PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION CLAIR PERRY SCOTT GREGORY
|
|
- Ruby Barton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Citation: Perry v. Gregory Date: PESCTD 73 Docket: S1-SC Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: CLAIR PERRY AND: PLAINTIFF SCOTT GREGORY DEFENDANT BEFORE: The Honourable Chief Justice J. Armand DesRoches Philip Mullally, Q.C. Catherine Parkman Solicitor on behalf of the Plaintiff Solicitor on behalf of the Defendant Place and Date of Hearing Place and Date of Decision Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island September 5, 2003 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island September 12, 2003
2 Citation: Perry v. Gregory 2003 PESCTD 73 No. S1-SC BETWEEN: CLAIR PERRY AND: PLAINTIFF SCOTT GREGORY DEFENDANT Prince Edward Island Supreme Court - Trial Division Before: DesRoches C.J. Date of Hearing: September 5, 2003 Date of Decision: September 12, 2003 [5 Pages] PERSONAL PROPERTY - Ownership - Finders Text Considered: Ziff, Principles of Property Law, 3 rd ed. Philip Mullally, Q.C., solicitor on behalf of the plaintiff Catherine Parkman, solicitor on behalf of the defendant
3 DesRoches C.J.: [1] Reduced to its simplest terms, this case involved a dispute between former friends over the ownership of a belt plate (buckle). [2] Both the plaintiff, Clair Perry, and the defendant, Scott Gregory, have been involved in the hobby of metal detecting since the early 1980's. For some period of time, in the early 1980's, the plaintiff and defendant would go on metal detecting expeditions together. They did not operate in partnership in that they did not share anything that was found. Essentially what was found by the plaintiff was kept by the plaintiff, and the defendant kept anything he found. This was simply a loose arrangement by which they shared the cost of doing research for their expeditions and also the cost of transportation with the plaintiff taking his vehicle at one time and the defendant taking his on another. After a period of operating this way, they stopped detecting together, however, about two years ago they got back together again. [3] This litigation arises from a metal detecting expedition the plaintiff and defendant took together in either late November or early December of [4] According to the plaintiff, they were together operating their metal detecting machines in a potato field with the permission of the owners. Near the end of the day, the plaintiff received a signal from his machine but because it was a new machine he wanted to have verification. He asked the defendant to verify the reading. The plaintiff testified this had happened on at least two to four occasions in the past. He stated he had begun to dig the hole at the site and he thought he had it either two-thirds to three-quarters dug. He stated the defendant came over and, using his own metal detecting machine, he also received a positive reading. He said the defendant then started to dig without asking the plaintiff whether he should. Apparently this too had happened in the past. However, on those other occasions anything dug by the defendant in this way, in a hole that had been indicated by the plaintiff, was always given to the plaintiff. [5] The plaintiff testified that in order to ensure his machine did not interfere with that of the defendant, he stepped back about 15 to 25 feet. He said he assumed the defendant was going to dig, so he simply allowed him to do so. He stated he continued to watch the defendant and when he saw the defendant take something out of the hole he went over to see what it was. The defendant held up a metal object which he told the plaintiff was a belt plate used by the PEI Regiment in the late 1700's. The plaintiff stated he reached for it and the defendant gave it to him, although he noted he did so somewhat reluctantly. [6] According to the plaintiff, when they were in the defendant s vehicle returning home, the defendant told him that he did not want any money out of the belt plate, but if the find was ever written up in metal detecting magazines he wanted his name
4 Page: 2 to be identified as a co-discoverer. The plaintiff said he agreed with this. The plaintiff indicated he always thought he was the owner of the belt plate since he had obtained the original signal and he had dug about three-quarters of the way down into the hole. [7] The next contact, according to the plaintiff, between he and the defendant happened in about the first week of January, 2002 when the defendant asked to have the belt plate so it could be photographed. The plaintiff gave it to him. The photographs were taken and, although the defendant had the belt plate for a couple of days, he brought it back to the plaintiff. [8] Some two to four weeks later the defendant asked to have the belt plate again so he could show it to some friends. The plaintiff duly gave it him and the defendant again brought it back. [9] The plaintiff testified that he and the defendant resumed detecting together in about March and continued up to about April 18. They went on four of five expeditions together. He said there was no talk about the belt plate or its ownership. Then in September, 2002 the defendant again wanted to borrow the belt plate. The plaintiff gave the belt plate to the defendant but this time it was not returned. The plaintiff called the defendant several times. Finally, he received a telephone call from the defendant who told him that, as far as he was concerned, the belt plate was his; he had consulted a lawyer and had been told it was his property. The plaintiff said he has not seen the item since. [10] During cross-examination the plaintiff acknowledged he had not informed the owners of the field of the find. He said it is usual that the owners generally do not ask about finds, and he does not make it a practice to inform them. He further testified that he and the defendant had found items together before and acknowledged that if he had received a signal and had abandoned the hole, the ownership of any item subsequently found would belong to the detector who happened along and found the same hole. He agreed that the crux of this case is whether or not he had walked away from the hole; in other words, whether he had abandoned it. He repeated that he did move away from the hole but he was watching the defendant dig and they were speaking to each other. He said he walked back to the hole just before the defendant pulled the item out it. [11] The plaintiff said he assumed the defendant agreed the belt plate was his because the defendant had given it to him. He stated he had no intention of giving it to the defendant because it was his signal and it was his hole. He said he did not ask the defendant to dig the hole.
5 Page: 3 [12] The plaintiff called Rick Barton to testify. He has been involved in metal detecting for some 30 years, and basically on a full time basis during the last 15 years. He says he now spends from 300 to 350 hours per year metal detecting. He has read many articles in the area and he has been written up in magazines and in the Eastern Graphic concerning some of the items he has found on metal detecting expeditions. He testified he receives one to two calls per month asking for assistance and he has found close to 27,000 coins, 500 of which he has recently donated to a museum. This witness did not testify as an expert but simply informed the court of his own experiences in the field of metal detecting. He stated there was never a question in his mind that it was always the first person to receive a signal who owns the item found. He said the only exception to this is if the first person to get a signal walks away from and abandons the hole and someone subsequently comes along and digs in the hole. Then any item found belongs to that second person. He stated it is common courtesy and common sense that the first person to get a signal is the owner of any item found. [13] The defendant testified he has a wide range of experience and knowledge in the field of metal detecting. He stated that on the day on which the belt plate was found, he and the plaintiff were using his vehicle. He stated they had obtained permission to enter the potato field and he and the plaintiff were proceeding separately with their metal detectors over the field. He said that during one period when they passed close to each other the plaintiff mentioned to him he had gotten a signal but had left the hole. He testified that three minutes later he went to the same hole, got a signal and dug up the belt plate. He showed it to the plaintiff who grabbed it from him. He said he told the plaintiff he had found it, that it was his. He told him this again in the car. [14] The defendant stated this has happened in the past where he has found items in holes which the plaintiff had abandoned. [15] The defendant did acknowledge that he had obtained the belt plate from the plaintiff once and he had been told by the plaintiff that he wanted it back so he did take it back to him. He said he was intimidated by the plaintiff. He stated, however, that at no time did he ever give up ownership of the item. He disagreed with the plaintiff that there were three occasions when he had borrowed the item. He said the only other time was in September of 2002 when he obtained the item and then finally told the plaintiff he was the true owner and he was keeping it. [16] During cross-examination, the defendant maintained the item is his. He did acknowledge that during a period of time in early 2002 he and the plaintiff had gone metal detecting on four or five occasions. They spent several hours together during these extended meetings and there were no discussions of the belt plate whatsoever.
6 Page: 4 [17] He stated that, contrary to the evidence of the plaintiff, when he obtained the item from the plaintiff in September, 2002 he did not tell him that his reason for doing so was to show it to a friend. He agreed that 10 months after the item was found he decided the item was his and he was going to keep it. He asserted, however, he has always claimed ownership but he agreed that when he picked up the item in September, 2002 he did not specifically say to the plaintiff that he wanted the item because it was his; he did not tell the plaintiff he intended to keep it. He acknowledged that the belt plate is now in his possession. [18] Neither party has had the belt plate s value assessed so its value is unknown. [19] Counsel for the parties have agreed there is no dispute here relating to the interpretation of the law of finding. In his text Principles of Property Law, 3 rd ed., Bruce Ziff states:... a more accurate general proposition is that a finder acquires good title against the world, except for those with a continuing antecedent claim. [p. 133]......A finder is placed in a position inferior to that of subsisting prior claims, but superior to those arising afterwards. Timing is central and the jurisprudence on this subject has been largely concerned with settling priority questions of this type.[p.134] [20] Ziff also points out in his text: In disputes over property, the law is concerned with ascertaining the relative rights of the parties to the contest. This means that a better claim residing in some third person is, generally speaking, immaterial. In the finders cases it is commonly assumed that there remains a true owner out there somewhere who could trump the claims of the litigants. In a dispute between other rival claimants this is not relevant. As far as the finder is concerned, mere possession is title as against a subsequent wrongful taker. [p. 138] [21] It is not the law that is in dispute in this action, but rather this case involves a question of fact: did the plaintiff abandon the hole in which the belt plate was found after receiving the signal? [22] As indicated earlier, the versions of events described by the plaintiff and by the defendant differ significantly. According to the plaintiff, he did not in fact abandon the hole, but simply allowed the defendant to continue to complete the dig as he had
7 Page: 5 done on previous occasions. The defendant maintains the plaintiff had walked away from the hole therefore abandoning it. [23] Having considered the whole of the evidence presented, I accept the plaintiff s version of events. He testified that similar incidents had happened before where he would ask the defendant to verify a signal for him and the defendant, once the signal was verified, would dig up the item and then give it to him. It is reasonable to conclude this is what happened in this case. Furthermore, while the defendant may have thought in his own mind that there was some question as to the ownership of the belt plate, I am not convinced he asserted a the claim of ownership before he had talked to a lawyer some time in September 2002, a period of some 10 months after the item had been found. It seems reasonable to conclude that if he had asserted ownership at the very beginning, the plaintiff would not have been so willing to loan the belt plate to the defendant as he did on at least two occasions; three occasions according to the plaintiff s testimony. [24] The evidence convinces me the plaintiff obtained the first signal from the belt plate, he did not abandon the hole and, according to the evidence of Rick Barton and according to common sense, as against the defendant the plaintiff is the owner of the belt plate. [25] An order will issue to that effect and requiring the defendant to deliver the belt plate to the plaintiff forthwith. Although I cannot order him to do so, I would strongly encourage the plaintiff, if he decides to donate the belt plate to a museum or if he prepares an article outlining the finding of the belt plate, to identify the defendant as the co-discoverer of the plate. [26] The plaintiff s claim is allowed accordingly. The plaintiff shall have his costs against the defendant which I fix at $350 plus $25 filing fee for a total of $375 plus applicable taxes. September 12, 2003 C.J.
Citation: 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 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. Her Majesty the Queen. Gordon Robert Hippenstall. Before: The Honourable Justice Benjamin B.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: R. v. Hippenstall 2012 PESC 1 Date: 20120103 Docket: S2-GC-92 Registry: Summerside Her Majesty the Queen V. Gordon Robert Hippenstall Before: The Honourable
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 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 informationCitation: R. v. Smith, 2003 YKTC 52 Date: Docket: T.C Registry: Whitehorse Trial Heard: Carcross
Citation: R. v. Smith, 2003 YKTC 52 Date: 20030725 Docket: T.C. 02-00513 Registry: Whitehorse Trial Heard: Carcross IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF YUKON Before: His Honour Chief Judge Lilles Regina v. Tommy
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 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 informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Donald Dover and Evelyn Dover
Citation: Dover v. Gov of PEI et ors. Date: 20031229 2003 PESCTD 106 Docket: GSC-16511 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Between: Donald Dover
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 informationCitation: R. v. Long Date: PESCTD 87 Docket: S-1-GC-71 Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. Long Date: 20011030 2001 PESCTD 87 Docket: S-1-GC-71 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -against- JAMES
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. 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 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 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 informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. COMMONWEALTH OF : NO ,880 PENNSYLVANIA : : CRIMINAL vs. : : : Relief Act Petition
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF : NO. 03-10,880 PENNSYLVANIA : : CRIMINAL vs. : : MICHAEL W. McCLOSKEY, : Defemdant s Amended Post Conviction Defendant : Relief
More informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. STEPHEN CRAIG WALKER OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. v. Record No. 060162 November 3, 2006 COMMONWEALTH
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 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 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 informationDONALOL.~ARaAECHT. LAWlIiRARY. Before the court is defendant's motion to suppress both the out of court
IimD-J.h ~ Zl-n tl D. de!-. LlfA.nn{ Ql{ ++Dfl S~ k SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION Docket No. CR-07-1800 STATE OF MAINE, v. ORDER ERNEST POLITE, DONALOL.~ARaAECHT LAWlIiRARY Defendant. JUN 1 8 2008 Before
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 information798 September 20, 2017 No. 450 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
798 September 20, 2017 No. 450 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JENNIFER MARIE VON FLUE, Defendant-Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 14CR09323;
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 informationCoroners Act. Purpose: Where the Act Applies: How the Act Works
Coroners Act Purpose: The purpose of this act is to provide for the appointment of coroners and a Chief Coroner. The Act requires persons to notify a coroner or police of any death in certain circumstances
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 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 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 informationAll Metal Detector hunting is rewarding and a beneficial hobby to be shared by any individual or family.
Constitution Of San Antonio Area Metal Detector Club **************************************************** Preamble **************************************************** The San Antonio Area Metal Detecting
More informationPROVINCE 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 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 information1st Payment When you hire our law firm USD 950
This is to confirm our engagement as counsel and to provide you with information concerning the terms of our relationship. Although we do not wish to be overly formal with you, we have found it to be a
More informationFinders. Armory v. Delamirie 1 (1722) 1 Strange 505, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B.) 2
Finders Armory v. Delamirie 1 (1722) 1 Strange 505, 93 Eng. Rep. 664 (K.B.) 2 The plaintiff being a chimney sweeper's boy found a jewel and carried it to the defendant's shop (who was a goldsmith) to know
More informationBILL NO. 42. Health Information Act
HOUSE USE ONLY CHAIR: WITH / WITHOUT 4th SESSION, 64th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 63 ELIZABETH II, 2014 BILL NO. 42 Health Information Act Honourable Doug W. Currie Minister of Health
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,132 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DIANA COCKRELL, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,132 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DIANA COCKRELL, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Johnson District Court;
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Thomas Walker. Certified General Accountants of Prince Edward Island
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: Walker v. CGAs of PEI & Ano. 2005 PESCTD 49 Date: 20050930 Docket: S1-GS-20476 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: Thomas
More informationindependent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00668/17 November 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland
independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00668/17 November 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland What we do We obtain all the material information from
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: 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 informationCommunity Legal Information Association of Prince Edward Island, Inc. Alternative Measures Information for Victims of Adult and Youth Crime
Community Legal Information Association of Prince Edward Island, Inc. Alternative Measures Information for Victims of Adult and Youth Crime Prince Edward Island has an Alternative Measures Program which
More informationWhat were the final scores in your scenario for prosecution and defense? What side were you on? What primarily helped your win or lose?
Quiz name: Make Your Case Debrief Activity (1-27-2016) Date: 01/27/2016 Question with Most Correct Answers: #0 Total Questions: 8 Question with Fewest Correct Answers: #0 1. What were the final scores
More information4. You are required: i. To report all archaeological finds to the Portable Antiquities Scheme and follow the "Code of Practice for Responsible Metal
Terms and Conditions Anybody wishing to carry out metal detecting on our foreshore is granted a permissive right from The Crown Estate; this permissive right does not apply to the seabed or river beds
More informationADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF CABARRUS 12 DOJ Petitioner:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF CABARRUS 12 DOJ 00654 ALVIN LOUIS DANIELS ) Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) PROPOSAL FOR DECISION ) NORTH CAROLINA CRIMINAL JUSTICE ) EDUCATION
More informationSangamon County Circuit Clerk s Office. Small Claims Court Manual
Sangamon County Circuit Clerk s Office Small Claims Court Manual Small Claims Court Manual The purpose of this guide is to explain, in simple language, workings of Small Claims Court in Sangamon County.
More informationCITATION: O Brien v. Murchland, 2013 ONSC 4576 COURT FILE NO.: DATE: 2013/07/11 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO
CITATION: O Brien v. Murchland, 2013 ONSC 4576 COURT FILE NO.: 168-13 DATE: 2013/07/11 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: Edward Joseph O Brien (Plaintiff) - and - Emmett Murchland (Defendant) BEFORE:
More informationSpecial Civil A Guide to the Court
New Jersey Judiciary Special Civil A Guide to the Court Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Special Civil Part Special Civil is a court of limited jurisdiction in which you may sue a person or business
More informationIn the Provincial Court of Alberta
In the Provincial Court of Alberta Citation: R. v. Clements, 2007 ABPC 220 Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Date: 20070911 Docket: 050217389P101, 103 Registry: Okotoks Allan Herbert Clements Voir
More informationYVONNE RAYMOND VASILKA HULL. 2005: July 22, 29 JUDGMENT
l THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 240 OF 2005 BETWEEN:,\ '.,. YVONNE RAYMOND v VASILKA HULL Applicant Respondent
More informationMental Health Court Act
HOUSE USE ONLY CHAIR: WITH / WITHOUT 3rd SESSION, 65th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 67 ELIZABETH II, 2018 (Bill No. 117) Jamie Fox MLA PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL Carol Mayne Acting Queen
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Weaver, 2004-Ohio-5986.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 20549 v. : T.C. CASE NO. 04 TRD 01252 SCOTT WEAVER : (Criminal
More informationNORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 June STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Guilford County v. No. 04 CRS 83182
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DENISE HEIDISCH and JEFFREY HEIDISCH, v Plaintiffs-Appellants, HUNGRY HOWIE S DISTRIBUTING, INC., and JOHN DEANGELIS, UNPUBLISHED April 25, 2000 No. 209094 Macomb Circuit
More informationA Publication of Harlan York & Associates. How To Get Your Green Card Through MARRIAGE
A Publication of Harlan York & Associates How To Get Your Green Card Through MARRIAGE A GUIDE FROM A TOP GREEN CARD LAWYER immigrationlawnj.com 973.642.1111 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 9 Requirements Of Filing
More informationPRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Presented by Honourable Allen F. Roach Minister of Finance and Chair of Treasury Board
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Capital Estimates FALL 2016 Presented by Honourable Allen F. Roach Minister of Finance and Chair of Treasury Board Province of Prince Edward Island Capital Budget Schedules 2017-2018
More informationPRETRIAL INSTRUCTIONS. CACI No. 100
PRETRIAL INSTRUCTIONS CACI No. 100 You have now been sworn as jurors in this case. I want to impress on you the seriousness and importance of serving on a jury. Trial by jury is a fundamental right in
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Allen, 2008-Ohio-700.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : No. 07AP-473 (C.P.C. No. 05CR-6364) Dante Allen, : (REGULAR
More informationTask Force on Courthouse Facilities Survey Report ELGIN COUNTY
Task Force on Courthouse Facilities Survey Report ELGIN COUNTY Group 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ELGIN COUNTY SUMMARY:...... 2 SUPERIOR COURT (ST. THOMAS) SUMMARY:...... 3 REPORT:...... 4 ONTARIO COURT (ST. THOMAS)
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 5, 2016
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 5, 2016 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LESLIE KENNEDY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 14-02446 W. Mark Ward,
More information... O P I N I O N ...
[Cite as State v. McComb, 2008-Ohio-426.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 21964 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case
More informationA Guide for Witnesses
Community Legal Information Association of Prince Edward Island, Inc. A Guide for Witnesses Introduction You may be called as a witness for either a criminal or civil trial. This pamphlet explains your
More informationPrince Edward Island Nominee Program
Prince Edward Island Nominee Program Bulletin 15: Program Clarifications, Application Fee Increase March 24, 2006 A letter of agreement has now been signed between the overnment of Canada and Prince Edward
More informationHUMAN RIGHTS IN CANADA
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CANADA Canada has laws that protect your human rights. These are called Human Rights Acts. There is one Act for the Federal government and one Act for each province and territory. The Human
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 informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION VINCENT TORRES. ALEX FERGUSON, SHARON FERGUSON and LORI FERGUSON (BALDERSTON)
Citation: Torres v. Ferguson & Ors. Date: 20030912 2003 PESCTD 71 Docket: GSS-4167 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: VINCENT TORRES
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. The State of New Hampshire. Thomas Auger Docket No. 01-S-388, 389 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STRAFFORD, SS. SUPERIOR COURT The State of New Hampshire v. Thomas Auger Docket No. 01-S-388, 389 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS The defendant is charged with one count
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Doucette v. Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 78
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Doucette v. Nova Scotia, 2016 NSSC 78 Date: 2016-03-24 Docket: Hfx No. 412065 Registry: Halifax Between: Laura Doucette Plaintiff v. Her Majesty in right of the Province
More informationIN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL P. SKELLY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW. Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 93-016 IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL P. SKELLY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board Argued: February
More informationRULE 55 PROCEDURE ON A REFERENCE
RULE 55 PROCEDURE ON A REFERENCE GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR CONDUCT OF REFERENCE Simple Procedure to be Adopted 55.01 (1) A referee shall, subject to any directions contained in the order directing the reference,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 17, 2011 v No. 296222 Washtenaw Circuit Court DERRICK ALDEN JOHNSON, LC No. 08-002097-FH Defendant-Appellant.
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 (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 informationNo Appeal. (PC )
Supreme Court No. 2003-68-Appeal. (PC 00-1179) Jose Cruz : v. : Town of North Providence. : NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are
More informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res
More informationGUIDELINES FOR VOLUNTEERS Arizona Court Watch Collaborative
1 GUIDELINES FOR VOLUNTEERS Arizona Court Watch Collaborative I. WATCH & DOCUMENT II. IMPORTANT COURTHOUSE TIPS AND ETIQUETTE III. OTHER TIPS I. WATCH & DOCUMENT A. Whether applicants or respondents are
More information1st Payment When you hire our law firm USD 950
This is to confirm our engagement as counsel and to provide you with information concerning the terms of our relationship. Our mandate begins upon your returning the contract provided herein and forwarding
More informationIn the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 18. September Term, 2005 WENDELL HACKLEY
In the Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CT 02-0154X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 18 September Term, 2005 WENDELL HACKLEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND Bell, C.J. Raker Wilner Cathell
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. LISA W. WEEMS, v. Appellant, BOARD OF REVIEW,DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND DEPARTMENT
More informationmorning of the 27th of July last; that on the arrival of the mail train from Mauch Chunk to Philadelphia, at the depot on that morning, the
YesWeScan: The FEDERAL CASES UNITED STATES V. CLARK. Case No. 14,805. [34 Leg. Int. 312: 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 306; 13 Phila. 476; 6 Am. Law Rec. 129; 9 Chi. Leg. News, 427; 16 Alb. Law J. 224; 2 Cin. Law
More informationARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN
Daniel #2 ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN: EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE Gr. Termination 7/29/96 ARBITRATOR: WILLIAM P. DANIEL FACTS The claimant worked as a Switch
More informationSPECIAL CIVIL: A GUIDE TO THE COURT
SPECIAL CIVIL: A GUIDE TO THE COURT Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Special Civil Part Special Civil: A Guide to the Court page 1 S pecial Civil is a court of limited jurisdiction in which you
More informationConstitution Of San Antonio Area Metal Detector Club **************************************************** Preamble
Constitution Of San Antonio Area Metal Detector Club **************************************************** Preamble **************************************************** The San Antonio Area Metal Detector
More informationIN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. Under THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT. Before THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD. Tom Sawyer et al.
Public Service Grievance Board Suite 600 180 Dundas St. West Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Tel. (416) 326-1388 Fax (416) 326-1396 Commission des griefs de la fonction publique Bureau 600 180, rue Dundas Ouest
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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D ( YUSEPH BELISLE PLAINTIFF ( BETWEEN ( AND ( ( KENRICK JONES DEFENDANT JUDGMENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 1999 ACTION NO. 51 OF 1999 ( YUSEPH BELISLE PLAINTIFF ( BETWEEN ( AND ( ( KENRICK JONES DEFENDANT Before the Hon. Justice T.J. Gonzalez Mr. Jeremy Courtney for the
More informationl. Plaintiff is a Caucasian male. (See Zgodny Decl. Ex. A, Pl. Amend. Compl. at
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JONATHAN CORBETT, -agalnst- Plaintiff, CITY OF NEW YORK, RAYMOND KELLY, OFFICER DOES 1 through 4, CITY DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. ANGELA NEWLAND : T.C. Case No. 01-CRB-12962
[Cite as State v. Newland, 2002-Ohio-5132.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : vs. : C.A. Case No. 19244 ANGELA NEWLAND : T.C. Case No. 01-CRB-12962
More informationW. E. Cox Claims Group Limited v Gavin Spencer
Page 1 W. E. Cox Claims Group Limited v Gavin Spencer No. HQ17X02129 High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division 11 July 2017 [2017] EWHC 2552 (QB) 2017 WL 02978826 Representation Before: His Honour Judge
More informationc. The Charlestown Five Cents Savings Bank was widely thought at the time to be behaving badly in the face of the Depression.
I m glad to see that a couple of people are trying their had at the sample exam question. Don t try to figure out who s got title to the property. We ll get to that in the next third of the course. Simply
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS CHANCERY DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS CHANCERY DIVISION ANDREW U. D. STRAW ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 2016 CH ) ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ) Hon. ELECTIONS ) Judge Presiding Constituted as State Officers
More informationCHECKLIST FOR RULE 61 APPEALS TO AN APPEAL DIVISION I N D E X Certificate or Agreement Respecting Evidence
CHECKLIST FOR RULE 61 APPEALS TO AN APPEAL DIVISION I N D E X 61.02 Leave to Appeal 61.03 Commencement of Appeals 61.04 Certificate or Agreement Respecting Evidence 61.05 Cross-Appeals 61.06 Amendment
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 3/28/05 P. v. Lowe CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationBILL NO. 30. An Act to Amend the Plebiscites Act
HOUSE USE ONLY CHAIR: WITH / WITHOUT 2nd SESSION, 65th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 65 ELIZABETH II, 2016 BILL NO. 30 An Act to Amend the Plebiscites Act Honourable H. Wade MacLauchlan
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Cause No. 1822-CR00642 v. ) ) ERIC GREITENS, ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHARLES M. CULL and CRISSANNA CULL, UNPUBLISHED individually, and CHARLES M. CULL, February 22, 2000 Conservator for the ESTATE OF CHARLES ALAN CULL, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-
More informationLAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT; AND
LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT; AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF GEORGE ROSZLER A MEMBER OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA Single Bencher Hearing Committee:
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 06-1120 PURVIS TOUCHET VERSUS MARK HAMPTON ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20031894 HONORABLE JULES
More informationKramer v MABSTOA 2013 NY Slip Op 33390(U) December 20, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Donna M.
Kramer v MABSTOA 2013 NY Slip Op 33390(U) December 20, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 104564/10 Judge: Donna M. Mills Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 39760 JIMMY SIMS and SUSAN C. SIMS, f/k/a SUSAN C. DODGE, husband and wife, v. Plaintiffs-Respondents, EUGENE THOMAS DAKER and ELDA MAE DAKER, husband
More informationJustice Court Precinct 8 Judge Tom Gillam III Justice of the Peace JUSTICE COURT PROCEDURES SMALL CLAIMS
Justice Court Precinct 8 Judge Tom Gillam III Justice of the Peace JUSTICE COURT PROCEDURES SMALL CLAIMS Justice of the Peace Courts are courts in which parties can settle disputes in a speedy, informal
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-2-2008 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More information