PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
|
|
- Emmeline Conley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Date: Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: JOHN ROBERT GALLANT PLAINTIFF AND: STEPHEN ARTHUR PICCOTT, WALTER PICCOTT CHEVROLET OLDSMOBILE CADILLAC LIMITED doing business under the firm name and style of CHOICE RENT-A-CAR AND GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION OF CANADA LIMITED Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice J. Armand DesRoches DEFENDANTS William F. Dow Barry Morrison, Q.C. Eugene S. Murphy, Q.C. Place and Date of Hearing Place and Date of Judgment Solicitor for the Plaintiff Solicitor for the Defendants Stephen Arthur Piccott and Walter Piccott Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Limited Solicitor for General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Canada Limited Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island September 15, 1999 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island October 27, 1999
2 GSC BETWEEN: JOHN ROBERT GALLANT PLAINTIFF AND: STEPHEN ARTHUR PICCOTT, WALTER PICCOTT CHEVROLET OLDSMOBILE CADILLAC LIMITED doing business under the firm name and style of CHOICE RENT-A-CAR AND GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION OF CANADA LIMITED Prince Edward Island Supreme Court - Trial Division Before: DesRoches J. Date Heard: September 15, 1999 Date of Judgment: October 27, 1999 [10 pages] PRACTICE - Judgments and Orders - Summary Judgment - General. DEFENDANTS Cases Considered: Westland Homes Ltd et al. v. Schurman (M.F.) Ltd. (1992), 101 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 122 (P.E.I.S.C.A.D.); Lenentine v. Robichaud et al (1996), 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 270 (P.E.I.S.C.A.D.); Stratford (Town) v. Ellsworth (1997), 157 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 171 (P.E.I.S.C.A.D.); Murphy v. Tignish Credit Union Ltd. and Aylward (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 188 (P.E.I.S.C.A.D.); Palsky (Next Friend of) v. Humphrey, [1964] S.C.R. 580 Statutes Considered: Highway Traffic Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. H-5, s. 287; Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 20; The Vehicles and Highway Traffic Act, R.S.A. 1955, c William F. Dow, solicitor for the plaintiff Barry Morrison, Q.C., solicitor for the defendants Stephen Arthur Piccott and Walter Piccott Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Limited Eugene S. Murphy, Q.C., solicitor for General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Canada Limited
3 DesRoches J.: [1] This motion is brought by the defendant General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Canada Limited ( GMAC ) seeking an order for summary judgment dismissing the amended statement of claim as it relates to GMAC. FACTS [2] There are some facts upon which the parties agree. On May 25, 1993 Walter Piccott Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Limited ( Piccott ) commenced leasing vehicles from GMAC pursuant to the terms of a Rental Plan Master Lease Agreement. On May 15, a 1996 Chevrolet Lumina was leased to Piccott by GMAC pursuant to the Agreement. On December 19, 1996 this leased vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of the accident, the defendant Stephen Piccott ( S. Piccott ) was operating the Lumina in which the plaintiff, John Robert Gallant ( Gallant ) was a passenger. The accident occurred at about 12:40 a.m. when the Lumina collided with an unattended parked van. [3] Gallant claims that as a result of the accident he sustained injuries including a compound fracture of his right distal radius and ulna, compound fractures of both the fourth and fifth fingers of his right hand and lacerations to his right thumb. He claims he continues to suffer some permanent partial disability and pain. [4] Gallant claims that at the time of the accident both Piccott and GMAC were the registered owners of the Lumina. However, it is agreed between Piccott and GMAC that on December 16, 1996 GMAC was the sole owner of the vehicle. [5] The Rental Plan Master Lease Agreement includes the following two paragraphs: 1. VEHICLE USE: Vehicles leased will be used by Lessee only for daily rental to third parties under Rental Agreements in such form as GMAC may approve from time to time MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS: (i) The terms of this Master Lease Agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, amended, supplemented, or terminated in any manner whatsoever except by written instrument signed by GMAC and the Lessee. There is no evidence that paragraph one was ever waived, altered, modified, amended, supplemented or terminated. [6] Section 287 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. H-5 provides:
4 287. In an action for the recovery of loss or damage sustained by a person by reason of a motor vehicle upon a highway, every person driving the motor vehicle who is living with and as a member of the family of the owner thereof and every person driving the motor vehicle with the consent, expressed or implied, of the owner thereof shall be deemed to be the agent or servant of the owner of the motor vehicle and to be employed as such and shall be deemed to be driving the motor vehicle in the course of his employment, but nothing in this subsection relieves any person deemed to be the agent or servant of the owner and to be driving the motor vehicle in the course of his employment from the liability for such damages. [7] GMAC maintains that the issue to be decided on this motion is whether or not the operator of the Lumina, S. Piccott, had the consent of GMAC, expressed or implied, to be driving its vehicle within the meaning of s It is the position of GMAC that there is no genuine issue for trial as to that issue as S. Piccott did not have GMAC's consent, expressed or implied, and therefore the plaintiff's claim against GMAC as the owner of the 1996 Chevrolet Lumina ought to be dismissed summarily at this time. [8] Both the plaintiff and the defendants Piccott and S. Piccott take the position that the question as to whether or not S. Piccott was driving the vehicle with the expressed or implied consent of GMAC is a genuine issue for trial. Piccott's position is that there was expressed consent via the Master Lease Agreement or, if no expressed consent, then implied consent existed. SUMMARY JUDGMENT [9] Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules relates to summary judgment. Rule provides: (1) In response to affidavit material or other evidence supporting a motion for summary judgment, a responding party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his or her pleadings, but must set out, in affidavit material or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. (2) Where the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue for trial with respect to a claim or defence, the court shall grant summary judgment accordingly. [10] All of the parties agree as to the law applicable to motions for summary judgment, and I need not review it in any great detail here. Counsel for GMAC has referred to a number of decisions of our Appeal Division in which the Court has provided guidance in relation to the application of Rule 20: Westland Homes Ltd. et al. v. Schurman (M.F.) Ltd. (1992), 101 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 122; Lenetine v. Robichaud et al (1996), 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 270; and Stratford (Town) v. Ellsworth (1997), 157 Nfld.
5 & P.E.I.R [11] The approach of the courts of this Province to motions for summary judgment is succinctly set out in the latter case at paragraph [5] as follows: The purpose of the summary judgment procedure provided for in rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is to avoid the agony and expense of unworthy litigation. Both sides put their best cases forward and, if after giving the matter a good hard look, the judge hearing the motion concludes there is no genuine issue for trial, a summary judgment should be granted. The party seeking to avoid an order for summary judgment must set out specific facts and coherent evidence so as to show that there is a genuine issue for trial. [12] The extent of the onus on a responding party has been explained by the Appeal Division of this Court in Murphy v. Tignish Credit Union Ltd. and Aylward (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 188 in these words at p. 190: The onus is on the moving party to show that the motion for summary judgment should be granted. Coincident with this onus is the responsibility of the responding party to bring forth, in response to the motion, the evidence necessary to demonstrate there are material facts in issue which give rise to a genuine issue within the context of the pleadings and which is deserving of determination by the trial process. All of this has been colloquially described in various decisions as putting your best foot forward and as playing trump or risk losing. See: MacDonald v. Robichaud and Lenentine, supra; Ontario Ltd. v. Ontario Jockey Club, 21 O.R. 547 (Ont. C.A.); MacCallum v. City of Charlottetown, [1995] 1 P.E.I.R. 78 (P.E.I.S.C.A.D.). The appropriate time to show whether there is a genuine issue for trial is at the time of the motion. It will never be in the interests of either party to hold back evidence on the plea that it will be available at trial. While parties are entitled to their time in court, they are also entitled to be relieved of claims and defences having no foundation in fact or law without being subjected to the burden of the trial process. [13] On a motion for summary judgment the judge is permitted to consult not only the pleadings, but affidavits, examinations for discovery, admissions and other evidence to determine whether there is a genuine factual dispute between the parties. At the summary judgment stage the courts must see what evidence the parties have to put before the trier of fact if a trial is held. The motions judge is entitled to assume that the record contains all the evidence the parties will present if there is a trial. ANALYSIS [14] According to the materials filed on the motion, on the night in question S. Piccott took the 1996 Lumina to drive when he left Piccott's after work. Although he was entitled in his capacity as Sales Manager, New Vehicles Sales of Piccott to a demonstrator to drive, the Lumina was not his usual demonstrator. Furthermore, S. Piccott was not involved directly with Choice-Rent-A-Car, the department of Piccott that
6 rents vehicles to its customers and the public generally. [15] The material reveals that upon leaving Piccott at about 7:30 p.m. on December 16, 1996, S. Piccott, accompanied by the plaintiff Gallant, proceeded in the Lumina to Myron's, a local lounge and dining establishment, in order to attend a customer appreciation night. He and the plaintiff left Myron's at about 10:30 p.m. and went to JR's/Ferris, a night club establishment. In his discovery evidence S. Piccott explained his reason for going to that establishment as: We had some friends that were probably going to be there, and it just seemed like the place to go that evening, so we went there. [p.82] [16] S. Piccott and the plaintiff arrived at JR's/Ferris at about!0:45-11:00 p.m. and departed about midnight planning to go to the Canton Cafe for something to eat. The accident in question occurred shortly thereafter. [17] In my opinion it is patently clear from the evidence filed on the motion that on December 16, 1996 S. Piccott was using the Lumina for his own personal use. He admits this himself in the following responses during discovery: Q. Are you guessing or do you know that you were using the Lumina as your, as your demo the night of the accident? A. It was my demonstrator the night of the accident, yes. Q. And you were using it for your personal use, correct, at the time of the accident? A. Yes. [p. 52].... Q. Right. Do you agree with me, Mr. Piccott, that on the night of the accident, at 2 a.m. in the morning, that you were using the Lumina for your personal use unrelated to a potential sale of that car, do you agree with that? A. I agree that, at the accident, the accident happened, actually, at 12:20 a.m. -- Q. I see, thank you. A. -- that evening, and, yes, I was using it for personal use. Q. Unrelated to a potential sale, correct? A. Yes. [p. 53]
7 [18] Despite his suggestions to the contrary, there is no support for concluding that S. Piccott was driving the Lumina on the night in question with a view to a potential sale or lease of the vehicle. [19] Furthermore, it is equally clear he did not have the expressed consent of GMAC to be driving the vehicle. He did not specifically ask GMAC for permission to use the Lumina, nor did he ask anyone at Piccott for authority to drive it. There is nothing in any of the evidence presented to support a conclusion that at the time of the accident in question S. Piccott was driving the Lumina motor vehicle with the expressed consent of the owner, GMAC. [20] In my opinion there is no genuine issue for trial on the question of expressed consent. [21] Counsel for Piccott submits there is an ambiguity in paragraph one of the Master Lease Agreement. I am unable to see any ambiguity. The paragraph clearly restricts the use of leased vehicles only to rental to third parties. Counsel suggests the word only refers to the form of rental agreements to be used. I cannot accept such an interpretation of the wording. [22] Having concluded there is no genuine issue for trial concerning expressed consent, there remains the question of implied consent. [23] One of the leading cases on the question of implied consent is Palsky (Next Friend of) v. Humphrey, [1964] S.C.R. 580 in which Spence J., who delivered the judgment of the Court, considered the question whether possession of the appellant Humphrey's vehicle had been acquired by the driver Harvie, who was killed in the accident which gave rise to the action, with the implied consent of the appellant Humphrey so as to make him liable for Harvie's negligence pursuant to s. 130 of The Vehicles and Highway Traffic Act, R.S.A. 1955, c. 356, which contained language similar to the present s. 287 of our Act quoted above. [24] Mr. Justice Spence quoted with approval the following words of the trial judge on the issue of implied consent: It is my conception of the meaning of that statute that in dealing with the implied consent it means that one must approach the problem in a somewhat subjective fashion from the point of view of the person who was driving. That is to say whether under all of the circumstances the person, who was driving, would have been justified in deeming that he had an implied consent to drive. [25] These comments were interpreted by Spence J. as follows: What the learned trial judge was doing was putting to himself the question whether all the circumstances were such as would show that the person who
8 was driving had the implied consent of the owner and therefore, of course, whether he would have been justified in deeming that he had such consent. [26] It is necessary, therefore, to examine the circumstances surrounding S. Piccott's use of the Lumina to determine if a genuine issue exists as to whether he would have been justified in deeming that he had the implied consent of GMAC to drive the vehicle for his own personal use. [27] On this question, counsel for Piccott argues there was a custom or practice of the use of GMAC leased vehicles by dealership employees for other than rental purposes. He has filed two affidavits, one from William Robert O'Farrell, the owner of Bordertown Pontiac Buick GMC (1991) Limited of Amherst, Nova Scotia, and another from Darren Andrew Nixon an employee of that dealership, in an attempt to establish such a practice. Counsel for GMAC objected to these affidavits arguing they offended the parol evidence rule, the language of paragraph one of the Master Lease Agreement being clear and unambiguous in limiting GMAC's consent as to the use of its vehicles. [28] Alternatively counsel for GMAC maintains that the affidavits are of no assistance to the court because: (a) (b) an alleged custom being relied upon cannot be inconsistent with the expressed terms of the written contract; and the alleged custom must be in place at the time of execution of the contract. [29] While all of these arguments have merit, I consider it appropriate, indeed necessary, to examine all the evidence submitted to determine whether there is any genuine issue for trial relating to the question of implied consent. [30] Both affidavits contain the following two paragraphs: Employees of GMAC have occasionally witnessed the trade practice of having Dealership customers take rental vehicles for a test drive with a view to a potential sale. I have never had any complaint by a GMAC employee about this trade practice. Employees of GMAC have occasionally witnessed the trade practice of Dealership employees using rental vehicles without ever entering into rental agreements. I have never had any complaint by a GMAC employee about this trade practice. [31] These statements fall far short, in my opinion, of establishing any objective justification for a belief by S. Piccott in implied consent. There is no evidence as to the identity of the Employees of GMAC, their positions in the company or whether at the time they were acting in their official capacities. There is no evidence to establish how often was occasionally. There is no evidence the unidentified employees of GMAC
9 even appreciated what they were witnessing. Furthermore there is no evidence that S. Piccott was aware of this apparent practice at Bordertown. Counsel for Piccott stated at the hearing that details concerning the matters included in these two paragraphs are available. That is too late for purposes of this motion. As noted above, it is well settled in this Province that in response to a motion for summary judgment a party must play trump or risk losing. [32] In the affidavit of S. Piccott filed on this motion there appears the following two paragraphs: From the time the Master Lease Agreement, dated May 25, 1993, was signed, and certainly up to the time of the accident giving rise to this action, the people employed by Piccott used General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Canada, Limited vehicles for multiple purposes. Both Walter Piccott and myself frequently used rental vehicles for personal use when it was deemed necessary. Both Walter Piccott, myself, and other employees of Piccott used rental vehicles for purposes of having them replenished with gasoline, for purposes of having them cleaned, for purposes of having them maintained, for purposes of picking up and dropping off customers, and for purposes of demonstrating vehicles to the public. Salesmen are salesmen for all their waking hours of the day and potential is always there, if a vehicle is able to [sic] seen, for a sale or rental. Up until the accident giving rise to this action, there was never any complaint from any representative of General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Canada, Limited to use of the rental vehicles as described above. There are two virtually identical paragraphs in an affidavit of Walter Piccott, the President of Piccott. [33] There is no explanation in the affidavits as to what personal use entailed. Certainly, the specific uses described in these paragraphs are not personal uses as suggested. It is clear from the evidence that the driving of the leased vehicles for servicing, gassing, cleaning, washing, picking up rental customers, and showing the vehicle with a view to its possible rental falls within a reasonable interpretation of permitted uses under paragraph one of the Master Lease Agreement. It appears the possible sale of the leased vehicles is not contemplated in the Agreement. [34] The discovery testimony of both Walter Piccott and S. Piccott contains little justification for a belief on the part of S. Piccott that he had the implied consent of GMAC for his particular use of the Lumina on the night in question. The most Walter Piccott could say was that GMAC was probably aware of the uses of its leased vehicles for purposes other than rental, but he could not recall any incidents which specifically would have brought such uses to GMAC's attention.
10 [35] S. Piccott acknowledged he had not asked GMAC for permission to drive the Lumina for personal use. Clearly, on the night in question he had no specific sale or rental of the vehicle in mind when he drove it. His discovery testimony includes the following exchanges: Q. Do you have any evidence to suggest that, on the evening of this accident, GMAC was aware that you were using the car for your personal use unrelated to sales or rentals? A. Not to my knowledge. [pp. 56-7].... Q. Do you agree with me that GMAC would be unaware the night of the accident that you were using the Lumina for your personal use unrelated to sales or rentals? Mr. Morrison: You asked him that question. Q. What was his answer? We weren't or we were? Mr. Morrison: He had no reason to believe that you were. Q. Thank you. Mr. Morrison: Except that, impliedly. [p. 63] [36] My detailed review of all the evidence submitted reveals no support for the proposition that GMAC was aware, or even probably aware, of the personal uses being made of its vehicles which were the subject of the Master Lease Agreement. Indeed such knowledge is specifically denied by Guy Brocks, the Operations Manager of the Commercial Lending Department of GMAC in Halifax. Without such knowledge on the part of GMAC it is impossible to impute or infer an implied consent on its part. [37] On the whole of the record submitted, I conclude there is no evidence that GMAC expressly consented to S. Piccott driving the Lumina on the evening of December 16, Furthermore, in my opinion, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants Piccott and S. Piccott have presented specific facts or coherent evidence to establish a reasonable justification for S. Piccott deeming that he had the implied consent of GMAC to drive the vehicle for the purpose of attending at Myron's, JR's/Ferris and the Canton Cafe on the night in question in the circumstances revealed by the evidence. [38] For all of the above reasons I conclude there is no genuine issue for trial as to whether or not S. Piccott had the consent, expressed or implied, of GMAC to be driving its Lumina vehicle at the time of the accident giving rise to this litigation. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against GMAC as owner of the 1996 Chevrolet Lumina ought to be dismissed summarily. The motion for summary judgment is granted. An order shall
11 issue accordingly dismissing the plaintiff's claim in the amended statement of claim against GMAC and granting leave to GMAC to discontinue its cross-claim against Piccott. COSTS [39] GMAC has requested that the plaintiff be ordered to pay its costs of this motion and of defending the plaintiff's action. GMAC also seeks an order that it be indemnified by the plaintiff as to any costs payable to Piccott by GMAC as a result of its counterclaim. [40] Counsel for GMAC acknowledged at the hearing that, to a large extent, the plaintiff is an innocent party in this action. In my view it was entirely reasonable in the circumstances for the plaintiff to name GMAC as a defendant in his action. He was not privy to the leasing arrangement between GMAC and Piccott, and had to protect his interests as against all potential defendants. [41] Given those circumstances, I would exercise my discretion in regards to costs and order the plaintiff and Piccott to each pay one half of GMAC's party and party costs on this motion only. There shall be no costs payable by GMAC to Piccott as a result of its counterclaim against Piccott. October 27, 1999 J.
Citation: 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 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 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 informationCitation: Trans Canada Credit v. Judson Date: PESCTD 57 Docket: SCC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Trans Canada Credit v. Judson Date: 20020906 2002 PESCTD 57 Docket: SCC-22372 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: TRANS CANADA
More 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 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Widelitz v. Cox & Palmer 2010 PESC 43 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Widelitz v. Cox & Palmer 2010 PESC 43 Date: 20101022 Docket: S1-GS-23705 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Kenneth Widelitz Plaintiff And: Cox & Palmer Defendant
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. 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 informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,
More informationCROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT
c t CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 20, 2017. It is intended for information and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Amirault v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan, 2016 NSSC 293
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Amirault v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan, 2016 NSSC 293 Date: 20161102 Docket: Dig No. 439345 Registry: Digby Between:
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 informationCitation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: 20001205 2000 PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC-17689 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: DUFFY
More 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 informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Hubley v. Hubley Estate 2011 PECA 19 Date: 20111124 Docket: S1-CA-1211 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: DENISE
More 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 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 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 informationPLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.
PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to November 1, 2003. It is intended for information and reference purposes only. This
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 BEFORE: R. McCutcheon: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 28, 2015 at Toronto Oral hearing Post-hearing activity completed on September 10, 2015
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Senechal v MacPhee 2010 PESC 11 Date: 20100224 Docket: S1 GS- 22179 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Frank and Caron Senechal of the Cambridge Road Kings County, Province
More 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 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 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 informationOCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT
c t OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to November 1, 2003. It is intended for information and
More informationCONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT
c t CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund v. Amirault, 2017 NSCA 50
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund v. Amirault, 2017 NSCA 50 Date: 20170613 Docket: CA 460158 Registry: Halifax Between:
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 informationPLEADINGS RULE 25 PLEADINGS IN AN ACTION
PLEADINGS RULE 25 PLEADINGS IN AN ACTION PLEADINGS REQUIRED OR PERMITTED Action Commenced by Statement of Claim or Notice of Action 25.01 (1) In an action commenced by statement of claim or notice of action,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Simpson v. Carewco et ors. 2010 PESC 07 Date: 20100202 Docket: S1-GS-22899 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Timothy G. Simpson And: Plaintiff Carewco Holdings
More informationHIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT DEALER S TRADE LICENSE REGULATIONS
c t HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT DEALER S TRADE LICENSE REGULATIONS PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this regulation, current to February 1, 2004.
More informationNOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Applicant: [X] Respondents: [X] and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) SECTION 29 APPLICATION DECISION Representatives: [X] Action:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: North Point Holdings Ltd. v. Palmeter, 2016 NSSC 39
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: North Point Holdings Ltd. v. Palmeter, 2016 NSSC 39 Date: 20160129 Docket: Hfx No. 317894 Registry: Halifax Between: North Point Holdings Limited and John Bashynski
More informationRULE 60 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS
RULE 60 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS DEFINITIONS 60.01 In Rules 60.02 to 60.19, (a) "creditor" means a person who is entitled to enforce an order for the payment or recovery of money; (b) "debtor" means a person
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Banfield v. RKO Steel Ltd., 2017 NSSC 232. Thomas Banfield D E C I S I O N
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Banfield v. RKO Steel Ltd., 2017 NSSC 232 Date: 2017-09-07 Docket: Hfx No. 415476 Registry: Halifax Between: Thomas Banfield v. Plaintiff RKO Steel Limited, a body
More informationTRIALS RULE 52 TRIAL PROCEDURE
TRIALS RULE 52 TRIAL PROCEDURE FAILURE TO ATTEND AT TRIAL 52.01 (1) Where an action is called for trial and all parties fail to attend, the trial judge may strike the action off the trial list. (2) Where
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Fawson Estate v. Deveau, 2015 NSSC 355 Date: 20150917 Docket: Hfx No. 412751 Registry: Halifax Between: James Robert Fawson, James Robert Fawson, as the personal
More informationBILL NO. 15. Highway Traffic (Combating Impaired Driving) Amendment Act
HOUSE USE ONLY CHAIR: WITH / WITHOUT 3rd SESSION, 64th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 61 ELIZABETH II, 2012 BILL NO. 15 Highway Traffic (Combating Impaired Driving) Amendment Act Honourable
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 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 informationCourt File No: SIGS SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (GENERAL SECTION) KEVIN J. ARSENAULT
Court File No: SIGS27017. BETWEEN: and SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (GENERAL SECTION) KEVIN J. ARSENAULT THE GOVERNMENT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, as represented by the MINISTER OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And: Varner v. Vancouver (City), 2009 BCSC 333 Gary Varner Date: 20090226 Docket: S032834 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff John Doe and Richard
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Surette v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board), 2017 NSCA 81
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Surette v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Board), 2017 NSCA 81 Date: 20171103 Docket: CA 460849 Registry: Halifax In the matter of: A stated case pursuant to s.
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION CLAIR PERRY SCOTT GREGORY
Citation: Perry v. Gregory Date: 20030912 2003 PESCTD 73 Docket: S1-SC-24646 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: CLAIR PERRY AND: PLAINTIFF
More information2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP
2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP 2013 CarswellOnt 12254, 2013 ONSC 5288, 232 A.C.W.S. (3d) 95, 31 C.L.R. (4th) 89 S&R Flooring Concepts Inc.,
More informationA PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN Martin C.Ward Introduction: The Crown could not be sued at common law. The Courts were creations of the Crown and as such it could not be compelled
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: MacNutt v. Acadia University, 2017 NSCA 57. Laura MacNutt/PIER 101 Home Designs Inc.
Between: NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: MacNutt v. Acadia University, 2017 NSCA 57 Laura MacNutt/PIER 101 Home Designs Inc. v. Date: 20170620 Docket: CA 455902 / CA 458781 Registry: Halifax Appellant
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.
More informationBILL NO. 12. An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act
HOUSE USE ONLY CHAIR: WITH / WITHOUT 2nd SESSION, 65th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 65 ELIZABETH II, 2016 BILL NO. 12 An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act Honourable H. Wade
More informationCourt Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) G1143 (2014 NLTD(G) 131)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40 Date: August 4, 2016 Docket: 14/96 BETWEEN: TANYA TUCK APPELLANT AND: SUPREME HOLDINGS
More informationAPRIL 18, 2012 FRITZ SCHROTH AND NELLIE CLARK NO CA-1385 COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS
FRITZ SCHROTH AND NELLIE CLARK VERSUS ESTATE OF MARTHA ANN SAMUEL; CYNTHIA SAMUEL; STEPHANIE SAMUEL & LAFAYETTE INSURANCE CO. * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2011-CA-1385 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bruhm, 2018 NSSC 295. v. Austin James Douglas Bruhm. Voir Dire Decision
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Bruhm, 2018 NSSC 295 Date: 20181121 Docket: CRBW473972 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Austin James Douglas Bruhm Restriction on Publication
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Cairns v Bd. of School Trustees & Ors 2009 PESC 03 GORDON CAIRNS
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Cairns v Bd. of School Trustees & Ors 2009 PESC 03 Court File No. S2-GS-5182 Date: 20090128 Registry: Summerside BETWEEN: GORDON CAIRNS PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: 20100218 Docket: S1-GS-16828 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Stephen Lank and Stephen Lank Enterprises Inc.
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4623 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants
More informationc t QUIETING TITLES ACT
c t QUIETING TITLES ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference
More informationR. v. LORNA BOURGET 2007 NWTTC 13 File: T-01-CR IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN.
R. v. LORNA BOURGET 2007 NWTTC 13 File: T-01-CR-2007000630 IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IN THE MATTER OF: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - LORNA BOURGET Applicant REASONS FOR DECISION
More informationMULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS IN MULTIPLE FORUMS
1 MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS IN MULTIPLE FORUMS Jean McKenna Huestis Ritch Barristers & Solicitors Suite 1200; 1809 Barrington Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3K8 2 Introduction A single policing incident can
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 informationCase Name: 7895 Tranmere Drive Management Inc. v. Helter Investments Ltd.
Case Name: 7895 Tranmere Drive Management Inc. v. Helter Investments Ltd. Between 7895 Tranmere Drive Management Inc., plaintiff, and Helter Investments Limited, defendant And between Helter Investments
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 informationPlaintiff JUDGMENT. was the driver of a motorcycle which the collided with a motor vehicle, driven at the time by a Mrs
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v Nova Scotia Limited, 2018 NSSC 181
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v. 3255177 Nova Scotia Limited, 2018 NSSC 181 Date: 2018-07-26 Docket: Hfx No. 469037 Registry: Halifax Between: Royal Bank of Canada v. 3255177
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: Attorney General (PEI) v. Thompson et al. 2003 PESCAD 18 Date: 20030623 Docket: S1-AD-0957 Registry: Charlottetown
More informationACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession DISCLOSURE REVISITED
ACCESS TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Divergent Trends in the Legal Profession November 29, 2002 DISCLOSURE REVISITED Faculty: Anne Malick, Q.C. Speaking Notes Access to Solicitor/Client Privilegd Information-McClure
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17. v. Royal Bank of Canada
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17 Date: 20180221 Docket: CA 460374/464441 Registry: Halifax Between: Baypoint Holdings Limited, and John
More informationSpokane County Bar Association's Appellate Practice CLE WASHINGTON APPELLATE LAW CASE REVIEW: Significant Cases in 2017/2018
Spokane County Bar Association's Appellate Practice CLE WASHINGTON APPELLATE LAW CASE REVIEW: Significant Cases in 2017/2018 Case: Estate of Dempsey v. Spokane Washington Hospital Co., 1 Wn. App. 2d 628,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS XIN WU and NINA SHUE, Plaintiffs, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2011 and WILLIAM LANSAT, as Personal Representative of the Estate of SOL-IL SU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 294250
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case No. 1272/2015 MFANZILE VUSI HLOPHE Plaintiff And THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH MATHOBELA SIPHESIHLE XOLILE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 st Defendant
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES BARTH, Personal Representative of the Estate of JOANNA BARTH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 22, 2005 v No. 262605 Ottawa Circuit Court GOAL
More informationUniform Class Proceedings Act
8-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-2 Table of Contents PART I: DEFINITIONS 1 Definitions PART II: CERTIFICATION 2 Plaintiff s class proceeding 3 Defendant s class proceeding
More informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Russell, S.J. SHERMAN DREHER, ET AL. v. Record No. 052508 OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER September 15, 2006 BUDGET RENT-A-CAR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A122523
Filed 10/30/09 P. v. Bolden CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
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 informationBoard of Claims -- Limitation on damage awards -- Hearing officers -- Asbestos related claims. (1) A Board of Claims, composed of the members
44.070 Board of Claims -- Limitation on damage awards -- Hearing officers -- Asbestos related claims. (1) A Board of Claims, composed of the members of the Crime Victims Compensation Board as hereinafter
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ERIN NASEEF, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2017 v No. 329054 Oakland Circuit Court WALLSIDE, INC., LC No. 2014-143534-NO and Defendant, HFS CONSTRUCTION,
More informationNEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
March 20, 2009 A-2009-004 NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT A-2009-004 Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority Summary: The Applicant applied under
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: E.R.I. Engine v. MacEachern 2011 PECA 2 Date: 20110107 Docket: S1-CA-1195 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: STEVEN
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 19980707 Docket: GSC-16600 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PRIVATE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, R.S.P.E.I. 1988,
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20181121 Docket: CI 16-01-04438 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Shirritt-Beaumont v. Frontier School Division Cited as: 2018 MBQB 177 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) RAYMOND
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TIMOTHY BYZEWSKI and KATHLEEN BYZEWSKI, UNPUBLISHED January 20, 2004 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 242676 Oakland Circuit Court AEROTEK, INC., and GENERAL MOTORS LC No.
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: J.J.C. (a young offender) v. R. 2003 PESCAD 26 Date: 20031020 Docket: S1-AD-0987 Registry: Charlottetown Publication
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacIntosh, 2018 NSPC 23. v. Emily Anne MacIntosh DECISION REGARDING ADJOURNMENT
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacIntosh, 2018 NSPC 23 Date: 2018-07-19 Docket: 8189240 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Emily Anne MacIntosh DECISION REGARDING ADJOURNMENT
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 informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Skinner v. Nova Scotia (Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal), 2018 NSCA 23 Date: 20180309 Docket: CA 449275 Registry: Halifax Between: Wayne Skinner v. Workers Compensation
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LARRY KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2016 v No. 323755 Wayne Circuit Court ROSEMARY KING, DERRICK ROE, JOHN LC No. 13-003902-NI DOE, and ALLSTATE
More informationjky Appealed from the Twenty Second Judicial District Court Judgment Rendered March Mary E Heck Barrios
STATE OF LOUlSIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2008 CA 1973 ERIC PAUL MCNEIL VERSUS JOSEPH J MILLER AND LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY Judgment Rendered March 27 2009 jky Appealed from
More informationCivil Procedure Act 2010
Examinable excerpts of Civil Procedure Act 2010 as at 2 October 2018 1 Purposes CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY (1) The main purposes of this Act are (a) to reform and modernise the laws, practice, procedure and
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 informationOgletree v Rolle 2013 NY Slip Op 30477(U) March 4, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 29966/2010 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished
Ogletree v Rolle 2013 NY Slip Op 30477(U) March 4, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 29966/2010 Judge: Robert J. McDonald Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
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 informationPLEASE NOTE. authority of the Queen s Printer for the province should be consulted to determine the authoritative statement of the law.
c t JUDICATURE ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to May 12, 2017. It is intended for information and reference purposes
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Meredith (Re), 2018 NSSC 153. In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Griffith Thomas Meredith DECISION
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Meredith (Re), 2018 NSSC 153 Date: 20180612 Docket: Halifax, No. 471584; B-41715 Registry: Halifax In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Griffith Thomas Meredith DECISION
More informationAtlantic Provinces Special Education Authority Act
Atlantic Provinces Special Education Authority Act CHAPTER 194 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 as amended by 1990, c. 29; 2010, c. 53, ss. 1-4, 6-11; 2011, c. 51, ss. 1-11; 2018, c. 1, Sch. A, s. 102 2018
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: White v. Iosipescu, 2015 NSSC 257
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: White v. Iosipescu, 2015 NSSC 257 Date: 2015-09-30 Docket: Halifax, No. 344284 Registry: Halifax Between: Anne-Marie White, Margaret White and Jenny White Plaintiffs
More informationmay institute, without paying a filing fee, a proceeding under this chapter to secure relief.
Page 1 West's General Laws of Rhode Island Annotated Currentness Title 10. Courts and Civil Procedure--Procedure in Particular Actions Chapter 9.1. Post Conviction Remedy 10-9.1-1. Remedy--To whom available--conditions
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Defendants ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
ONTARIO CITATION: Leis v. Clarke, 2017 ONSC 4360 COURT FILE NO.: 2106/13 DATE: 2017/08/08 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Lauren Leis Plaintiff - and - Jordan Clarke, Julie Clarke, and Amy L.
More information