITY OF CASH RESPONDENT EMPLOYER MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WC TRUST RESPONDENT CARRIER ORDER AND OPINION FILED DECEMBER

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Mitchell v. Cambridge Home Health Care, Inc., 2008-Ohio-4558.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) EMMA MITCHELL C. A. No. 24163 Appellant v.

More information

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,

More information

NOVA SCOTIA PROVINCIAL COURT RULES

NOVA SCOTIA PROVINCIAL COURT RULES NOVA SCOTIA PROVINCIAL COURT RULES (Implementation Date: January 1, 2013) TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule 1 General 1.1 Fundamental Objective 1.2 Scope of Rules 1.3 Definitions Rule 2 Applications 2.1 Notice of

More information

An Overview of Civil Litigation in the U.S. presented by Martijn Steger May 24, 2014

An Overview of Civil Litigation in the U.S. presented by Martijn Steger May 24, 2014 presented by Martijn Steger May 24, 2014 General Explanation of Civil Litigation in the U.S. U.S. litigation is governed by + + Rules of Civil Procedure; and + + Rules of Evidence. Rules of Civil Procedure:

More information

BEING A BY-LAW to regulate Election Signs and to repeal By-law RE

BEING A BY-LAW to regulate Election Signs and to repeal By-law RE THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE BY-LAW NUMBER 2018-050-RE BEING A BY-LAW to regulate Election Signs and to repeal By-law 2017-041-RE WHEREAS subsection 11(3), paragraph 1 of the Municipal

More information

Book Review: Motor Vehicle Offences, by L. Paul Shannon

Book Review: Motor Vehicle Offences, by L. Paul Shannon Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 3, Number 2 (April 1965) Article 56 Book Review: Motor Vehicle Offences, by L. Paul Shannon A. M. Linden Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Follow this and additional

More information

CRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL. (2) Dealing with proceedings justly and efficiently includes

CRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL. (2) Dealing with proceedings justly and efficiently includes CRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL Fundamental objective 1.1 (1) The fundamental objective of these rules is to ensure that proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice are dealt

More information

Motion for Rehearing Denied July 14, 1971; Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied August 12, 1971 COUNSEL

Motion for Rehearing Denied July 14, 1971; Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied August 12, 1971 COUNSEL TAFOYA V. WHITSON, 1971-NMCA-098, 83 N.M. 23, 487 P.2d 1093 (Ct. App. 1971) MELCOR TAFOYA and SABINA TAFOYA, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. BOBBY WHITSON, Defendant-Appellee No. 544 COURT OF APPEALS

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Yarmoshik v. Parrino, 2007-Ohio-79.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87837 VIKTORIYA YARMOSHIK PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. THOMAS

More information

AC : ENGINEERING MALPRACTICE: AVOIDING LIABILITY THROUGH EDUCATION

AC : ENGINEERING MALPRACTICE: AVOIDING LIABILITY THROUGH EDUCATION AC 2007-1436: ENGINEERING MALPRACTICE: AVOIDING LIABILITY THROUGH EDUCATION Martin High, Oklahoma State University Marty founded and co-directs the Legal Studies in Engineering Program at Oklahoma State

More information

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Defendants ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Defendants ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ONTARIO CITATION: Leis v. Clarke, 2017 ONSC 4360 COURT FILE NO.: 2106/13 DATE: 2017/08/08 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Lauren Leis Plaintiff - and - Jordan Clarke, Julie Clarke, and Amy L.

More information

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TORONTO LICENSING TRIBUNAL Date of Hearing: Panel: Melina Laverty, Chair; Aly N. Alibhai and Daphne Simon, Members Re: Arafat Bakshi (Report No. 6571) Applicant for Renewal

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 BEFORE: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair HEARING: June 17, 2010 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: July 27, 2010 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2010 ONWSIAT

More information

38 Estate Drive Zoning Application Final Report

38 Estate Drive Zoning Application Final Report STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED 38 Estate Drive Zoning Application Final Report Date: April 16, 2009 To: From: Wards: Reference Number: Scarborough Community Council Director, Community Planning, Scarborough

More information

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer and La Forest JJ. in effect when accident occurred--statutes barring action repealed before action

Present: Dickson C.J. and Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer and La Forest JJ. in effect when accident occurred--statutes barring action repealed before action angus v. sun alliance insurance co., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 256 Sun Alliance Insurance Company v. Diane Hart Angus Appellant Respondent and Owen Hart and James Angus Respondents INDEXED AS: ANGUS v. SUN ALLIANCE

More information

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17 IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ING INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 Date: 20180309 Docket: CA 449275 Registry: Halifax Between: Wayne Skinner v. Workers Compensation

More information

The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes. By-Law A By-law to Licence Motor Vehicle Racing and Motor Vehicle Racing Facilities

The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes. By-Law A By-law to Licence Motor Vehicle Racing and Motor Vehicle Racing Facilities Consolidated on December 22, 2016 The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes Passed by Council on November 12, 2013 Amendments: Office Consolidation of By-Law 2013-194 1) By-law 2016-209 November 22,

More information

CHAPTER TEMPORARY ACTIVITIES AND USES

CHAPTER TEMPORARY ACTIVITIES AND USES CHAPTER 19.60 TEMPORARY ACTIVITIES AND USES Sections: 19.60.010 PURPOSE 19.60.020 DEFINITIONS 19.60.030 ACTIVITIES AND USES PERMITTED 19.60.040 PERMIT REQUIRED 19.60.050 EXEMPTIONS 19.60.060 PERMIT APPLICATION

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO [Cite as Carder v. Kettering, 2004-Ohio-4260.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO TERRY D. CARDER, et al. : Plaintiffs-Appellants : C.A. CASE NO. 20219 v. : T.C. CASE NO. 2003 CV 1640

More information