PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Donald Dover and Evelyn Dover
|
|
- Jade Pierce
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Citation: Dover v. Gov of PEI et ors. Date: PESCTD 106 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: Donald Dover and Evelyn Dover And: Plaintiffs Government of Prince Edward Island and Frank G. Driscoll and William V. Acorn Defendants Before: The Honourable Justice David H. Jenkins (In Chambers) (Ruling on motion to reopen trial) Appearances: Gregory B. Collins, for the Plaintiffs Ruth M. DeMone, for the Defendants Dates and place of trial Date and place of motion Date and place of ruling Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island October 27, 28, 29, and 30, 2003 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island November 14, 2003 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island December 29, 2003
2 Citation: Dover v. Gov of PEI et ors. Date: PESCTD 106 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: And: Donald Dover and Evelyn Dover Government of Prince Edward Island and Frank G. Driscoll and William V. Acorn Prince Edward Island Supreme Court - Trial Division (In Chambers) (Ruling on motion to reopen trial) Before: Jenkins J. Trial Dates: October 27, 28, 29, 30, 2003 Motion Heard: November 14, 2003 Date of Ruling: December 29, 2003 (8 pages) Plaintiffs Defendants PRACTICE: trial - motion to reopen trial. CASES CONSIDERED: Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. (2001), 204 D.L.R. (4 th ) 545 (S.C.C.); Clayton v. British American Securities Ltd., [1935] 1 D.L.R. 432 (B.C.C.A.); Scott v. Cook (1970), 12 D.L.R. (3d) 113; Matzelle Estate v. Father Bernard Prince Society of the Precious Blood, [1996] O.J. No (Ont. Gen. Div.); Sunny Isle Farms Limited v. Mayhew, [1972] 2 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 21 (P.E.S.C.T.D.); Woodworth v. Gagne & Gagne, [1935] 3 W.W.R. 49; Devins v. Hannah, [1921] 3 W.W.R. 350 (Sask. C.A.); Barker v. Furlong, [1891] 2 Ch. 172; Tepper v. Valley Equipment Ltd., [1997] N.B.J. No. 78 (N.B.C.A.). RULES CONSIDERED: Rules of Civil Procedure, Province of Prince Edward Island, Rule and Rule 1.04(1). Appearances: Gregory B. Collins, for the Plaintiffs Ruth M. DeMone, for the Defendants
3 Jenkins J.: [1] Days following the close of evidence and argument on this four day trial, and before any decision was rendered, the Plaintiffs sought leave to reopen the trial to introduce evidence of Cpl. Mike Quinn of the Charlottetown Police. [2] The central issue in the proceeding is whether the Sheriff had care of a trailer and cube van when they were stored and later stolen. In the middle of a night in May 1996, the operators of Amigo s Gym attempted to move their gym equipment out of the Plaintiffs building in Charlottetown and into the transfer trailer and cube van. Upon learning of this clandestine activity, the Plaintiff Donald Dover took steps to block the move. He involved the Charlottetown Police, who called out Deputy Sheriff William Acorn. Later on, both the landlord and the tenant brought their lawyers onto the scene. When they could not resolve matters, the Prothonotary George MacMillan was fetched from his home and the police assisted by taking him to the scene. Some time not too long before daybreak, the Prothonotary brokered some arrangement, he says between the lawyers, which apparently satisfied everyone for the time being, and most everyone left the scene. [3] The next morning, which was a holiday, the trailer and van were in the Government parking lot in downtown Charlottetown. The following day, the custodians of the Government building called the Sheriff and required that the trailer and van be moved. The Sheriff moved them to the Liquor Commission warehouse loading area in Charlottetown. During the second night following, the trailer with its contents of gym equipment disappeared. [4] Cpl. Quinn is a well-known representative of the City Police. Reference to him was made, though not with special prominence, during testimony of various witnesses. He may have been present during the discussions which took place on the scene among the Prothonotary and the two solicitors. [5] The role of the Sheriff as bailee or his responsibility otherwise regarding the chattels is central to the case. During the trial both parties brought forth evidence as to what arrangement or agreement was made. The Plaintiffs assert the Sheriff took the vehicles into his safe keeping on behalf of the parties until they could get before a judge to resolve their competing claims. The Defendants deny the Sheriff undertook any responsibility regarding that property. Deputy Sheriff Acorn testified he was not privy to any agreement and did not take possession of the vehicles or their contents or assume any related obligations. He says he went home to bed. The Prothonotary Mr. MacMillan testified that the tenant was claiming ownership, the landlord was claiming possession in distress, and the lawyers for the claimants agreed that neither would try to take the vehicles and their contents into their exclusive actual possession that night and the matter would be soon decided by a judge. Mr. MacMillan did not support the theory of the
4 Page: 4 Plaintiffs case that the Sheriff took legal or physical possession or custody of the vehicles and their contents. [6] On this motion, the Plaintiff Donald Dover deposed that after the close of trial, his counsel was able to learn from Cpl. Quinn that he has information and is able to testify regarding: the police attendance at the premises on the night the tenant attempted to remove the gym equipment; his understanding of the Sheriff s involvement; whether the vehicles were to be left in the Sheriff s custody; the police involvement in movement of the vehicles from the premises to the Government parking lot; and when the trailer was reported stolen. [7] The Plaintiffs say their counsel did not call Cpl. Quinn to testify at trial because based on the testimony expected from George MacMillan, they decided testimony from the City Police would be unnecessary. According to the Plaintiff Donald Dover, about a week before trial, they learned for the first time, from the Defendants Pretrial Brief, that Mr. MacMillan would be a defence witness. Plaintiffs counsel immediately spoke with Mr. MacMillan, and from that conversation he concluded that Mr. MacMillan s evidence would be helpful to the Plaintiffs specifically that it should resolve any questions about the Prothonotary directing the Sheriff to take the vehicles into the Sheriff s care that night. Plaintiffs counsel so advised the Defenants counsel. A few days later, still before trial, Mr. MacMillan clarified and advised Plaintiffs counsel in writing to the effect that his evidence would not be helpful to the Plaintiffs case. At this point, the Plaintiff and his counsel considered it almost impossible to determine what Mr. MacMillan would testify until he actually testified. The Plaintiffs and their counsel retained the hope that Mr. MacMillan would confirm the Plaintiffs position and evidence. They specifically did not anticipate he would provide evidence that contradicted the Plaintiffs case. Once Mr. MacMillan testified and the contradiction appeared, Plaintiffs counsel tried unsuccessfully to speak with Cpl. Quinn. They exchanged phone messages; but they made meaningful contact only after the trial was closed. None of the Plaintiff Donald Dover, his lawyer on the landlord distress, his original counsel on the action, or his trial counsel, had spoken to Cpl. Quinn about the matter since The Court is not informed that the information obtained by Plaintiffs counsel after trial was previously disclosed to Plaintiffs counsel. [8] The Plaintiff Donald Dover stated the essence of his plight this way: Based on the expected testimony of George MacMillan, I did not feel that Corporal Quinn s evidence would be required and when his testimony became essential, we were unable to contact Corporal Quinn. [9] The Defendant opposes the motion. Defendants counsel points out that Cpl. Quinn and his involvement on the scene were always well-known to all concerned. The Plaintiff chose not to call him as a witness in the Plaintiffs case, and again chose not to
5 Page: 5 call Cpl. Quinn or any other evidence in rebuttal. The incident occurred over seven years ago, the action was commenced over four years ago, the pleadings make it clear that the Defendants dispute the Plaintiffs position that the Sheriff took the vehicles and their contents into his care, and in any event, the Plaintiffs and their counsel were aware at the very latest during the week before trial of the nature and effect of Mr. MacMillan s evidence. [10] It is common ground that a trial judge has the discretion to reopen a trial in a civil case to permit the calling of additional evidence. What is at issue is the test of how this discretion should be exercised generally, and more particularly how the particular principles should be applied in this particular case. [11] The question of what care should be taken in exercising this discretion has been the subject of considerable judicial discussion over the past century. The case law on the issue is not entirely clear. Framing of applicable principles is also clouded by various scenarios in which the issue arises. After having read the authorities cited by counsel and further authorities, and considering the objectives at play, fairly straightforward principles and corollaries emerge for application to the present case. [12] First of all, the focus of this inquiry is reopening of a trial by a trial judge to hear further evidence before decision is rendered. This scenario may be differentiated from motions to reopen which occur in three other scenarios not under consideration here: after judgment is pronounced, but before an order is signed; on a motion on appeal, rather than to the trial judge; and on a motion on a criminal proceeding. [13] The most recent and leading authority is Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. (2001), 204 D.L.R. (4 th ) 545 (S.C.C.), at paragraphs 59 to 64. Dealing with a similar post-trial scenario, albeit with distinguishable facts, Major J., on behalf of the Court brought forward with approval the principles in the old cases most commonly cited by reference to Clayton v. British American Securities Ltd., [1935] 1 D.L.R. 432 (B.C.C.A.) and the more recent statement of the test stated by Grant J. in Scott v. Cook (1970), 12 D.L.R. (3d) 113. Although Sagaz Industries, supra does not mention it, the Supreme Court judgment effectively adopts the test previously set out in enumerated form by Chapnik J. in Matzelle Estate v. Father Bernard Prince Society of the Precious Blood, [1996] O.J. No (Ont. Gen. Div.). From all of this, the following statement of principles applicable to the present case can be derived: (i) Until judgment has been entered, a trial judge has a discretion to reopen the trial and hear fresh evidence. (ii) In exercising such discretion, the judge should be guided by the two-fold test: that the evidence would probably (sometimes stated might probably) have changed the result at trial; and the evidence could not have been discovered by reasonable diligence. (iii) The power to reopen should be exercised sparingly. The court should discourage unwarranted attempts to bring forward evidence available at trial. (iv) Where justice
6 Page: 6 demands it and particularly where fraud is involved or the court may have been deliberately mislead, a judge is justified in departing from the diligence requirement in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Matzelle Estate and Clayton cases contain further guidance regarding principles applicable for the motion to reopen is brought after judgment has been pronounced and before judgment is entered. In Sagaz Industries, supra the Supreme Court advised that in exercising the discretion the trial judge should reopen a trial sparingly and with the greatest care so that fraud and abuse of the court process does not result. The trial judge is in the best position to decide whether, at the expense of finality, fairness dictates that the trial be reopened. In Scott v. Cook, supra, the direction given was that both branches of the mentioned two-fold test must be met. [14] The leading authority in this jurisdiction was Sunny Isle Farms Limited v. Mayhew, [1972] 2 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 21 (P.E.S.C.T.D.). Nicholson J. s canvass of the law and the competing principles is instructive. The old English and Canadian case law and some recent pronouncements provide some useful corollaries to the basic principles: A trial judge has an untrammelled discretion relying upon trained experience to prevent abuse, the fundamental consideration being that a miscarriage of justice does not occur: Clayton, supra. It is a serious matter to reopen a trial, and should never be done unless it seems imperative in the interests of justice; if not, fraud and abuse of the court process would likely result: Woodworth v. Gagne & Gagne, [1935] 3 W.W.R. 49. Where issues of fact are contested in a long trial and where questions of credibility arise, it might be unfair to admit further evidence: Clayton, supra. The general rule is that when trial takes place no evidence should be admitted after close of trial. However, the trial judge has a discretion to admit further evidence, either for his own satisfaction or where the interests of justice require it: Devins v. Hannah, [1921] 3 W.W.R. 350 (Sask. C.A.). Reopening after the arguments are heard has been viewed as a very dangerous precedent which would, if established, lead to an improper amount of laxity in the conduct of a plaintiff s case: Barker v. Furlong, [1891] 2 Ch. 172; adopted in Sunny Isle Farms Limited, supra. The discretion to admit fresh evidence must be exercised by a trial judge so as to balance the public interest in finality of litigation and of the realities of the case: Bastarache J.A. in Tepper v. Valley Equipment Ltd., [1997] N.B.J. No. 78 (N.B.C.A.).
7 Page: 7 [15] Upon consideration and application of the guiding principles, the Plaintiffs motion probably satisfies one branch of the two-fold test but does not satisfy the other branch. [16] Regarding its probative value, the evidence qualifies as evidence that might probably affect the outcome of the trial. It cannot be said that it would affect the outcome of the trial. Cpl. Quinn would be an independent witness to what occurred between the two protagonists regarding the pivotal issue in the case. It cannot be determined until he testifies whether what was said or occurred in his presence, or his recollection thereof, is decisive, though it could be. [17] It cannot be said that the evidence of Cpl. Quinn could not have been discovered by reasonable diligence. It was all discoverable before the trial, and during the trial. The Sheriff s involvement as bailee or responsibility otherwise for the vehicles and their contents was always a central question. The Plaintiffs and their counsel were aware before the trial that they had a problem looming with Mr. MacMillan s evidence. At trial, while Cpl. Quinn s role was not noted by the evidence as being prominent on the night in question, witnesses spoke of his presence in the midst of the activity. Even I as trial judge wondered aloud near the end of the trial why the Court had heard from both sides on a matter in which credibility was in question but did not hear evidence from either the tenant s lawyer, Mr. Hennessey or from Cpl. Quinn about their version of whatever arrangements were reached and what events occurred. After Mr. MacMillan testified, the Plaintiffs were aware that rebuttal evidence could be critical. The Plaintiffs made a tactical decision. Understandable as their decision may have been to not call Cpl. Quinn before knowing what he would say, and not to seek an adjournment to subpoena Cpl. Quinn without knowing whether he would have anything to say in support of their case, they could have done either. Following closing of the evidence, both parties made their arguments based on the evidence before the Court at trial. [18] I have also taken into account the Rules of Civil Procedure, Province of Prince Edward Island. They do not add considerations different from principles advised by the authorities. Rule directs the order of presentation of evidence and arguments at trial. Rule 1.04(1) directs that the Rules be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits. There is no question that Cpl. Quinn has relevant information that could be determinative of the main issue; and as well that it is neither expeditious nor the least expensive route, in terms of this case or general precedent, to reopen the trial. [19] It has always been a fundamental consideration that a miscarriage of justice does not occur. Matzelle Estate, supra at paragraph 16 is authority for the proposition that a trial judge s discretion can be exercised to reopen the trial whether or not the evidence could have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence prior to trial. Justice
8 Page: 8 Chapnik cautions however that this discretion should only be exercised in the clearest of cases, and only to prevent miscarriage of justice. That seems to me to be a fairminded reconciliation of the conflict in the old case law between, on the one hand giving an unfettered discretion to reopen, and on the other hand advising that this discretion not be exercised except immediately at the end of the evidence at trial, and not after the arguments are made. The early cases pointed out that in none of the cases did the trial judge in exercising his discretion allow confirmatory evidence sometime after the close of trial, but only at trial immediately following the close of the main evidence. [20] I need also mention that in my assessment there is nothing in the actions of the Defendants or their counsel which has mislead the Plaintiffs. The Defendants made known to the Plaintiffs their position on the issue and their intention to call George MacMillan as a witness. There is nothing to indicate that the Defendants knew or now know what Cpl. Quinn would say about the matters in issue. [21] The Plaintiffs do not satisfy the test that the evidence could not have been discovered by reasonable diligence. Looking beyond the two-fold test, I am not satisfied that this is a case for exercising my discretion to reopen the trial to receive new evidence. The admonition in the case law is to reserve reopening for very clear cases where the interests of justice is at stake. That is especially so where one branch of the two-fold test is not satisfied. In my view, the circumstances on this motion do not so qualify. There is evidence before the Court from both sides on the question in issue. The evidence of Cpl. Quinn is intended to be confirmatory and to elaborate upon the Plaintiffs evidence already tendered. Credibility is in issue. Beyond that, there is no suggestion of the Court being mislead by fraud or similar action without Cpl. Quinn s evidence being made available. That Cpl. Quinn s evidence is presumptively credible and could affect the result of the case makes this decision difficult. The Plaintiffs can though be taken to have been aware of their problem of proof from the time the Defendants denied their claim, and at the latest shortly before trial. This is not a case for bypassing the general rule and principles in the interests of justice. [22] Regarding costs of the motion, Defendants counsel having advised the Court that they are satisfied that costs of the motion be in the cause, it will be ordered accordingly. December 29, 2003 Justice David H. Jenkins
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Donald Dover and Evelyn Dover
Citation: Dover v. Gov of PEI et ors. Date: 20040331 2004 PESCTD 25 Docket: GSC-16511 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: Donald Dover
More informationRE-OPENING A PROCEEDING TO INTRODUCE NEW OR FURTHER EVIDENCE By Rick Hemmingson, Andrea Manning-Kroon and Bottom Line Research
RE-OPENING A PROCEEDING TO INTRODUCE NEW OR FURTHER EVIDENCE By Rick Hemmingson, Andrea Manning-Kroon and Bottom Line Research Introduction There is an expectation imposed upon litigating parties to place
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Patrick Jay
Citation: Jay v. DHL Express Date: 20060103 2006 PESCTD 01 Docket: S1 GS-18505 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: And: Patrick Jay DHL
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Society of Lloyd s v. McNeill Date: 20030924 2003 PESCTD 76 Docket: S-1-GS-19948 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION In the Matter of
More informationCitation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: 20001205 2000 PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC-17689 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: DUFFY
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION LOUISE PARKER
Date: 19971222 Docket: GSC-15236 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: LOUISE PARKER PLAINTIFF AND: LEDWELL, LARTER and DRISCOLL and DAVID
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. DERRELL COLLINGS and GERTRUDE COLLINGS
Citation: Collings v PEI Mutual Insurance Co. Date: 20031223 2003 PESCTD 104 Docket: GSC-17965 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: DERRELL
More informationCitation: Trans Canada Credit v. Judson Date: PESCTD 57 Docket: SCC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Trans Canada Credit v. Judson Date: 20020906 2002 PESCTD 57 Docket: SCC-22372 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: TRANS CANADA
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE CAMERON KING
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R. v. King 2008 PESCTD 18 Date: 20080325 Docket: S1-GC-572 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE
More informationCitation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: 20020114 2002 PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC-18145 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: CARRUTHERS ENTERPRISES
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: PEI Protestant Children s Trust and Province of PEI and S. Marshall 2014 PESC 6 Date:20140225 Docket: S1-GS-20889 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: And:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Widelitz v. Cox & Palmer 2010 PESC 43 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Widelitz v. Cox & Palmer 2010 PESC 43 Date: 20101022 Docket: S1-GS-23705 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Kenneth Widelitz Plaintiff And: Cox & Palmer Defendant
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION CLAIR PERRY SCOTT GREGORY
Citation: Perry v. Gregory Date: 20030912 2003 PESCTD 73 Docket: S1-SC-24646 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: CLAIR PERRY AND: PLAINTIFF
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Against. Gerard Joseph MacDonald
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R v. MacDonald 2007 PESCTD 29 Date: 20070820 Docket: S1 GC-556 Registry: Charlottetown Between Her Majesty the Queen Against
More informationAffidavits in Support of Motions
Affidavits in Support of Motions To be advised and verily believe or not to be advised and verily believe: That is the question Presented by: Robert Zochodne November 20, 2010 30 th Civil Litigation Updated
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: 20100218 Docket: S1-GS-16828 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Stephen Lank and Stephen Lank Enterprises Inc.
More informationCitation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:
More informationCitation: Polar Foods v. Jensen Date: PESCTD 63 Docket: S-1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Polar Foods v. Jensen Date: 20020924 2002 PESCTD 63 Docket: S-1-GS-18910 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: POLAR FOODS INTERNATIONAL
More informationPrince Edward Island. Small Claims Section Actions Where the Debt or Damages Claimed Do Not Exceed $16,000.
Prince Edward Island Small Claims Section Actions Where the Debt or Damages Claimed Do Not Exceed $16,000. RULES OF COURT Rule 74 Executive Council by Order-in-Council No. EC2017-387 raised the Small Claims
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 19991027 Docket: GSC-16149 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: JOHN ROBERT GALLANT PLAINTIFF AND: STEPHEN ARTHUR PICCOTT, WALTER
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: Ayangma v. The Attorney General (P.E.I.) 2004 PESCAD 11 Date: 20040623 Docket: S1-AD-1006 Registry: Charlottetown
More informationCitation: Powell Estate Date: PESCTD 81 Docket: ES-1339(P) & ES-1342(P) Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Powell Estate Date: 20021202 2002 PESCTD 81 Docket: ES-1339(P) & ES-1342(P) Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION IN THE MATTER of the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International Inc. and Summerside Seafood Supreme Inc.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Summerside Seafood v. Gov PEI 2012 PESC 4 Date: January 30, 2012 Docket: S1-GS-20942 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 19980707 Docket: GSC-16600 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PRIVATE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, R.S.P.E.I. 1988,
More informationPLEADINGS RULE 25 PLEADINGS IN AN ACTION
PLEADINGS RULE 25 PLEADINGS IN AN ACTION PLEADINGS REQUIRED OR PERMITTED Action Commenced by Statement of Claim or Notice of Action 25.01 (1) In an action commenced by statement of claim or notice of action,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Her Majesty the Queen. and. Christopher Raymond O Halloran. Before: The Honourable Justice Wayne D.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: R. v. O Halloran 2013 PESC 22 Date: 20131029 Docket: S2-GC-130 Registry: Summerside Her Majesty the Queen and Christopher Raymond O Halloran Before: The
More informationNorth Bay (City) v. Vaughan, [2018] O.J. No. 1809
Ontario Judgments Ontario Court of Appeal D.M. Brown J.A. Heard: March 19, 2018. Judgment: March 28, 2018. Docket: M48246 [2018] O.J. No. 1809 2018 ONCA 319 Between The Corporation of the City of North
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION (SMALL CLAIMS SECTION) MRSB CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION (SMALL CLAIMS SECTION) Citation: MRSB v. Cardinal & Ors. 2006 PESCTD 16 Date: 20060327 Docket: S1-SC-25642 Registry: Charlottetown
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Senechal v MacPhee 2010 PESC 11 Date: 20100224 Docket: S1 GS- 22179 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Frank and Caron Senechal of the Cambridge Road Kings County, Province
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION LAW SOCIETY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Date: 19980514 Docket: GSC-16464 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: LAW SOCIETY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND APPLICANT AND: PAULA M. MacKINNON
More informationTsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia Page 2 [1] In this action the plaintiff sought, inter alia, declarations of Aboriginal title to land in a part
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2008 BCSC 600 Date: 20080514 Docket: 90-0913 Registry: Victoria Roger William, on his own behalf and
More informationChodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.]
Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.] 104 O.R. (3d) 73 2010 ONSC 4897 Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Wood J. September
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Society of Lloyd s v. McNeill Date: 20031107 2003 PESCTD 88 Docket: S-1-GS-19948 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION In the Matter of
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: E.R.I. Engine v. MacEachern 2011 PECA 2 Date: 20110107 Docket: S1-CA-1195 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: STEVEN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Lieberman et al. v. Business Development Bank of Canada, 2005 BCSC 389 Date: 20050318 Docket: L041024 Registry: Vancouver Lucien Lieberman and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bates v. John Bishop Jewellers Limited, 2009 BCSC 158 Errol Bates John Bishop Jewellers Limited Date: 20090212 Docket: S082271 Registry:
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Simmonds & Ors. v. Gov PEI & Ors. 2006 PESCTD 09 Date: 20060127 Docket: GSC-15443 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND:
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA
PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA November 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE TO PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT
More informationISSUE NO. 18 JULY 2008 FOR MORE INFORMATION TRIBUNALS HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONS
FOR MORE INFORMATION This newsletter is published by Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, a law firm practising in the field of professional regulation. For more information, contact: Lisa S. Braverman Steinecke
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor
More informationRULE 58 ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
RULE 58 ASSESSMENT OF COSTS GENERAL 58.01 Where a rule or order provides that a party is entitled to the costs of all or part of a proceeding and the costs have not been fixed by the court, they shall
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:
CITATION: Rush v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 2243 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-507160 DATE: 20170518 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Yael Rush and Thomas Rush Plaintiffs and Via Rail Canada Inc.
More informationCHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Fox v. Narine, 2016 ONSC 6499 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526934 DATE: 20161020 RE: CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE
More informationOFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island. Order No. PP Re: Elections PEI. March 15, 2019
OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION & PRIVACY COMMISSIONER for Prince Edward Island Order No. PP-19-001 Re: Elections PEI March 15, 2019 Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner Karen A. Rose Summary:
More informationCitation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: 20000518 2000 PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: STEPHEN ARTHUR PICCOTT,
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Sault Ste. Marie COURT FILE No.: 05-3302 Citation: R. v. Maki, 2007 ONCJ 115 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Michael Kelly, for the Crown AND ROBERT DANIEL MAKI, Joseph Bisceglia,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Simpson v. Carewco et ors. 2010 PESC 07 Date: 20100202 Docket: S1-GS-22899 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Timothy G. Simpson And: Plaintiff Carewco Holdings
More informationRULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE To any Party on a Question of Law (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for
RULE 21 DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE BEFORE TRIAL WHERE AVAILABLE To any Party on a Question of Law 21.01 (1) A party may move before a judge, (a) for the determination, before trial, of a question of law
More informationThe Role of Counsel Pursuant to Section 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act. Trusts and Estates Division of the Ontario Bar Association
The Role of Counsel Pursuant to Section 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act Trusts and Estates Division of the Ontario Bar Association November 24, 2009 D ARCY HILTZ 1 Section 3 of the Substitute Decisions
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Page: 1 SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: IRAC v. Privacy Commissioner & D.B.S. 2012 PESC 25 Date: 20120831 Docket: S1-GS-23775 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Island Regulatory and Appeal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cal-terra Developments Ltd. v. Hunter, 2017 BCSC 1320 Date: 20170728 Docket: 15-4976 Registry: Victoria Re: Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And: Varner v. Vancouver (City), 2009 BCSC 333 Gary Varner Date: 20090226 Docket: S032834 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff John Doe and Richard
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. SOGELCO INTERNATIONAL INC., and SOGELCO INDUSTRIES INC.
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: Sogelco v. Island Sea Products et al Date: 20060111 2006 PESCTD 03 Docket: S1-GS-21256 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN:
More informationBritish Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law
The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications (Emeriti) 2004 British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law Robin Elliot Allard School of Law at the University
More informationHALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON
CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS
More information2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...
Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith
More informationIN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKPC 180 Date: November 21, 2011 Information: Location: North Battleford, Saskatchewan
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKPC 180 Date: November 21, 2011 Information: 24417083 Location: North Battleford, Saskatchewan Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Jesse John
More informationGetting Out Early: Motion Techniques for Early Resolution of Claims. Jay Skukowski
Getting Out Early: Motion Techniques for Early Resolution of Claims Jay Skukowski 416-593-1221 jskukowski@blaney.com What is a Motion? A motion is an oral or written application requesting a court to make
More informationDecision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007
Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner June 22, 2007 Quicklaw Cite: [2007] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 14 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/other_decisions/decisionfo7-03.pdf
More informationDisposition before Trial
Disposition before Trial Presented By Andrew J. Heal January 13, 2011 Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A: A bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355 Date: 20150917 Docket: Hfx No. 412751 Registry: Halifax Between: James Robert Fawson, James Robert Fawson, as the personal
More informationOBJECTION YOUR HONOUR!
OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR! ROBERT S. HARRISON JENNIFER McALEER FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP THE BASICS What is an Objection? By definition an objection is an interruption. It should only be made when it is
More informationALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER DECISION F2017-D-01. July 31, 2017 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY. Case File Number F4833
ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER DECISION F2017-D-01 July 31, 2017 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Case File Number F4833 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: The Applicant made a request
More informationAdmissibility of Evidence of Remedial Conduct
Admissibility of Evidence of Remedial Conduct By Craig Gillespie and Bottom Line Research 1 Introduction When a plaintiff is injured in an accident, often the defendant responds with remedial conduct to
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And B & L Holdings Inc. v. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd., 2018 BCCA 221 B & L Holdings Inc. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd., Mark Mastrov and Leonard Schlemm Date: 20180606
More informationOrder F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. January 7, 2010
Order F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator January 7, 2010 Quicklaw Cite: [2010] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 1 CanLII Cite: 2010 BCIPC 1 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2010/orderf10-01.pdf
More informationDate of communication: 5 February 1987 (date of initial letter)
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Robinson v. Jamaica Communication No. 223/1987 30 March 1989 VIEWS Submitted by: Frank Robinson Alleged victim: The author State party concerned: Jamaica Date of communication: 5
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Hubley v. Hubley Estate 2011 PECA 19 Date: 20111124 Docket: S1-CA-1211 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: DENISE
More informationHEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000
Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v. Sam's Place et al. Date: [20000803] Docket: [SH No. 163186] 1999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BETWEEN: THE NOVA SCOTIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPLICANT
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Her Majesty the Queen. against. Corey Blair Clarke
Citation: R v Clarke Date:20050216 2005 PCSCTD 10 Docket:S 1 GC 384 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Her Majesty the Queen against Corey Blair
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22. Robert Blois Colpitts. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22 Date: 20170124 Docket: CRH 346068 Registry: Halifax Between: Robert Blois Colpitts v. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT
More informationCitation: Jenkins v. HRC & ors. Date: PESCTD 34 Docket: S-1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Jenkins v. HRC & ors. Date: 20030404 2003 PESCTD 34 Docket: S-1-GS-19359 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISL IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN Ronald Jenkins The
More informationSTATUS HEARINGS UNDER RULE 48.14
Volume 20, No. 4 June 2012 Civil Litigation Section STATUS HEARINGS UNDER RULE 48.14 Philip Cho Although entirely replaced in the 2010 amendments, unlike the transition provision under Rule 48.15, 1 status
More informationSUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment
1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of summary judgment is to dispose
More informationNOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPROPRIATION ACT. - and - - and -
DECISION 2017 NSUARB 75 M06755 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPROPRIATION ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by S. & D. SMITH CENTRAL SUPPLIES LIMITED to determine
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Noël Ayangma. Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI Human Rights Commission
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Ayangma v Infoway 2009 PESC 24 Date: 20090814 Docket: S1-GS-22233 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: And: Noël Ayangma Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI
More informationUNITED AIRLINES, INC. and JEREMY COOPERSTOCK ORDER AND REASONS
Date: 20140703 Docket: T-2084-12 Citation: 2014 FC 645 Montréal, Quebec, July 3, 2014 PRESENT: Prothonotary Richard Morneau BETWEEN: UNITED AIRLINES, INC. Plaintiff and JEREMY COOPERSTOCK Defendant ORDER
More informationPolice Newsletter, July 2015
1. Supreme Court of Canada rules on the constitutionality of warrantless cell phone and other digital device search and privacy. 2. On March 30, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled police officers
More informationPrior Consistent Statements: Their Use in a Courtroom for Both Defence and Crown Purposes
January 2013 Criminal Justice Section Prior Consistent Statements: Their Use in a Courtroom for Both Defence and Crown Purposes Grace Hession David 1 1. Introduction During the early morning hours of October
More informationPart 44 Alberta Divorce Rules
R561.1-562.1 Part 44 Alberta Divorce Rules Forms will be found in Schedule B Definitions 561.1 In this Part, (a) Act means the Divorce Act (Canada) (RSC 1985, c3 (2nd) Supp.); (b) divorce proceeding means
More informationThe Honourable Madam Justice Linda K. Webber
Date: 1 9981009 Docket: CSC-15372 Registy: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION GRAHAM TUPLIN AND: APPLICANT (APPELLANT) REGISTRAR, INDIAN & NORTHERN AFFAIRS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND AND AND AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE M. DEAN-ARMORER
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2008-00409 BETWEEN WINSTON SMART CLAIMANT AND ERROL RAMDIAL FIRST DEFENDANT AND BOONIRAM RAMDIAL SECOND DEFENDANT AND STELLA RAMDIAL
More informationRules of Procedure 10/2018
Rules of Procedure 10/2018 Table of Contents Part I Definitions and Introduction... 5 1.1 Objective and Disclaimer... 5 1.2 Definitions... 5 1.3 Introduction... 7 1.4 Mandate... 8 1.5 Jurisdiction... 8
More informationIntroductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario
Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive
More informationOntario Justice Education Network
1 Ontario Justice Education Network Section 10 of the Charter Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) (b) to be informed promptly
More informationTrials 101: Civil and Criminal Case Management Essentials, Part 3
Trials 101: Civil and Criminal Case Management Essentials, Part 3 Civil: Expert discovery Jeffrey T. Thayer, Esq. DeHay & Elliston LLP 1111 Broadway Suite 1950 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: 510.285.0750 Fax:
More informationFRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (FCERA) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND APPEALS TO THE BOARD POLICY
FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION () ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND APPEALS TO THE BOARD POLICY I. PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY 1) Assuring that members and beneficiaries receive the correct benefits
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: R. v. Levesque 2009 PESC 12 Date: Docket: S1-GC-559 Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: R. v. Levesque 2009 PESC 12 Date: 20090501 Docket: S1-GC-559 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen AND: Christopher Roland Levesque BEFORE:
More informationSubmitted October 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez and Nugent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67. v. Christopher Longaphy. Section 11(B) Charter - Decision - Unreasonable Delay
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67 Date: 2017-11-21 Docket: 2668787, 2668788, 2668789, 2668790 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Christopher Longaphy
More informationCitation: Queens Co. Const. v Currie Date: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Queens Co. Const. v Currie Date: 20010726 PESCTD 69 Docket: GSC-15779 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: QUEENS COUNTY
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Simpson, 2018 NSCA 25. v. Her Majesty the Queen. Restriction on Publication: of the Criminal Code
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Simpson, 2018 NSCA 25 Date: 20180316 Docket: CAC 463697 Registry: Halifax Between: Paul Wayne Simpson Appellent v. Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Restriction
More informationCourt Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) G1143 (2014 NLTD(G) 131)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40 Date: August 4, 2016 Docket: 14/96 BETWEEN: TANYA TUCK APPELLANT AND: SUPREME HOLDINGS
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: Attorney General (PEI) v. Thompson et al. 2003 PESCAD 18 Date: 20030623 Docket: S1-AD-0957 Registry: Charlottetown
More informationI. ZNAMENSKY SELEKCIONNO-GIBRIDNY CENTER LLC V.
(Press control and right arrow for the same effect) (Press control and left arrow for the same effect) znamensky X Français English Home > Ontario > Superior Court of Justice > 2009 CanLII 51197
More informationTHE COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF RECORD IN COLORADO CHAPTER 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS
THE COLORADO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF RECORD IN COLORADO CHAPTER 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE 86. PENDING WATER ADJUDICATIONS UNDER 1943 ACT In any water adjudication under the provisions of
More informationPLEASE NOTE. authority of the Queen s Printer for the province should be consulted to determine the authoritative statement of the law.
c t JUDICATURE ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to May 12, 2017. It is intended for information and reference purposes
More informationTo him that you tell your secret you resign your liberty.
INFORMER PRIVILEGE To him that you tell your secret you resign your liberty. -Anonymous, Proverb Introduction This section of the Guide Book describes the rule and exceptions to the rule protecting the
More informationBetween Elsa Mazzuca, plaintiff (respondent), and Silvercreek Pharmacy Limited, defendant (appellant)
Indexed as: Mazzuca v. Silvercreek Pharmacy Ltd. Between Elsa Mazzuca, plaintiff (respondent), and Silvercreek Pharmacy Limited, defendant (appellant) [2001] O.J. No. 4567 Docket No. C34882 Also reported
More information