Affidavits in Support of Motions
|
|
- Griffin Manning
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Affidavits in Support of Motions To be advised and verily believe or not to be advised and verily believe: That is the question Presented by: Robert Zochodne November 20, th Civil Litigation Updated Conference Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello, Montebello, Québec ZOCHODNE BUCCI 106 Stevenson Road, South Oshawa, ON L1J- 5M1 Tel: (905) Fax: (905)
2 2 INTRODUCTION This paper deals with two different but somewhat related topics. The first is the application of Rule of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as it relates to the use of affidavit evidence on the hearing of a motion where the evidence sought to be tendered is not within the personal knowledge of the deponent. The second topic relates to those circumstances where counsel seeks to rely upon an affidavit sworn by a lawyer. AFFIDAVITS BASED UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF Unlike evidence tendered at a trial, generally hearsay evidence can be tendered at the hearing of a motion. However, the form and content of an affidavit containing hearsay evidence must comply with the requirements set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure. follows: The starting point is Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides inter alia as (4) An affidavit for use on a motion may contain statements of the deponent s information and belief, if the source of the information and the fact of the belief are specified in the affidavit. The current Rules of Civil Procedure came into force in 1985.
3 3 Cases decided under the Rules as they existed prior to that date consistently ruled that hearsay evidence within affidavits would be disregarded where the source of the information and the fact of the belief were not specifically disclosed. It is for this reason that the current Rule (4) was continued in the Rules of Civil Procedure in However, the case law took a decidedly different turn after the new Rules came in to force, despite the above. The first decided case dealing with this issue after the new Rules was the decision of the Ontario District Court in Abco Box & Carton Co. v. Dafoe & Dafoe Inc. 1 from The affidavit considered by Justice Hudson was that of the Plaintiff s President and the affidavit in question did not specify the source of the deponent s information and the fact of his belief with respect to an issue before the Court. Justice Hudson cited the practice under the previous Rules, as set out above, but also cited a new provision in the Rules, namely Rule 1.04 (1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which states the following: Rule 1.04 (1) These Rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits. following: With this new provision, and in all the circumstances, Justice Hudson stated the 1 (1987) CarswellOnt 196, 65 C.B.R. (N.S.) 292, 20 C.P.C. (2d) 128
4 4 In my opinion, the former practice should not be continued in a case that is as clear as the one with which I am now dealing. 2 Justice Hudson permitted the evidence; however, perhaps out of respect for previous authority and the clear wording of Rule 39.01(4), Justice Hudson awarded no costs as a sanction for the failure to set out the source of the deponent s belief. In D Angelo v. Maco Security Monitoring Inc. 3, Justice O Neill was called upon to determine whether or not the Defendant s motion should fail as a result of what was alleged to be an improper affidavit. Once again, as in Abco, objection was taken because the affidavit in question did not clearly specify the source of the information and belief of the deponent. Justice O Neill summarized the laws as follows: In determining the sufficiency or otherwise of the affidavit material, and whether or not I am able to rely on the copy of the service agreement attached as Exhibit D to the said affidavit, I bear in mind the following legal principles: 2 Ibid, para (2006) CarswellOnt 5405, 151 A.C.W.S. (3d) 389
5 5 (i) The rules of civil proceeding shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits Rule 1.04 (1). (ii) Where as affidavit relied upon on a motion for summary judgment does not state the source of information and the fact of the deponent s belief, the court may nevertheless rely upon the substance of the exhibits to the affidavit in evaluating the merits of the affiant s case. See Abco Box & Carton Co. v. Dafoe & Dafoe Inc., [1987] O.J. No (Ont. Dist. Ct.). (iii) Paragraphs in affidavits for use on motions or applications which fail to state the source of the information are not automatically struck out. Paragraphs in affidavits which fail to state the source of the information and the belief as to non-contentious matters can be saved through the application of Rule 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.C.P. See Cameron v. Taylor (1992), 10 O.R. (3d) 277 (Ont. Gen. Div.). (iv) In an application to set aside a default Judgment, despite an applicant s failure to set out facts relied upon in an affidavit to indicate a good defence on the merits and exercise more care in drafting the affidavit, the court will not deny the litigant s action without an opportunity for trial on the merits. See Lloyd v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., [1989] N.S.J. No. 125 (N.S. C.A.) 4 Justice O Neill permitted the Affidavit, stating the following: 4 Ibid, para. 27.
6 6 I am persuaded, on the basis of the information provided at the hearing of the motion before me, and on the basis of submissions made by the parties, that the authenticity of the service contract was not an issue for the purpose of dealing with the motion before me. It clearly would have been preferable for an individual from Maco with more knowledge about the circumstances of this contract to be present for crossexamination. However, it must be born in mind that on a motion to set aside default judgment, the court is required to look at the three factors set out earlier in these reasons. At this stage of the litigation, what was really in issue was whether or not there were sufficient facts to support the conclusion that there was at least an arguable case to present on the merits. 5 Despite the above, when it came to deciding costs, Justice O Neill would have otherwise fixed costs at $1,750.00, but reduced the costs because of the issues regarding the sufficiency of the Affidavit evidence to $1, If the costs sanctions imposed in the previous two decisions did not serve to alarm the practicing bar of the pit falls of delivering information and belief affidavits where the source of the belief was not clearly specified, then the point was more clearly driven home in Carevest Inc. v. North Tech Electronics Ltd. et al. 6 This matter concerned a motion for summary judgment. 5 Ibid, para CarswellOnt 2927, ONSC 1290 (Ont. Div. Ct. May 3, 2010).
7 7 The affidavits in issue included one sworn by an executive of the Plaintiff, which included the following words following the statement that he had knowledge of the matters to which I herein depose. The facts set forth herein are within my personal knowledge or determined from the face of the instruments and documents attached hereto as exhibits and from information and advice provided to me from Mark Hartman, a partner with Chaitons LLP or Jill Plasteras, Vice President, Mortgage Services. Where I relied upon such information and advice, I verily believe same to be true. Another affidavit filed by another executive of the company, stated: The facts set forth herein are within my personal knowledge or determined from the face of the instruments and documents attached hereto as exhibits, from my review of the relevant documents comprising the files of Carevest and from information and advice provided to me from others. Where I relied upon such information and advice, I verily believe same to be true. above. A third affidavit filed contained the same wording as set out in the first affidavit cited
8 8 At first instance, Justice Matlow refused to admit two of the affidavits cited above. In so deciding, Justice Matlow stated the following: I conclude, therefore, that the Affidavits violate the Rules referred so extensively that neither can be admitted into evidence. 7 In coming to this decision, Justice Matlow stated as follows: In my view, it is not sufficient for a deponent to state that he or she was informed by one or more documents. The source of the information must be a named person. There is no assurance that the facts inferred from a document created by others in circumstances unknown to the deponent that is not otherwise admissible can be relied upon. Nor is it sufficient for a deponent to state that his or her evidence is a combination of personal knowledge and hearsay evidence without distinguishing which parts of his evidence are personal knowledge and which parts are hearsay. Each piece of hearsay evidence must be clearly identified as such and the source of the information and the fact of the belief must be stated. 7 Carevest Capital Inc. v. North Tech Electronics Ltd CanLII (ON S.C.), para. 23.
9 9 Information that is expressly stated to be double hearsay is inherently unreliable. 8 This decision was appealed to the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court reversed the decision, stating the following: The findings of the Motion s Judge are contrary to case law, which sets out the appropriate legal principles in determining the sufficiency or otherwise of the affidavit material before the Motions Judge on a summary judgment motion the principles that emerge from the case law are: 1. The rules of civil procedure are to be liberally construed so as to secure the most just, expeditious and least expensive determination of a proceeding. 2. Where an affidavit relied upon in support of a motion for summary judgment does not state the source of the information and the fact of the deponent s belief, the court may nevertheless rely upon the substance of the exhibits to the affidavit in evaluating the merits of the applicant s case. 3. Statements in affidavits based on information and belief that fail to state the source of the information are not automatically struck 8 Ibid, paras
10 10 out. Statements that deal with non-contentious matters can be saved through the application rule 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 In coming to the determination, the Divisional Court referenced the fact that the affidavits in question were not contentious. It was also noted that the issue was not raised by counsel during the course of argument. What is to be learned from these decisions? Simply, proceed with caution. Notwithstanding the fact that the Rules of Civil Procedure are to be liberally construed and notwithstanding the fact that information and belief affidavits are permitted, counsel should be very careful when submitting such affidavits for use on motions. The simplest way to think about this is to trust your common sense. Hearsay evidence is largely not admissible in court proceedings. Think of information and belief affidavits as a strictly construed exception to that rule, and you will have the right frame of mind when drafting. While information and belief affidavits may be convenient and perhaps expeditious, where a particular fact may be contentious, it is strongly recommended that counsel take the time in drafting to ensure that the source of the information and the fact of belief are clearly specified for each and every fact within the affidavit that is not within the personal knowledge of the deponent. As will be noted in the second part of this paper, there have been comments from the judiciary from time to time with respect to the tactical use of information and belief affidavits. 9 Supra, footnote 6, para. 16.
11 11 For example, if such affidavits are delivered for the purpose of insulating someone from being cross-examined, there is a risk. There will be more about this later in the paper. From my perspective, if I have to rely upon Rule 1.04 when an affidavit I filed is called in to question, I should take away from that experience to resolve to take more care in drafting the next affidavit, given that what I am asking for, in essence, amounts to an indulgence from the court to permit otherwise inadmissible testimony. SOLICITORS SWEARING AFFIDAVITS follows: A useful starting point in the discussion is a quote from Justice Hughes in 1966 as I wish to deal briefly with one other matter and that relates to what I see as an increasing use on chambers applications of affidavits sworn by solicitors. There are situations were such affidavits are not only acceptable, but desirable. I refer principally to applications involving matters of procedure or practice, such as a search of records However I do not consider this practice to be desirable in those instances, such as the one now before me, where the facts to be deposed to are within the knowledge of the litigant. Even in such a situation, there may be unusual circumstances where the solicitor also has knowledge of the facts and accordingly, his affidavit might be used, but in such a case the responsibility of a solicitor who undertakes to make an
12 12 affidavit on behalf of his client in a very serious one and calls for scrupulous care on his part. 10 This case highlights the tension between two competing principles. On the one hand, certain practical realities often result in a solicitor swearing an affidavit on behalf of a client with regard to a pending motion. On the other hand, the court should always be provided with the best evidence on any particular point to be decided. While we often see the line as the difference between the contentious and non contentious, the distinction is not always clear. A leading case on the topic is Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Grabarchuk. 11 Schroeder J.A. stated the following: Both counsel for the appellant and the respondent who appeared before this Court had made affidavits which had been submitted to the Court of first instance in support of and in opposition to the appellant's application. It was not until the question was raised by the Court that either counsel appreciated the impropriety of counsel who had been a witness in the proceedings appearing as counsel on the appeal. This is a well-settled rule which the Court has strictly enforced over the years. In the circumstances we felt it necessary to adjourn the hearing of this 10 Delta Accept. Corp. Ltd. v. E.K. Motors Ltd. (1966), 57 W.W.R. 723 (Sask.) 11 (1974), 3 O.R. (2d) 783 (Ont. C.A.).
13 13 appeal to the May sittings in order to facilitate the appointment of other counsel for both parties. 12 In Essa (Township) v. Guergis 13, a decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in 1993, the situation was slightly different. An affidavit was sworn by a lawyer who was co-counsel with the lawyer who was arguing the motion. The Defendant sought to strike the motion before the court alleging, in part, that as the affidavits were sworn by co-counsel of the lawyer arguing the motion, the affidavits could not be relied upon. At first instance, it was ordered that the motion be adjourned to permit either new affidavits to be filed or new counsel to be retained. Appeal of that decision was taken to the Divisional Court. The Court started from the proposition that it is not proper for a lawyer to swear an affidavit and act as counsel relying upon the affidavit, consistent with the decision in Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Grabarchuk 14. However, as previously stated, in Essa, the situation was slightly different. In Essa, the co-counsel swore the Affidavit rather than the lawyer arguing the motion. The Divisional Court highlighted the difference between the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Canadian Bar Association Code of Professional Conduct as it concerned that issue. 12 Ibid, para CarswellOnt 473, 22 C.P.C. (3d) 63, 15 O.R. (3d) 573, 52 C.P.R. (3d) Supra, note11.
14 14 Although the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada have been revised significantly over the years, the relevant section remains substantially the same as it did when Essa was decided. This current rule (Rule 4.02 (1)), provides as follows: Rule 4.02(1) Subject to any contrary provisions of the law or the discretion of the Tribunal before which the lawyer is appearing, a lawyer who appears has advocate and must show/admit his or her own Affidavit to the Tribunal. On the other side of the coin, the Canadian Bar Association Code of Professional Conduct states the following: The lawyer who appears as an advocate should not submit the lawyer s own affidavit to or testify before a tribunal save as permitted by a local rule or practice, or as to purely formal or uncontroverted matters. This also applies to the lawyer s partners and associates; generally speaking, they should not testify in such proceedings except as to merely formal matters. In Essa, The Law Society of Upper Canada intervened in the appeal and the Divisional Court accepted the submission of LSUC counsel that the court should not follow the CBA Code but rather take note of the fact that the Law Society Code did not prohibit this type of affidavit.
15 15 In the result, the Divisional Court ordered the motion judge to proceed to hear the motion, based on the affidavits filed. In passing, the Divisional Court stated the following: As a matter of interest, I note that counsel for the Defendants in this matter relied on affidavits sworn by secretaries in the office of that defence counsel. Those affidavits contain statements of information and belief, based on what the secretaries had been told by defence counsel who were appearing on the motion. Some of that information and belief went to the root of the contempt matters. The issue of that counsel appearing on the contempt Motion was not raised on this Appeal and I therefore, do not deal with that point specifically. I understand the problem frequently arises in the offices of counsel practicing alone. I suggest, however, the use of such Affidavits should be avoided. 15 This is to be contrasted with Manraj v. Bour 16. In that case, at the hearing of a motion, counsel opposing the motion took the position that the counsel opposite should not be entitled to rely upon an affidavit where the counsel arguing the matter (Mr. Baksh) was the source of much of the information and belief within the Affidavit. 15 Supra, footnote 13, paras. 33 and CarswellOnt 1335,44 C.P.C. (3d) 111, 58 A.C.W.S. (3d) 330, 6 W.D.C.P. (2d) 441, [1995] O.J. No (Ont. Gen. Div. Sep 20, 1995).
16 16 Madam Justice Kiteley stated the following: It is apparent then that the source of the evidence on behalf of the moving party about delivery of the account is effectively from Mr. Baksh, even though he is not the deponent. The issue of delivery of the account is an important issue before me in the matter today. It is a reasonable extension of Imperial Oil that Mr. Baksh not be permitted to make submissions and I so ordered. 17 In Weber v. Erb & Erb Insurance Brokers Ltd. 18, Mr. Justice Gordon reviewed a circumstance where an affidavit was sworn by a partner of the lawyer arguing the motion. Opposing counsel sought to have the affidavit struck. Justice Gordon struck the Affidavit. He stated the following: Solicitor s affidavits, as here, often contain hearsay evidence, which, generally speaking, is unreliable. The solicitor is exposed to crossexamination, a futile exercise as there is no personal knowledge, but might, by necessity, expose communications between client and counsel. In comes cases, the purpose of the solicitor s affidavit is to shield the client from cross-examination. Such is improper. 17 Ibid, para CarswellOnt 1919, [2006] O.J. No (Ont. S.C.J. Mar 31, 2006).
17 17 The principles enunciated in Rule 4.02 and in prior Court rulings extends to the partners of counsel, as well as other members or employees of the firm. Far too often, affidavits from solicitors, or other persons in the employ of the law firm, are tendered in contentious proceedings. This is an unacceptable practice. The best evidence is from a deponent with actual knowledge, usually the client. The solicitor, as here, relies on others for information. As subsequently discovered, the information was incomplete, which further demonstrates the danger associated with the use of such affidavits. 19 I would also point out in passing a decision of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in 2006, Smirin v. ING Insurance Co. of Canada 20, where Arbitrator D. Leitch adjourned a hearing where counsel was the principal source of information within an affidavit which touched upon a contentious issue in the proceeding. 19 Ibid, paras. 35, 37 and CarswellOnt 3590.
18 18 CONCLUSION All of this leads me to the following cautionary notes arising from the use of an affidavit sworn by a lawyer or a staff member of a law firm. No matter the instance, counsel should be guided by what I would describe as a best evidence litmus test. While there is good authority to permit such affidavits before the court, counsel should make every effort to put forward the best available evidence in every circumstance. As the facts within the affidavit become more contentious, courts appear to be more reluctant to permit lawyers to argue motions using affidavits sworn by partners or associates or members of their staff. While relying upon such affidavits may be necessary or prudent or tactically sound in certain circumstances, counsel must bear in mind that the more controversial the affidavit, the greater the risk that the court might deem the affidavit to be lacking. Robert Zochodne ZOCHODNE BUCCI November 20, 2010.
STATUS HEARINGS UNDER RULE 48.14
Volume 20, No. 4 June 2012 Civil Litigation Section STATUS HEARINGS UNDER RULE 48.14 Philip Cho Although entirely replaced in the 2010 amendments, unlike the transition provision under Rule 48.15, 1 status
More informationDecision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007
Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner June 22, 2007 Quicklaw Cite: [2007] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 14 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/other_decisions/decisionfo7-03.pdf
More informationDIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) APPELLANT S FACTUM I. STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL
Divisional Court File No. DC-12-463-00 DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) -and- Plaintiff (Appellant) LAURA M. TOOGOOD aka LAURA MARIE TOOGOOD aka
More informationConstitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue
Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Boyadjian v. Durham (Regional Municipality, 2016 ONSC 6477 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: 74724/11 DATE: 20161101 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: LUCY BOYADJIAN Plaintiff and THE REGIONAL
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant.
CITATION: St. Catharines (City v. IPCO, 2011 ONSC 346 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 351/09 DATE: 20110316 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. B E T W E E N: THE
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY) [COMMERCIAL LIST]
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY) [COMMERCIAL LIST] Court File No.31-2016058 Estate No. 31-2016058 IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3,
More informationDisposition before Trial
Disposition before Trial Presented By Andrew J. Heal January 13, 2011 Q: What's the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A: A bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good
More informationPage: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu
CITATION: Duong v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., 2011 ONSC 2534 COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-46962CP DATE: 2011/05/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: DAVID DUONG, RINKU SINGH and CHRISTINA WOOF Plaintiffs
More informationIntroductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario
Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4621 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 informationCase Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2007] O.J. No.
Page 1 Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants [2007] O.J. No. 1414 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 844 49 C.P.C. (6th) 311 2007 CarswellOnt 2191
More informationRandolph Raymond Dalzine, Rayah Dalzine and Ayana Dalzine, a minor by her litigation guardian, the Children s Lawyer
CITATION: Garrick v. Dalzine, 2015 ONSC 2175 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-1757-00ES DATE: 2015-04-07 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: Martha Garrick Applicant v. Randolph Raymond Dalzine, Rayah Dalzine and
More informationCanadian Triton International, Ltd. (Assignees of) v. National Iranian Oil Co.
Canadian Triton International, Ltd. (Assignees of) v. National Iranian Oil Co. Between Crown Resources Corporation S.A. and Ata Olfati, as Assignees of the Estate of Canadian Triton International, Ltd.,
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 informationSUPERIOR COURT FILE NO.: /08 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO (DIVISIONAL COURT) RE: BEFORE: ST
SUPERIOR COURT FILE NO.: 03-003/08 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO. 635-08 DATE: 20090325 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO (DIVISIONAL COURT) RE: BEFORE: STEPHEN ABRAMS v. IDA ABRAMS, JUDITH ABRAMS, PHILIP ABRAMS
More informationOrder F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. January 7, 2010
Order F10-01 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator January 7, 2010 Quicklaw Cite: [2010] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 1 CanLII Cite: 2010 BCIPC 1 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2010/orderf10-01.pdf
More informationIN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL (ON APPEAL FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT)
Court of Appeal Number: C61116 Divisional Court File No.: 250/14 IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL (ON APPEAL FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT) B E T W E E N: TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and BRAYDEN VOLKENANAT Applicants
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER & PATTILLO JJ. ) ) ) ) Respondent )
CITATION: Riddell v. Apple Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 6014 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-895-00 (Oshawa DATE: 20160926 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER & PATTILLO JJ.
More informationPage 2 [2] The action arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, The plaintiff Anthony Okafor claimed two million dollars and the plainti
CITATION: OKAFOR v. MARKEL INSURANCE & KROPKA, 2010 ONSC 2093 COURT FILE NO.: C42087/97 DATE: 2010-06-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: JUNE OKAFOR AND ANTHONY OKAFOR Plaintiffs - and
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA. -and-
Court File No. CV-17-11760-00CL ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA -and- Applicant ASTORIA ORGANIC MATTERS LTD. and ASTORIA ORGANIC MATTERS CANADA LP
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA
PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA November 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE TO PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT
More informationINDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE S By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research. Overview
INDEPENDENT FORENSIC AUDITS RE EMAILS By V.A. (Bud) MacDonald, Q.C. and Bottom Line Research Overview On some files your opponent may be taking the position that there are no relevant emails in addition
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 informationSUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL. A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment
1 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL A Discussion Paper of the Rules Subcommittee on Summary Judgment I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of summary judgment is to dispose
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bates v. John Bishop Jewellers Limited, 2009 BCSC 158 Errol Bates John Bishop Jewellers Limited Date: 20090212 Docket: S082271 Registry:
More informationAttempting to reconcile Kitchenham and Tanner: Practical considerations in obtaining productions protected by deemed and implied undertakings
Attempting to reconcile Kitchenham and Tanner: Practical considerations in obtaining productions protected by deemed and implied undertakings By Kevin L. Ross and Alysia M. Christiaen, Lerners LLP The
More informationTHAT Council receive report FAF entitled Research Memo Coverage of Litigation Costs for information.
This document can be made available in other accessible formats as soon as practicable and upon request STAFF REPORT: Chief Administrative Officer A. Recommendations THAT Council receive report FAF.16.67
More informationTHE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM
THE REALITY OF TENDERING WHY REAL ESTATE LAWYERS GIVE FUEL FOR LITIGATORS TO SUE THEM Safeguarding the transaction-the old school rules Much has been written about tendering and the hows and whys of doing
More informationTo Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay
To Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay Paul D. Guy and Scott McGrath; WeirFoulds LLP Is seeking a stay of foreign proceedings a prerequisite to obtaining an anti-suit injunction in Canada? An anti-suit injunction
More informationONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Sault Ste. Marie COURT FILE No.: 05-3302 Citation: R. v. Maki, 2007 ONCJ 115 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Michael Kelly, for the Crown AND ROBERT DANIEL MAKI, Joseph Bisceglia,
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c.
Court File No. CV-12-9545-00CL ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF
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 informationGowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Mark Siegel and Rosanne Dawson, Defendants. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP, Third Party
CITATION: Ozerdinc Family Trust et al v Gowling et al, 2017 ONSC 6 COURT FILE NO.: 13-57421 A1 DATE: 2017/01/03 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: Ozerdinc Family Trust, Muharrem Ersin Ozerdinc,
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX
October 1, 1996 Last Update: February 23, 2018 Index Page 1 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX RULE 1 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION...
More informationBY-LAW NO. 44 ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS - RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
BY-LAW NO. 44 OF ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS - RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OCSWSSW - Discipline Committee Rules of Procedure Index Page
More informationOBJECTION YOUR HONOUR!
OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR! ROBERT S. HARRISON JENNIFER McALEER FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP THE BASICS What is an Objection? By definition an objection is an interruption. It should only be made when it is
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS AND REGISTERED MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS OF ONTARIO INDEX
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS AND REGISTERED MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS OF ONTARIO INDEX RULE 1 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION... 3 1.01 Definitions...
More informationMEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL
MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL From: Lawrence Rubin Date: March 23, 2018 Subject: Professional Standards (Criminal) Committee Standard No. 3: Defence Obligations Regarding Disclosure FOR: APPROVAL INTRODUCTION
More informationPlaintiff counsel beware - It is now easier to dismiss an action for delay
Plaintiff counsel beware - It is now easier to dismiss an action for delay Three recent judgments of the Court of Appeal show that plaintiffs face two serious dangers, should they fail to prosecute their
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS INDEX
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS INDEX RULE 1 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION... 1 1.01 Definitions... 1 1.02 Interpretations
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION. v. Case No.: CI
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 07013084CI DEBBIE VISICARO, et al. Defendants. / HOMEOWNER S MEMORANDUM
More informationAND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION JEVCO INSURANCE COMPANY. - and -
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, section 275 and REGULATION 283/95 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: JEVCO
More informationAN OVERVIEW OF EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES IN CIVIL LITIGATION 2 EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES Extraordinary remedies available in civil proceedings include: Prohibitive, Mandatory and Preventative Injunctions Preservation of and
More informationI. ZNAMENSKY SELEKCIONNO-GIBRIDNY CENTER LLC V.
(Press control and right arrow for the same effect) (Press control and left arrow for the same effect) znamensky X Français English Home > Ontario > Superior Court of Justice > 2009 CanLII 51197
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c.
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST Court File No. CV-15-10832-00CL IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN
More informationDianne Whiteside, Neil Whiteside, Kevin Steele Wesley Raymond Taylor Melbourne Member M. Walsh Hearing
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D673/2006 CATCHWORDS Section 78 VCAT Act application. Whether reasonable excuse under Sub-section (1)(a).
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Wamboldt Estate v. Wamboldt, 2017 NSSC 288 Date: 20171107 Docket: Bwt No. 459126 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Michael Dockrill, in his capacity as the executor
More informationEstate of Joseph Bertram McLeod, Deceased and Maslak-McLeod Gallery Inc., Defendants. Michael Pinacci, for the Proposed Intervenors
CITATION: Hearn v. Maslak-McLeod Gallery Inc., 2017 ONSC 7247 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-455650 DATE: 20171204 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: Kevin Hearn, Plaintiff AND Estate of Joseph Bertram
More informationChodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.]
Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.] 104 O.R. (3d) 73 2010 ONSC 4897 Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Wood J. September
More 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 informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c.
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST Court File No. CV-12-9545-00CL IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c.c-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN P.C. CURTIS APPLEWHITE AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. #2010-04494 BETWEEN P.C. CURTIS APPLEWHITE Claimant AND THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION BASDEO MULCHAN LLOYD CROSBY Defendants BEFORE
More informationCase Comment: Ontario Inc. et al v. Tutor Time Learning Centres, LLC, et al. [2006] O.J. No (S.C.J.), confirmed on appeal April 12, 2007
Scotia Plaza 40 King St. West, Suite 5800 P.O. Box 1011 Toronto, ON Canada M5H 3S1 Tel. 416.595.8500 Fax.416.595.8695 www.millerthomson.com TORONTO VANCOUVER WHITEHORSE CALGARY EDMONTON LONDON KITCHENER-WATERLOO
More informationSUMMARY OF CONTENTS SC-1.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Chapter 1. Preliminary Matters............................ 1-1 Chapter 2. Parties...................................... 2-1 Chapter 3. Service......................................
More informationWRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: REPLY TO RESPONSE OF THE MINISTER OF HEAL TH OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
PATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (" Respondent" ) and the medicine " Soliris" WRITTEN
More informationE N D O R S E M E N T (corrected)
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-334666PD2 DATE: 20070620 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: State Farm Insurance Company v. v. Jean Brijlal and Roy Brijlal BEFORE: Justice D. Brown COUNSEL: Pamela Pengelley,
More informationON1CALL RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS 1) DEFINITIONS
ON1CALL RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS 1) DEFINITIONS 360 Feedback means the web-based solution provided by the Corporation for either (i) Members or Members designates to use to notify the Corporation
More informationSMALL CLAIMS COURT RULES SUMMARY OF CONTENTS RULE 1 INTERPRETATION
SMALL CLAIMS COURT RULES SUMMARY OF CONTENTS Rule 1. Interpretation Rule 2. Non-Compliance with the Rules Rule 3. Time Rule 4. Parties Under Disability Rule 5. Partners and Sole Proprietorships Rule 6.
More informationCase Notes. Tobacco Australia Services Ltd. McCabe v Goliath: The Case Against British American. I. The Facts. II. Grounds for the Application
Case Notes McCabe v Goliath: The Case Against British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd Laura Cameron BA (Qld), LLB Student, T.C. Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland Pending the outcome
More informationTHE USE OF NO-FAULT REPORTS BY A TORT DEFENDANT BEASLEY REVISITED, ONE YEAR LATER
THE USE OF NO-FAULT REPORTS BY A TORT DEFENDANT BEASLEY REVISITED, ONE YEAR LATER Materials prepared by: Jim Tomlinson, Adrian Nicolini, Samantha Share Date: November 10, 2011 McCague Borlack LLP Suite
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV NO. 2014-02019 IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT CHAPTER 7:08 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE
More informationAFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE IN CHAMBER APPLICATIONS
".\ AFFDAVT EVDENCE N CHAMBER APPLCATONS............ " ". ".: "...' - -.' :..." "..... '.". "-'" ",'.".. -.,',- ',..'.:...,', - '.:... '. :"" ' Thes~ materia,lswere pr~paredby Jeffrey Brick ' of Kanuka
More informationPage 1. L. MacDonald, Q.C., for the Law Society of Alberta ( LSA ) WRITTEN REASONS AND REPORT OF THE HEARING COMMITTEE
Page 1 LSA FILE NO.: IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, R.S.A. 2000, C. L-8, AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF BONNIE WALD, A MEMBER OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA The Hearing
More informationHow to obtain evidence from England for use in a US civil or commercial trial
How to obtain evidence from England for use in a US civil or commercial trial CONTENTS page 1. Introduction 1 2. Evidence (Proceedings in other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 1 (the Act ) 3. The US Civil Code
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST Court File No: CV-12-9780-00CL BETWEEN: MARCUS WIDE of Grant Thornton (British Virgin Islands) Limited, and HUGH DICKSON, of Grant Thornton Specialist
More informationDISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES. Andrew J. Heal
DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES Andrew J. Heal ANDREW J. HEAL, PARTNER HEAL & Co. LLP - 2 - DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION
More informationSmall Claims Court Appeals
Small Claims Court Appeals Todd R. Christensen Introduction Based on my personal experience Tailored to paralegals To help you make better recommendations Precedent appeal materials to de-mystify process
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Halliday v. Cape Breton District Health Authority, 2017 NSSC 201. Cape Breton District Health Authority
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Halliday v. Cape Breton District Health Authority, 2017 NSSC 201 Between: Jennifer Halliday v. Date: 2017-07-25 Docket: Sydney, No. 307567 Registry: Sydney Plaintiff
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED
SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CIVIL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2002 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr.
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 informationInc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable
1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.: Using privity and agency to hold third parties liable Mary Paterson* and Gerard Kennedy**, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP The Ontario Court of Appeal s August 2015
More informationEnforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Canada
McCarthy Tétrault LLP PO Box 48, Suite 5300 Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower Toronto ON M5K 1E6 Canada Tel: 416-362-1812 Fax: 416-868-0673 Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards in Canada DAVID I. W.
More informationRule 8400 Rules of Practice and Procedure GENERAL Introduction Definitions General Principles
Rule 8400 Rules of Practice and Procedure GENERAL 8401. Introduction (1) The Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure ) set out the rules that govern the conduct of IIROC s enforcement proceedings
More information2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...
Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Page 1 of 15 Home Feedback Site Map Français Home Court of Appeal for Ontario Superior Court of Justice Ontario Court of Justice Location Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Appeal Information Package
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationand REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
Citation: New Brunswick (Financial and Consumer Services Commission) v. Stratus Financial Group International, 2015 NBFCST 2 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK FINANCIAL AND CONSUMER SERVICES TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER
More informationIn the High Court of South Africa (Eastern Cape Division) Case No CA 247/2001 Delivered: In the matter between
In the High Court of South Africa (Eastern Cape Division) Case No CA 247/2001 Delivered: In the matter between SISEKA SIYOTULA and THE STATE Applicant Respondent JUDGMENT JONES J: This matter, which is
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:
CITATION: Rush v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 2243 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-507160 DATE: 20170518 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Yael Rush and Thomas Rush Plaintiffs and Via Rail Canada Inc.
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
CITATION: Daniells v. McLellan, 2017 ONSC 6887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-5565-CP DATE: 2017/11/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SHERRY-LYNN DANIELLS Plaintiff - and - MELISSA McLELLAN and
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$15.20 WINDHOEK - 7 November 2014 No. 5608 CONTENTS Page GOVERNMENT NOTICES No. 227 Amendment of Rules of High Court of Namibia: High Court Act, 1990... 1
More informationCIRCUIT AND CHANCERY COURTS:
. CIRCUIT AND CHANCERY COURTS: Advice for Persons Who Want to Represent Themselves Read this booklet before completing any forms! Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOKLET... 1 SHOULD
More information2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720
2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Cruz v. McPherson 2014 CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 Terra Cruz and Carmen Cruz, Plaintiffs and Jason Mcpherson, 546291 Ontario
More informationCRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL. (2) Dealing with proceedings justly and efficiently includes
CRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL Fundamental objective 1.1 (1) The fundamental objective of these rules is to ensure that proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice are dealt
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
SAINT LUCIA SUIT NO: 0073b OF 2001 BETWEEN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (1) Group MGA International (2) Andre Claveau Claimants V (1) Rochamel Construction Ltd (2) Clynt
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 informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP 1 SECTION 69 OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT ( BIA ) 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BIA STAY PROVISIONS 1 Since
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA PRESTIGIOUS PROPERTIES INC.
Clerk's stamp: COURT FILE NUMBER: 1603 04928 COURT: JUDICIAL CENTRE: PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS: DOCUMENT: COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA EDMONTON PRESTIGIOUS PROPERTIES INC. COLD LAKE ESTATES INC., NORTHERN
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And B & L Holdings Inc. v. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd., 2018 BCCA 221 B & L Holdings Inc. SNFW Fitness BC Ltd., Mark Mastrov and Leonard Schlemm Date: 20180606
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) Defendant ) ) ) ) HEARD: September 24, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-333934CP DATE: 20091016 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 405341 ONTARIO LIMITED Plaintiff - and - MIDAS CANADA INC. Defendant Allan Dick, David Sterns and Sam Hall
More informationCITATION: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. v Jim Pattison Industries Ltd ONSC 5836 COURT FILE NO.: DATE: 2017/09/29 ONTARIO
CITATION: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. v Jim Pattison Industries Ltd. 2017 ONSC 5836 COURT FILE NO.: 10-49174 DATE: 2017/09/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. Plaintiff
More informationAMENDMENTS TO THE ONTARIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Toll-free 1.877.262.7762 www.virtualassociates.ca AMENDMENTS TO THE ONTARIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE This chart is updated as of July 1, 2017. This table is intended as a guideline only. The statutory
More informationDefence Medical Assessments from Rear-End Car Accident: How Many Do You Have to Attend?
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 Page 1 Defence Medical Assessments from Rear-End Car Accident: How Many Do You Have to Attend? The Issue: One question many car accident victims have when they start a lawsuit
More informationDIFC COURT LAW. DIFC LAW No.10 of 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DIFC COURT LAW DIFC LAW No.10 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationIndexed As: Lockridge et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Environment) et al.
Ada Lockridge and Ronald Plain (applicants) v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as Represented by the Minister of the Environment, the Attorney General
More informationSUPREME COURT - NASSAU COUNTY - IAS PART 56 PART RULES & PROCEDURES
SUPREME COURT - NASSAU COUNTY - IAS PART 56 PART RULES & PROCEDURES Justice: HON. THOMAS RADEMAKER Secretary: MARILYN McINTOSH Part Clerk: TRINA PAYNE Phone: (516) 493-3420 Courtroom: (516) 493-3423 Fax:
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GHANA ACCRA- GHANA A.D. 2016
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GHANA ACCRA- GHANA A.D. 2016 CORAM: DOTSE, JSC (PRESIDING) ANIN YEBOAH, JSC GBADEGBE, JSC AKAMBA, JSC PWAMANG, JSC CIVIL APPEAL No. J4/32/2013
More informationNorth Bay (City) v. Vaughan, [2018] O.J. No. 1809
Ontario Judgments Ontario Court of Appeal D.M. Brown J.A. Heard: March 19, 2018. Judgment: March 28, 2018. Docket: M48246 [2018] O.J. No. 1809 2018 ONCA 319 Between The Corporation of the City of North
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
2003 ONWSIAT 1955 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 234/03 [1] This right to sue application was heard in London on February 4, 2003, by Vice-Chair M. Kenny. THE RIGHT TO SUE
More information