.RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN STRICT LIABILITY
|
|
- Randolph Berry
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 .RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN STRICT LIABILITY ) \ (~),~,~/. These materials were prepared by Richard Danyliukof McDougall Gauley law firm, Saskatoon, Saska.tchewanfor - the _. -. Saskatchewan Legal -. Education Society Inc. seminar, Tort Law Decisions Highlights, June 2005.
2 / I \
3 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN STRICT LIABILITY Richard W. Danyliuk McDougall Gauley Introduction The doctrine of strict liability dates to 1866; one would hope for recent developments to prompt a paper and discussion on this topic. While the law in this area has remained relatively stable over the past century and one-half, there have been changes and nuances which have evolved and which are worthy of some discussion. Formation of the Doctrine The doctrine of strict liability is based upon the principles established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1866), L.R. 1 Ex. 265; (1868), L.R. 3 H.L It is, therefore, often referred to and plead as the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher." A brief review of that case, being the genesis of this tort, is instructive. The plaintiff (Fletcher) conducted a coal mining operation on his land. Fletcher's land was adjacent to land owned by the defendant (Rylands). Rylands ran a mill, and had no knowledge of Fletcher's mining operation being conducted next door. Rylands constructed a water reservoir, to supply water to his mill. It broke and caused a flood to the mine on the adjoining land. Fletcher sued, successfully. Both the trial and appeal decisions are notable. At trial Blackburn J. (ages ) found for the plaintiff and said: We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing
4 that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. Blackburn J. was upheld by the House of Lords. However, the higher court augmented the trial decision through the addition of "non-natural use", a constituent element of this tort which survives to this day. At page 339 the House ruled:... if the Defendants, not stopping at the natural use of their close, had desired to use it for any purpose which I may term a non-natural use, for the purpose of introducing into the close that which in its natural condition was not in or upon it, for the purpose of introducing water either above or below ground in quantities and in a manner not the result of any work or operation on or under the land, and if in consequence of their doing so, or in consequence of any imperfection in the mode 'of their doing so, the water came to escape and to pass off into the close of the Plaintiff, then it appears to me that that which the Defendants were doing they were doing at their own peril; and, if in the course of their doing it, the evil arose to which I have referred, the evil, namely, of the escape of the water and its passing away to the close of the Plaintiff and injuring the Plaintiff, then for the consequence of that, in my opinion, the Defendants would be liable... This statement of the House of Lords has been deemed "classic", perhaps because of its absolute absence of clarity. Nevertheless, if one hacks through the surplus wording with a machete, one can discern that this tort has four essential elements: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) the defendant must make a non-natural use ofhis land; the defendant must bring something onto his land which is likely to do mischief if it escaped; the thing in question must actually escape; and damage must be caused to the plaintiffs person or property as a result of the excape. 2
5 Application of the doctrine The case law that has subsequently evolved in relation to strict liability suggests that, in order to be found liable, the creator of the harm must be in control of the property from which it emanated. An excellent review of the general principles of this area of the law is found in Klar et ai, Remedies in Tort, Volume 3 (Toronto; Carswell; 1987). Note that this cause of action is related to liability in nuisance, but remains a distinct cause of action. The two are often confused, especially in pleadings. There are distinctions in the requirements required to prove each tort, and care must be taken to avoid a blurring of these distinctions. are: The primary differences a. A proprietary interest in land is not a prerequisite to an action in strict liability; b. An isolated escape constitutes sufficient grounds for an action in strict liability; and c. In a strict liability action, something likely to do mischief if it escapes must be brought onto the land. i. Non-natural use ofland The meaning ascribed to "non-natural use" was explained by Lord Moulton in Rickards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263 (C.A.) at page 280: It is not every use to which land is put that brings into play that principle. It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community. 3
6 In Tock v. St. John's Metropolitan Area Bd. (1989), 64 D.L.R. (4th) 620, [1989] 2 S.C.R the Supreme Court of Canada held that non-natural use "is a flexible concept that is capable of adjustment to the changing patterns of social existence." While this undoubtedly is intended, and most often used as a means for this tort to keep pace with changes in this society, it also has allowed some excessive flexibility in applying the test. In Mihalchuk v. Ratke (1966), 57 D.L.R. (2d) 269 (Sask. Q.B.) the defendant had carried out aerial spraying of herbicide which had drifted onto the plaintiff's land and caused damage. The Court held there was strict liability and found that, while spraying herbicide was a natural use, the method by which it was applied (aerial spraying) was not a common or natural use. In Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather Pic., [1994] 2 A.C. 263 (P.C.) the House of Lords found that the use and storage of substantial quantities of industrial chemicals was a non-natural use of the land. Further, the Court in Cambridge, supra, held that it was essential that the plaintiff establish that the harm inflicted was foreseeable. The Court found that the water contamination was not foreseeable, and the defendant was not liable. (iij Defendant brought it onto the land This is an absolute requirement for this tort. is caused; the source of it is crucial for a grounding of strict liability. It is not enough that damage In the case of Dibartolo Estate v. Avanti Tavern, 1994 Carswell Onto 3060 (Ont. Gen. Div.), a fire started in a deep fryer located in the defendants' restaurant. The cause of the fire was unknown. The fire spread because the fire extinguisher system was inadvertently deactivated by a serviceman. The court held that the defendants had not brought anything onto the premises which was 4
7 likely to do mischief if itescaped, nor were the defendants using the premises in a non-natural way. As such,"the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, supra did not apply. The case of Hallick v. Doroschuk, [1985] S.J. No. 148 (Q.B.) should be noted. There, fires were intentionally set in various places in the defendant's field, for legitimate purposes. The fire escaped onto the plaintiffs land, and burned down his bin full of barley. The plaintiff sued, based on negligence and strict liability. The action was dismissed, based on the plaintiffs failure to prove that it was the defendant or his servants who set the fires. It must be noted that plaintiffs counsel used "read-ins" from the defendant's examination for discovery, and did so poorly and to the detriment of his own case. Nonetheless, this case reinforces the requirement that the defendant bring the "dangerous thing" onto his land. While Goldenburg J. did not specifically deal with this issue in light of the problems with the evidence, there is some doubt whether the burning of stubble in a Saskatchewan field would be held to be either dangerous or a non-natural use of the land. For example, see the recent case of Denys v. Gabel, [2003] S.J. No. 428 (Prov. Ct.), a small claims decision involving an analysis of strict liability. There, the defendant burned a brush pile in a slough on his land. The evidence was that this fire had actually occurred a few months previously, but a conservation officer testified that the brush pile fire was the origin ofthe later fire, which spread to the plaintiffs land. The defendant was found negligent, but was held not to be liable under the doctrine of strict liability. Judge Halderman discussed this at paragraphs 21 to 25, and found that the piling of brush and burning it is the most common way to clear land. This being so, setting the fire could not be a "non-natural use" of the land. J 5
8 Further, note that strict liability does not apply to accidental fires - they must be set intentionally, and spread to other land: Hal/ick, supra; Denys, supra. In the recent class action decision in Hoffman et al v. Monsanto Canada Inc. et al (May 11, 2005, unreported, Sask. Q.B., G.A. Smith J.) reviewed issues surrounding strict liability at paragraphs 47 to 52. This was done in the context of an application to certify as a class action a lawsuit brought by organic farmers against the two companies that introduced genetically-modified canola into the market and environment in the mid-1990s. That application failed; note the matter is presently under appeal with leave being sought by the plaintiffs this summer. This writer was co-counsel for Monsanto. Madam Justice Smith (as she then was) discussed the general principles of strict liability in the context of Section 6(a) of The Class Actions Act, under which the judge is to consider whether the Claim discloses a cause of action. With respect to strict liability, she concluded it did not. (iii) Thing likely to do mischief Even though an object may not be inherently dangerous, it may attract the strict liability doctrine if there is an extraordinary use of the land and the object can be classified as dangerous. See Fleming, The Law of Torts, 6 th ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983) at p In the Monsanto decision, the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim acknowledged that by the year 2000, half of the canola grown in Western Canada was of a genetically-modified variety. This rose to 70% by 2003, according to the Claim. Monsanto successfully argued that this could hardly be seen as an "extraordinary" use. 6
9 The Plaintiffs had also acknowledged in their Claim that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ("CFIA") granted approval to Monsanto for the "unconfined release" of its GM canola into the environment. Monsanto argued it was not possible that its canola would be found to be "dangerous" when the CFIA's Plant Biosafety Office has granted its regulatory approval, and determined that the product is safe. This case highlights the need for caution when drafting pleadings involving this tort, or that of nuisance. iv. Escape The issue of escape is often litigated, and engenders much dispute. As was the case in Rylands v. Fletcher, supra, the movement from one place to another has been found to constitute an "escape" and is a necessary element of this tort. In Read v. Lyons, [1947] A.C. 156 (H.L.) the Court stated that there had to be an "escape from a place which the defendant has occupation of, or control over, to a place which is outside his occupation or control." The Courts have been liberal in their interpretation of whether escape has occurred. For example, escape has been found to occur when an engine was shooting out sparks while travelling along a road, and a steam roller that crushed pipes under a highway was found to be an escape (Gas Light and Coke Co. v. St. Mary Abbott's Kinsington Vestry (1885), 15 Q.B.D. 1 (C.A.). In Read v. Lyons, supra, the plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment while inspecting ammunition on the defendant's property. At issue was whether the defendant was liable under the doctrine of strict liability. The Court held that the defendant was not liable as there was no "escape" from the defendant's factory. The decision is important in that it clarifies the comments in 7
10 Rylands and appears to provide a clear indication that the principle in Rylands should not be extended. The House of Lords also discusses whether strict liability would apply if the plaintiff were injured off the defendant's property. In commenting on a previous case Lord Macmillan stated as follows at 476: In the next place, the question as stated would seem to assume that liability would exist in the present case to persons injured outside of the defendant's premises without any proof of negligence on the part of the defendants. Indeed, Cassels, J. in his judgment records that: It was not denied that if a person outside the premises had been injured in the explosion the defendants would have been liable without proof of negligence. I do not agree with this view. In my opinion persons injured by the explosion inside or outside the defendant's premises would alike require to aver and prove negligence to render the defendant's liable. Lord Macmillan goes on at page 477: The doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher, as I understand it, derives from a conception of the mutual duties of adjoining or neighboring landowners and its congeners are trespass and nuisance... The two prerequisites of the doctrine are that there must be the escape of something from one's man's close and that which escapes must have been brought on the land from which it escapes in consequence of some non-natural use of that land whatever precisely that may mean. Neither of these features exist in the present case. Lord Porter stated that the doctrine of strict liability requires an escape from a place over which the defendant has some measure of control to a place where he has not. 8
11 Lord Simmonds also provides the following comments at 481 : The decision itself does not justify the broad proposition which the appellant seeks to establish, and I would venture to say that the word "escape" which is used so often in the judgment of Blackburn, J. meant to him escape from the defendant's premises and nothing else. It has been urged that escape means escape from control and that it is irrelevant where damage takes place if there has been such an escape, but, though it is arguable that that ought to be the law, I see no logical necessity for it and much less an judicial authority. For, as I have said, somewhere the line must be drawn unless full rein be given to the doctrine that a man acts always at his peril, that "coarse and impolitic idea" as O.W. Holmes somewhere calls it. I speak with all deference of modern American text books and judicial decision, but I think little guidance can be obtained from the way in which this part of the common law has developed on the other side of the ocean, and I would reject the idea that, if a man carries on a so-called ultra-hazardous activity on his premises, the line must be drawn so as to bring him within the limit of strict liability for its consequences to all men everywhere. On the contrary, I would say that his obligation to those lawfully on his premises is to be ultra-cautious in carrying on his ultrahazardous activity, but that it will still be the task of the injured person to show that the defendant owed to him a duty of care and did not fulfill it. It may well be that in the discharge of that task he will sometimes be able to call in aid the maxim res ipsa loquitur. The House of Lords in Read v. Lyons, supra, provided some clarification of the concept of strict liability. Arguably, the discussion could also be directly applicable to the tort of nuisance where, like strict liability, negligence is not necessary. In Boudreau v. Irving Oil Co., 1974 Carswell- NB 103, [1974] 9 N.B.R. (2d) 377 (N.B.S.C.), the owner of land adjacent to a gas station discovered that his land was contaminated with gasoline. The plaintiff lessee [Mr. Roy] sued the oil company which owned the land and leased it to operator. The oil company provided the operator with petroleum products. Under the lease, Mr. Roy, as lessee, had the obligation to keep in good repair the pumps etc. The Court held 9
12 that the oil company was not liable because it was not in occupation of the service station. The Court stated as follows: [12] The lessee Raymond Roy was the occupier of the premises held by him under the lease from the Defendant Company. The Company as lessor and in accord with the terms of the lease cannot be deemed to be the occupier of the service station premises even though it is the owner thereof. The gasoline which escaped to the premises owned by the plaintiff was brought on the service station premises and stored by and under the control of Mr. Roy the occupier ofthe premises. [13] The principle in Rylands and Fletcher (cited above) is based on an "escape" from land. in occupation of the defendant. In Read v. Lyons, [1947] A.C. 156, it was held that the escape must be from land under the control of the defendant. [14] In Rainham Chemical Works Limited v. Belvedere Fish Guano Company Limited [1921] 2 A.C. 465, at 479, while the court questioned the necessity of establishing the premises, from which the escape of the dangerous substance occurred, must be occupied by the defendant it confirmed the principle that the substance must be under the control of the defendant at the relevant time. [15] No evidence was adduced to establish occupation of the service station premises or control of the gasoline which escaped to be in the defendant Company at the relevant time. To make the defendant liable for the escape while the lessee was in occupation it would be necessary to show the lessee occupied the premises as agent of the defendant. There was no such evidence. See Rainham... supra. In Darbey v. Winnipeg Electric Co, [1933] 4 D.L.R. 252 (Man.C.A.) the owner of premises contracted with a gas company for the supply of gas. The owner subsequently placed concrete pillars near the gas pipes. Gas escaped and injured the plaintiff, the daughter of the owner. The Court held that the damage to the pipes was caused by a third person over which the company had no control, and therefore, was not liable. The Court stated at page 5: In Smith's Leading Cases, 13 th ed., vol. 1, p. 915, when discussing Fletcher v. Rylands, it is said, and the authorities for the statement are quoted: 10
13 Upon the same principle it has been held that one who has collected water upon his land, and has used all reasonable means to keep it from escaping, is not liable for damage done by an escape caused by the acts of a stranger over whom he has no control, and which he could not reasonably have anticipated: Box v. Jubb (1879), 4 Ex. D. 76. In Rickards v. Lothian, [1913] A.C. 263, Lord Moulton, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in a case which dealt with water which escaped from an upper story of a building doing damage to the plaintiff's goods on a lower story, on pp , says: I admit that it is not a question of negligence. A man may use all care to keep the water in... but would be liable if through any defect, though latent, the water escaped... But here the act is that of an agent he cannot control.... [emphasis added] The matters complained of took place through no default or breach of any duty of the defendants, but were caused by a stranger over whom and at a spot where they had no control. [emphasis added] And he proceeds: Their Lordships agree with the law as laid down in the judgments above cited, and are of opinion that a defendant is not liable on the principle off/etcher v. Ry/ands, L.R. 1 Ex. 265; L.R. 3H.L. 330, for damage caused by the wrongful acts ofthird persons. In the present case.the defendants were guilty of no negligence in connection with the construction, operation or maintenance of their gas plant. Their pipe, situate under the building in question, was broken by the subsidence of a wall superimposed over their pipe, years after it had been properly placed in position, without their knowledge or consent by lithe conscious act of another volition." [page 259] Fenn v. Peterborough (City) (1979), 104 D.L.R. (3d) 174 was a similar situation. The city was not liable for a fire caused by leak from gas pipe because the city did not own or control the pipes. Finally, in terms of recent developments in this area, reference is once again had to. the recent Saskatchewan case of Hoffman v. Monsanto, supra. Smith J. noted the pleadings (including, notably, detailed particulars which were sought and furnished) were not consistent as to what constituted the alleged 11
14 escape. This confusion was compounded in oral argument (see paragraphs 94 and 95). However, Smith J. determined that the "escape" argued was the general commercial release of the Defendants' genetically modified canola cultivars into the environment, following confined field trials and federal regulatory approval. At paragraph 97 Smith J. stated "it is not reasonably arguable that the commercial release and sale of Roundup Ready canola seed and Liberty Link canola seed constituted an 'escape' of a substance, dangerous or otherwise, from property owned or controlled by the defendants in the sense of 'escape' required by the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher." She ultimately found the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action under the doctrine. Aerial Spray Cases As alluded to above, aerial crop spraying has given rise to significant amounts of litigation in this province. The case of Mihalchuk v. Ratke, supra, established that the method of aerial spraying is not a natural use. While this was likely true in the niid-1960s, quaere whether this remains true today? According to Saskatchewan cases, aerial spraying done improperly will still invoke the doctrine of strict liability as a basis for grounding liability. The following cases stand for the proposition that where there is drift of chemical from.one landowner to an adjoining landowner, there is liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. - Sartel v. Ector (1978), 90 DLR (3d) 89 (Sask. Q.B.); - Salanoff v. McHarg, [1982] S.J. No. 948 (Q.B.); - Desautels v. Sakundiak (1986),47 Sask.R. 291 (Q.B.). 12
15 This line of cases was approved and applied by Madam Justice Hunter in Fondrick v. Gross, [2003] S~J. No. 442 (Q.B.). Strict liability is discussed at paragraphs It does appear that Hunter J. recognizes the rules peculiar to this doctrine, and limits it to cases where the chemical drift is from one land parcel to an adjoining parcel. If, for example, the pilot simply missed his bearings and sprayed the wrong land entirely, the action would have to be grounded in negligence rather than strict liability. Conclusion While there has been a gradual expansion of strict liability, the tort has remained true to its original four principles or requirements. Recent cases in Saskatchewan appear to have re-emphasized the need to fit within the tenets of this doctrine. However, given the expanded social consciousness regarding matters of environmental law, together with the new Environmental Management Protection Act, 2002, one must wonder if there will not be further attempts to expand the ambit of this rule. While some recent efforts in this regard have met with failure, it is suggested that in the right factual setting the doctrine of strict liability could be an important weapon. 13
16
Rylands v Fletcher - Water escaped from a reservoir on the defendant s land causing the flooding of a mine on neighbouring land.
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG The Rylands and Fletcher Rule Refer to Elliott & Quinn Tort Law 7 th Edition Chapters 10 & 11 The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher I A Introductory Issues It is a Strict Liability
More informationLAMPIRAN 1 HOUSE OF LORDS. Between: JOHN RYLANDS AND JEHU HORROCKS. - v - THOMAS FLETCHER
LAMPIRAN 1 BAILII Citation Number: [1868] UKHL 1 HOUSE OF LORDS Between: Date: 17 July 1868 JOHN RYLANDS AND JEHU HORROCKS - v - THOMAS FLETCHER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Cairns )
More informationCourt of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie*
Court of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie* In October 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its much anticipated decision in
More informationStrict & Absolute liability: With Special Reference to India
WWJMRD 2018; 4(1): 189-193 www.wwjmrd.com International Journal Peer Reviewed Journal Refereed Journal Indexed Journal UGC Approved Journal Impact Factor MJIF: 4.25 e-issn: 2454-6615 Research Scholar,
More informationCase study OLA Why was his claim under OLA 1957 rejected? 2. What was the alternative claim? 3. What did the first court decide?
Case study OLA 1957 In Poppleton v Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee 2008, a man fell and was badly injured while at an indoor climbing premises. He claimed under both the OLA 1957
More informationTo be opened on receipt
Oxford Cambridge and RSA To be opened on receipt A2 GCE LAW G8/01/RM Law of Torts Special Study PRE-RELEASE SPECIAL STUDY MATERIAL *698771984* JUNE 18 INSTRUCTIONS TO TEACHERS This Resource Material must
More informationGoliath v. Schmeiser
GENE-WATCH, CRG Council for Responsible Genetics Founded in 1983, CRG is a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/17-4bereano.html
More informationEnvironmental Causes of Action. Six Minute Environmental Law Dianne Saxe, Ph.D.
Environmental Causes of Action Six Minute Environmental Law, Ph.D. 1 Overview n Nuisance n Negligence n Trespass n Strict Liability (Rylands v. Fletcher) n Riparian Rights n Statutory Causes of Action
More informationChemical Drift & Your Potential Liability
Chemical Drift & Your Potential Liability Stephanie Bradley Fryer Shahan Guevara Decker Arrott Stamford, Texas West Texas Agricultural Chemicals Institute Conference September 13, 2017 Disclaimer This
More informationFLOODING CLAIMS. By Andrew Williams. Last winter was the wettest since records began in It s a fair bet, then, that
By Andrew Williams Last winter was the wettest since records began in 1766. It s a fair bet, then, that there may be several flooding claims arising out of the events of that winter that have yet to be
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Sherri A. Falor, : Appellant : : v. : No. 90 C.D. 2014 : Submitted: September 11, 2014 Southwestern Pennsylvania Water : Authority : BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH
More informationCED: An Overview of the Law
Torts BY: Edwin Durbin, B.Comm., LL.B., LL.M. of the Ontario Bar Part II Principles of Liability Click HERE to access the CED and the Canadian Abridgment titles for this excerpt on Westlaw Canada II.1.(a):
More informationInternational Invasive Weed Conference: Risk, Roots & Research. Some Legal Considerations by Leo Charalambides 1
Property Care Association, London, 22 nd November, 2016 International Invasive Weed Conference: Risk, Roots & Research Some Legal Considerations by Leo Charalambides 1 Session 1, Risk: an examination of
More informationENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND LIABILITY 101: SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY - ENSC 406
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND LIABILITY 101: SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY - ENSC 406 EDITED, UPDATED AND PRESENTED BY BOB GILL, P.ENG., FEC Originally Prepared by Catherine A. Hofmann Hofmann@BernardLLP.ca Vancouver
More informationTHE USE OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND THE ANTI-INFLATION ACT REFERENCE
THE USE OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND THE ANTI-INFLATION ACT REFERENCE R. B. Buglass* One of the more novel aspects of the Anti-Inflation Act Rejerence' relates to the discussion of the use of extrinsic evidence.
More informationChecklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges
Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity See also extensive case law in this volume under the sections identified below, and in the introduction to Part XV. A. Public highways
More informationEnvironmental Causes of Action
Environmental Causes of Action NEERLS / SEER April 2012, Vancouver, PhD Law 1 Overview n Negligence: Berendsen n Nuisance n Carrier n Smith v. Inco; MacQueen n Heyes n Rylands / Trespass: Inco 2 Berendsen
More informationBurges Salmon. The Legal 500 & The In-House Lawyer. Legal Briefing Projects, energy and natural resources. The Legal 500
Burges Salmon The Legal 500 & The In-House Lawyer Legal Briefing Projects, energy and natural resources The Legal 500 Michael Barlow, partner michael.barlow@burges-salmon.com Simon Tilling, associate simon.tilling@burges-salmon.com
More informationSmt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd... on 3 January, 2001
Supreme Court of India Bench: K.T.Thomas, R.P.Sethi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6 of 2001 Special Leave Petition (civil) 1431 of 2000 PETITIONER: SMT. KAUSHNUMA BEGUM AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE NEW INDIA
More informationIngles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000
Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings
More informationNEGLIGENCE. All four of the following must be demonstrated for a legal claim of negligence to be successful:
NEGLIGENCE WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Negligence is unintentional harm to others as a result of an unsatisfactory degree of care. It occurs when a person NEGLECTS to do something that a reasonably prudent person
More informationCase 1:96-cv KMW-HBP Document Filed 04/01/2009 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:96-cv-08386-KMW-HBP Document 368-6 Filed 04/01/2009 Page 1 of 16 EXHIBIT E PARTIES INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING GENERAL PRIVILEGES AND DUTIES AND MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS UNDER NIGERIAN LAW I. Parties Instructions
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: A. LEON SARKISIAN PAUL A. RAKE KATHLEEN E. PEEK JOHN M. MCCRUM Sarkisian Law Offices MATTHEW S. VER STEEG Merrillville, Indiana Eichhorn
More informationFrom Farm Fields to the Courthouse: Legal Issues Surrounding Pesticide Use
From Farm Fields to the Courthouse: Legal Issues Surrounding Pesticide Use Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, Texas A&M Agrilife Extension Rusty Rumley, National Ag Law Center Disclaimers This presentation is a basic
More informationNOTES. The Changing Fortunes of Rylands v Fletcher
DEC 19941 NOTES The Changing Fortunes of Rylands v Fletcher The rule in Rylands v Fletcher1 has been moribund for many years. There are, perhaps, two main explanations for this. One is the difficulty of
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN DEOCHAN SAMPATH AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2012-01734 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN DEOCHAN SAMPATH Claimant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO First Defendant TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
More informationCaine Fur Farms Ltd. V. Kokolsky, [1963] S.C.R. 315
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 3, Number 2 (April 1965) Article 44 Caine Fur Farms Ltd. V. Kokolsky, [1963] S.C.R. 315 B. I. M. A. Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Gringmuth v. The Corp. of the Dist. of North Vancouver Date: 20000524 2000 BCSC 807 Docket: C995402 Registry: Vancouver IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: AXEL GRINGMUTH PLAINTIFF
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOSEPH KOSMALSKI and KATHY KOSMALSKI, on behalf of MARILYN KOSMALSKI, a Minor, FOR PUBLICATION March 4, 2004 9:05 a.m. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 240663 Ogemaw Circuit
More informationTORTS SPECIFIC TORTS NEGLIGENCE
TORTS A tort is a private civil wrong. It is prosecuted by the individual or entity that was wronged against the wrongdoer. One aim of tort law is to provide compensation for injuries. The goal of the
More informationCONTAMINATED SITES AND THE LAW - TODAY AND TOMORROW -
CONTAMINATED SITES AND THE LAW - TODAY AND TOMORROW - LLP Ronald M. Kruhlak, McLennan Ross LLP Remediation Technologies Symposium 2003 October 15-17, 2003, Banff, Alberta Environmental Law Assist clients
More informationWASTE FACILITIES: DIFFICULTIES FACING DEVELOPERS. Stephen Tromans and James Burton
WASTE FACILITIES: DIFFICULTIES FACING DEVELOPERS Stephen Tromans and James Burton The difficulties for waste facilities posed by the best practicable environmental option concept and environmental assessment
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Manufacturer designed and manufactured
More informationTITLE 12 BUILDING, UTILITY, ETC. CODES CHAPTER 1 BUILDING PERMIT
12-1 TITLE 12 BUILDING, UTILITY, ETC. CODES CHAPTER 1. BUILDING PERMIT. 2. BUILDING CODE. 2. GAS CODE. 3. ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE. CHAPTER 1 BUILDING PERMIT SECTION 12-101. Permit required. 12-102. Compliance
More informationUSES OF EXAMINATIONS FOR DISCOVERY
USES OF EXAMINATIONS FOR DISCOVERY ) These materials were prepared by Richard Danyliuk,of McDougall Gauley law firm Saskatoon, Saskatchewanfor the Saskatchewan Legal Education Society Inc. seminar, ~aximizing
More informationDoing Business in a Litigious Society July 9, 2010 CSGA/CTSA Conference Kelowna, B.C.
Doing Business in a Litigious Society July 9, 2010 CSGA/CTSA Conference Kelowna, B.C. Presenter: Jason Mohrbutter 1500 Hill Centre I, 1874 Scarth Street, Regina SK S4P 4E9 Phone: (306) 347-8484 / Fax:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LARRY JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 15, 2002 v No. 232374 Wayne Circuit Court WILLIAM TILTON, LC No. 00-000573-NO Defendant-Appellee. Before: Fitzgerald,
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 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 informationAMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM. Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, S.N.S 2007, c. 28
FORM 4.02B AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, S.N.S 2007, c. 28 1. In this Statement of Claim, the following capitalized terms have the meanings set out below: (a) (b)
More informationClaims for Misfeasance in Public Office: A Brief Summary
Claims for Misfeasance in Public Office: A Brief Summary By Lisa A. Peters May 25, 2007 This is a general overview of the subject matter and should not be relied upon as legal advice or opinion. For specific
More informationTRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT, 1992 [FEDERAL]
PDF Version [Printer-friendly - ideal for printing entire document] TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS ACT, 1992 [FEDERAL] Published by Quickscribe Services Ltd. Updated To: [includes 2015 Chap. 4 (SI/2016-23)
More informationUnnecessary inconvenience and compensation within the party wall. legislation
Unnecessary inconvenience and compensation within the party wall legislation Chynoweth, P http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630800010330149 Title Authors Type URL Unnecessary inconvenience and compensation within
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DENISE NICHOLSON, Appellant, v. STONYBROOK APARTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a SUMMIT HOUSING PARTNERS, LLC, Appellee. No. 4D12-4462 [January 7, 2015]
More informationWhen New Data Give Way to Claims Over Old Contamination
When New Data Give Way to Claims Over Old Contamination By Steven C. Russo & Ashley S. Miller April 17, 2009 One of the most significant hazardous waste issues in New York and elsewhere over the past few
More informationUnderstanding "The Problem of Social Cost"
From the SelectedWorks of enrico baffi 2013 Understanding "The Problem of Social Cost" enrico baffi Available at: https://works.bepress.com/enrico_baffi/67/ UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM OF SOCIAL COST Enrico
More informationMARK SCHEME for the May/June 2010 question paper for the guidance of teachers 9084 LAW. 9084/43 Paper 43, maximum raw mark 75
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the May/June 2010 question paper for the guidance of teachers 9084 LAW 9084/43 Paper 43, maximum raw mark 75 This mark
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE JOHN LEWIS
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO.88 OF 1999 BETWEEN: FITZROY MC KREE Plaintiff and JOHN LEWIS Appearances: Paula David for the Plaintiff John Bayliss Frederick for
More informationTHE LAW OF NUISANCE IN CANADA
THE LAW OF NUISANCE IN CANADA Gregory S. Pun, B.A., LL.B. Of the Ontario Bar, Of the British Columbia Bar Margaret I. Hall, LL.B., LL.M. Of the British Columbia Bar LexisNexis* TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication
More informationCampbell v. Royal Bank of Canada [1964] S.C.R. 85
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 3, Number 3 (October 1965) Article 13 Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada [1964] S.C.R. 85 G. W. D. McKechnie Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj
More informationMARK SCHEME for the October/November 2013 series 9084 LAW. 9084/43 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75
CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2013 series 9084 LAW 9084/43 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75 This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers
More informationA CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA
A CLASS ACTION BLUEPRINT FOR ALBERTA By William E. McNally and Barbara E. Cotton 1 2 Interesting things have been happening in Alberta recently regarding class action proceedings. Alberta is handicapped
More informationThe section Causation: Actual Cause and Proximate Cause from Business Law and the Legal Environment was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a
The section Causation: Actual Cause and Proximate Cause from Business Law and the Legal Environment was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
More informationBYLAW NO SUMMER VILLAGE OF VAL QUENTIN
BYLAW NO.240-11 SUMMER VILLAGE OF VAL QUENTIN A BYLAW OF THE SUMMER VILLAGE OF VAL QUENTIN, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, RESPECTING THE SUPPLY OF SEWER SERVICES WHEREAS the Municipal Councils of the Village
More informationCompany Law: Conwest Exploration Company Limited et al. v. Letain, (1964) S.C.R. 20
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 3, Number 3 (October 1965) Article 3 Company Law: Conwest Exploration Company Limited et al. v. Letain, (1964) S.C.R. 20 Burton B. C. Tait Follow this and additional works
More informationFALL 2006 December 5, 2006 MIDTERM EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER
TORTS I PROFESSOR DEWOLF FALL 2006 December 5, 2006 MIDTERM EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER QUESTION 1 The facts for this question were based upon Hoy v. Miller, 146 P.3d 488, (Wyo. 2006), in which the trial court
More informationDrafting Contracts to Avoid (if you can) and Embrace (if you must) Litigation. Amanda M. Quayle
Drafting Contracts to Avoid (if you can) and Embrace (if you must) Litigation Amanda M. Quayle I. Overview This paper is intended as a general primer for legal practitioners involved in contract negotiating
More informationENFORCEMENT DECREE OF THE SOIL ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT
ENFORCEMENT DECREE OF THE SOIL ENVIRONMENT CONSERVATION ACT Presidential Decree No. 14848, Dec. 29, 1995 Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16058, Dec. 31, 1998 Presidential Decree No. 17432, Dec. 19,
More informationChapter 8 - Common Law
Common Law Environmental Liability What Is Common Law? A set of principles, customs and rules Of conduct Recognized, affirmed and enforced By the courts Through judicial decisions. 11/27/2001 ARE 309-Common
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: Case Number: 1865/2005 CHRISTOPHER MGATYELLWA PATRICK NDYEBO NCGUNGCA CHRISTOPHER MZWABANTU JONAS 1 st Plaintiff
More informationThe Mineral Resources Act
The Mineral Resources Act UNEDITED being Chapter 50 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1965 (effective February 7, 1966). NOTE: This consolidation is not official. Amendments have been incorporated
More informationREMOTENESS OF DAMAGES
REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES certainly now the rule about liability for the tort of negligence and it is a matter of convenience whether we say that where the damage is not of this kind there may be a breach
More informationDistress Rent Entry Breaking Entrance by other than usual mode.
Supreme Court of Canada McKay v. Douglas, (1918) 57 S.C.R. 453 Date: 1918-11-18 D. H. Mckay and Another (Defendants) Appellants; and John C. Douglas (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1918: November 7; 1918: November
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DEBRA GROSS, by her Next Friend CLAUDIA GROSS, and CLAUDIA GROSS, Individually, UNPUBLISHED March 18, 2008 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 276617 Oakland Circuit Court THOMAS
More informationLaw of Tort (Paper 22, Unit 22) Syllabus - for the June and October 2009 Examinations
Outline of assessment Law of Tort (Paper 22, Unit 22) Syllabus - for the June and October 2009 Examinations Time allowed: 3 hours. Each question carries a total of 25 marks. The examination paper is divided
More informationPolluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819
1 Polluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819 Some Thoughts by the Lawyers at Willms & Shier Environmental
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK O'NEIL, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 15, 2004 v No. 243356 Wayne Circuit Court M. V. BAROCAS COMPANY, LC No. 99-925999-NZ and CAFÉ
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-03158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED PC KAREN RAMSEY #13191 PC KERN PHILLIPS #16295 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
More informationBRENDA COLBERT v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, No. 1610, Sept. Term Negligence Duty Actual Notice Constructive Notice Res Ipsa Loquitur
BRENDA COLBERT v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, No. 1610, Sept. Term 2016 HEADNOTE: Negligence Duty Actual Notice Constructive Notice Res Ipsa Loquitur Notwithstanding evidence of complaints regarding
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carver Moore and La Tonya : Reese Moore, : : Appellants : : v. : No. 1598 C.D. 2009 : The School District of Philadelphia : Argued: May 17, 2010 and URS Corporation
More informationPREPARING TO EXAMINE A WITNESS
) PREPARING TO EXAMINE A WITNESS ) These materials were prepared by Michelle Ouellette and Nikki. Rudachyk, of McKercher McKercher & Whitmore law firm Saskatoon, Saskatchewan for the Saskatchevvan Legal
More informationBYLAW #797A OF THE TOWN OF KILLAM IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
BYLAW #797A OF THE TOWN OF KILLAM IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA BEING A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF KILLAM IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PREVENTION, REGULATION AND CONTROL OF THE LIGHTING OF FIRES
More informationROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS ROUNDUP: COMPELLED PRODUCTION OF HIPPA-COMPLIANT AUTHORIZATIONS, ABSENCE OF TORT DUTY, AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT ROY L. REARDON AND MARY ELIZABETH MCGARRY * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT
More informationMARK SCHEME for the October/November 2013 series 9084 LAW. 9084/42 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75
CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2013 series 9084 LAW 9084/42 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75 This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers
More informationLiability for Injuries Caused by Dogs. Jonathan Owen
Liability for Injuries Caused by Dogs Jonathan Owen Introduction 1. This article addressed the liability for injuries caused by dogs, such as when a person is bitten, or knocked over by a dog. Such cases,
More information2017 DEC ii At! 10: 27
iled COURT OF APPEALS DIV I STATE OF WASHINGTOfi 2017 DEC ii At! 10: 27 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JOSHUA K. KNUTSON and NATASHA KNUTSON, and the marital community No. 75565-0-1
More informationThe Weed Control Act
1 WEED CONTROL c. W-11.1 The Weed Control Act being Chapter W-11.1* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2010 (effective December 1, 2010) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2014, c.19. *NOTE: Pursuant
More informationTorts I review session November 20, 2017 SLIDES. Negligence
Torts I review session November 20, 2017 SLIDES Negligence 1 Negligence Duty of care owed to plaintiff Breach of duty Actual causation Proximate causation Damages Negligence Duty of care owed to plaintiff
More informationInverse Condemnation and the Law of Waters
Inverse Condemnation and the Law of Waters DANIEL R. MANDELKER School of Law, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. This paper deals with research on recent trends of legislation and court decisions pertaining
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 4, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-1874 Lower Tribunal No. 13-20042 Patricia Grimes, Appellant,
More informationTORT LAW. Third Edition. Lewis N. Klar, Q.C. B.A., B.C.L., LL.M. Professor of Law University of Alberta THOMSON - ^ CARSWELL
TORT LAW Third Edition Lewis N. Klar, Q.C. B.A., B.C.L., LL.M. Professor of Law University of Alberta THOMSON - ^ CARSWELL TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Table ofcases v xix Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION TO TORT LÄW
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DIANE JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED August 26, 2014 v No. 316636 Manistee Circuit Court JOSHUA LEE GUTHERIE, LC No. 12-014507-NI Defendant-Appellee. Before:
More informationAramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Samuel Easton, Jr.
The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those
More informationPresent: 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 informationTorts - Landlord's Liability - Liability of Landlord to Trespassing Child for Failure to Repair. Gould v. DeBeve, 330 F.2d 826 (D. C. Cir.
William & Mary Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 8 Torts - Landlord's Liability - Liability of Landlord to Trespassing Child for Failure to Repair. Gould v. DeBeve, 330 F.2d 826 (D. C. Cir. 1964) D.
More informationTITLE 7 FIRE PROTECTION AND FIREWORKS 1 CHAPTER 1 FIRE LIMITS 2
7-1 TITLE 7 FIRE PROTECTION AND FIREWORKS 1 CHAPTER 1. FIRE LIMITS. 2. FIRE SERVICE OUTSIDE TOWN LIMITS. 3. FIRE CODE. 4. FIREWORKS. 5. OPEN BURNING. SECTION 7-101. Fire limits described. CHAPTER 1 FIRE
More informationParticular Statutory regimes: strict
Particular Statutory regimes: strict liability Definition of strict liability: Strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault ( such as negligence or tortiousintent).
More informationCarrell F. Bradley, Hillsboro, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Schwenn, Bradley, Batchelor & Bailey, Hillsboro.
EXERCISE: For the following case, mark in the box provided whether the sentence or sentences represent Legal Facts (LF), Conflict Facts (CF), Rules (R), or Policy (P). You may use more than one of these
More informationThe Mines Regulation Act
The Mines Regulation Act being Chapter 271 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1940 (effective February 1, 1941). NOTE: This consolidation is not official. Amendments have been incorporated for convenience
More information2017 IL App (1st)
2017 IL App (1st) 152397 SIXTH DIVISION FEBRUARY 17, 2017 No. 1-15-2397 MIRKO KRIVOKUCA, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 13 L 7598 ) THE CITY OF CHICAGO,
More informationIN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA. -and-
..,. ~ I CANADA ) PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN ) } ()7 Q.B.G. No. ------'-'------- IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA Between: NICOLE BRITTIN -and- PLAINTIFF THE MINSTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND
More informationTHE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM
THE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM Safeguarding the transaction-the old school rules Much has been written about tendering and the hows and whys of doing
More informationREPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ELECTRICITY COMMISSION AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CvA. No. 174 of 1999 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ELECTRICITY COMMISSION APPELLANT AND JOHN MORRISON AND LYNDA MORRISON RESPONDENTS CORAM: S. SHARMA,
More informationTitle 13 PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE Offenses By or Against Public Officers and Government
Title 13 PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE Chapters: 13.04 Offenses By or Against Public Officers and Government 13.08 Offenses Against Public Health and Safety 13.12 (repealed) 13.14 Offenses Against Public
More informationRSR LIMITED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY (GOODS AND SERVICES)
RSR LIMITED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY (GOODS AND SERVICES) 1. DEFINITIONS In these Conditions: Business Day means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in England when banks in London
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 GERALD SINGLETON, State Bar No. 0 ERIKA L. VASQUEZ, State Bar No. 0 BRODY A. McBRIDE, State Bar No. 0 SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC West Plaza Street Solana Beach, CA 0 Tel: (0-10 Fax: (0-1
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff,
Case :-cv-0-odw-dtb Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 EILEEN M. DECKER United States Attorney DOROTHY A. SCHOUTEN Chief, Civil Division ROBYN-MARIE LYON MONTELEONE Chief, General Civil Section
More informationBook Review: Collective Bargaining Law in Canada, by A. W. R. Carrothers
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 4, Number 1 (April 1966) Article 11 Book Review: Collective Bargaining Law in Canada, by A. W. R. Carrothers Robert Witterick Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj
More informationv No Oakland Circuit Court
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 JOHN FAGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 29, 2017 v No. 331695 Oakland Circuit Court UZNIS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LC No. 2015-145068-NO
More informationEnvironmental Appeal Board
Environmental Appeal Board Fourth Floor 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia V8W 3E9 Telephone: (250) 387-3464 Facsimile: (250) 356-9923 Mailing Address: PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W
More information