IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: MacFarlane v. Digital Glam Film Group, 2016 NSSM 12 REASONS FOR DECISION
|
|
- Eugenia Harrison
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 BETWEEN: Claim No: IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: MacFarlane v. Digital Glam Film Group, 2016 NSSM 12 ROBYN MACFARLANE and STEPHEN BOUDREAU Claimants - and - DIGITAL GLAM FILM GROUP and ANGELA KEATING Defendants REASONS FOR DECISION BEFORE Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator Hearing held at Halifax, Nova Scotia on April 13, 2016 Decision rendered on April 20, 2016 APPEARANCES For the Claimants For the Defendants Michael Berrigan Articling Student Angela Keating
2
3 -1- BY THE COURT: [1] The Defendant Angela Keating operates a non-registered business, the named Defendant Digital Glam Film Group, to perform services that include wedding videography. Because that business name is a non-entity, legally speaking, I will refer only to Angela Keating as the Defendant. [2] The Claimants were planning to get married on August 30, 2014, and somewhat late in the process decided that they would like to have videos taken of the occasion. The Claimants were working with a wedding planner, who recommended the Defendant. [3] The Claimants did not negotiate price or other terms of the engagement directly with the Defendant. That was done by the wedding planner, who also understood what the Claimants were hoping to receive. In the result, the Claimants paid the Defendant $ in advance of the wedding. [4] The Claimants seek a refund for the full amount that they paid, plus some other relief, because they claim that they did not receive what they were promised, and (perhaps more importantly) they did not receive anything in a timely way. [5] As such, the important questions for the court are to determine what was promised, and whether what was delivered was so deficient as to amount to a fundamental breach of contract.
4 -2- [6] On August 27, 2014, three days before the wedding, a form of contract was sent to the Claimants by . It appears to be a standard form of contract used by the Defendant, with areas to be filled in by hand. The important parts of the contract on page 2 (partly printed, and partly handwritten) are these: I, Robyn Macfarlane, have agreed to hire Digital Glam Film Group for services of Wedding Videography at the price of $ quoted to me today. for my event held at The Lord Nelson Hotel on August 30, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. (Getting 12 or 1 pm) for the duration of 8-10 hours [7] The undisputed evidence is that the contract was signed by Robyn Macfarlane and ed to the Defendant. There is no evidence that the Defendant ever signed it. However, later that same day, the Defendant ed an invoice to the Claimants, which acknowledged payment in full and included the following terms: * two shooters for 8 hrs ** edited photos * HD imaging shot at 1080 * professional audio * music and titling with video * edited Wedding Video (colour correction, music, audio, after effects) Regular Edit * DVD Copy and digital copy
5 -3- [8] The only arguable difference between the contract document and the invoice, was that the contract specified 8-10 hours, while the invoice said 8 hours. [9] The Defendant contends that she is not bound by the contract document, because she says it was not intended to used. She says that it was something given to the wedding planner quite a while ago, as a general idea of what services she provided. [10] I will say at the outset that I find this evidence difficult to accept. She admits receiving the document signed by Dr. Macfarlane, and never responded with any sort of disclaimer saying that she did not intend to be bound by it. Also, her evidence that it had been provided to the wedding planner a long time ago, is clearly not true. The printed portion of the document includes the date of August 25, 2014, a mere two days before it was sent and signed. What is far more likely than not is that the Defendant tailored it (at least in part) for the specific event and had to have known that it would be passed on by the wedding planner to the Claimants. [11] As for the discrepancy between the 8 and 10 hours of shooting, the Claimants say that they expected at least 8 hours of shooting, which they expected would include some scenes of them getting ready. The contract specified that the shooting would start at 12:00 or 1:00 p.m., and as such they expected the Defendant and her co-shooter to be there until well into the evening.
6 -4- [12] The evidence is conflicting as to when Ms. Keating and her other cameraperson showed up. Ms. Keating says that they showed up at about 2:00 p.m., and took some footage of the location - flowers, place settings etc. it was her testimony that they were only obliged to work for six hours. Included in that time, she says, was an hour for a meal break. She admitted that they left at about 7:00 p.m., because they had fulfilled their duties. She stated that this was all someone could expect to get for the low amount of money she was paying. She stated you don t get full coverage until midnight for $ [13] Ms. Keating testified that they did not film the Claimants preparing (eg. getting dressed) because she did not know where they were, and because she did not think she had been instructed to do so. [14] The Claimants testified that, as far as the raw video footage was concerned, the Defendant did not start filming until about 3:30, and the last footage appears to be at about 7:00 p.m., which was the time of the first dance between the couple. As such, entire parts of the wedding, including the rest of the reception, were not filmed. [15] Ms. Keating s statement that you don t get full coverage until midnight for $ reflected a view, on her part, that the Claimants were actually only paying $ for her lowest package. The other $250.00, she said, was a deposit for reserving the date and something for editing time. There is not a shred of evidence that the Claimants were told this. Indeed, that is totally at odds with the contract and invoice. There was no need for a deposit, because they were paying in full, in advance. Even so, when deposits are paid, the deposit is typically applied to the price. It is only forfeited if the client cancels. As for a
7 -5- breakdown between filming time and editing, there is no such breakdown in the contract. It is irrelevant how the Defendant may have wished to break it down. The Claimants were offered, and accepted, a package deal. [16] I have no hesitation in finding that the Defendant did not fulfill her promise to provide 8 hours of filming. If she started at 2:00 p.m., she should have been there until 10:00 p.m. It might have been reasonable for a meal break to be fitted in somewhere, although the contract says nothing about that. Arguably, the meal break would have been unpaid time and the end of the engagement should have been pushed later. [17] Although the time spent by Ms. Keating and her co-worker was an issue that occupied much of the trial, this was not initially the Claimants complaint. [18] The Claimants understood that it might take some time for the Defendant to provide the various components, namely the raw footage, an edited version and a so-called highlight reel of about 90 seconds. But they expected to receive this in a reasonable time. [19] The contract is silent on delivery time. However, on October 9, 2014, Dr. Macfarlane ed Ms. Keating asking how long it might be for them to receive what they had paid for. On October 11, approximately 6 weeks after the wedding - Ms. Keating wrote back and said that the expectation would be about weeks for projects started in peak wedding season. This would have meant another 6 to 8 weeks.
8 -6- [20] I would not elevate this estimate into a contractual term, but it is a good measure of what the Defendant regarded as reasonable. Where a contract is silent on the question of delivery time, a court would infer that the intention is that it will be performed within a reasonable time. [21] Even at 14 weeks, which would have meant roughly the second week of December, the deadline for completion came and went. The Claimants were disappointed because they had planned to bring the video to share their wedding day with Dr. Macfarlane s grandparents, who live out of town and who could not make it to the wedding. [22] On January 13, 2015, the Defendant forwarded the short highlight reel, but not the full length edited film or even the raw footage. By late January 2015, after various exchanges, all the Defendant could promise was that she was working on it, and that it would be delivered soon. The Claimants were disappointed in the quality of the highlight reel, and worried whether the rest would be as good as they were hoping for. [23] On January 14, 2015, the Claimants first asked for a refund. The exchanges that followed brought to light the considerable variance in expectations. On January 15, 2015, Ms. Keating first floated her view that the package she provided only allowed for 4 to 6 hours of filming. [24] In an dated January 26, 2015, Ms. Keating insisted that if the Claimants had wanted a full day of coverage, this would have cost them approximately $2,000. She reiterated that their standard bronze package was
9 -7- only 4 hours, although she says that they stayed 6 hours, which is not true even on Ms. Keating s evidence where she says they arrived at 2:00 and left at 7:00. [25] In response, Dr. Macfarlane stated in an that what they wanted, at that point, was a refund. They were willing to allow Ms. Keating to retain 20% as a non-refundable deposit. [26] On February 2, 2015, having had no response, and still not having received the videos (other than the highlight reel) it was made clear that the Claimants simply wanted a refund, failing which they would launch legal action. [27] On February 20, 2015, the Defendant delivered a package containing the balance of the video to the office of the Claimants lawyer. [28] The Claimants have reviewed the video footage, at their lawyer s office, and it only reinforced their determination to cancel the contract. They found the edited version to be poor quality and unprofessional. The raw footage consisted of 2 clips, each less than an hour in length, further reinforcing their view that the Defendant had only started filming at about 3:30 and stopped at about 7:00, missing many parts of the wedding and reception that they had expected to be included. [29] The court has not viewed the video. The Claimants intended to screen it at the hearing, but that did not happen because of technical difficulties. Although they were offered the opportunity to adjourn to another day for that sole purpose, both parties agreed that they wanted to conclude that evening.
10 -8- [30] As such, I draw no direct conclusions about the quality of the video. It is obvious that the Claimants are not satisfied with the quality, though their opinion may be tainted by the fact that it is incomplete and was delivered late. [31] The Claimants argue that there has been a fundamental breach of contract. The term fundamental breach refers to situations where the breach goes to the root of the contract. An ordinary breach of contract gives rise to a claim for damages, which are designed to place the injured party in the position they would have been in, had the contract been performed. A fundamental breach entitles the injured party to cancel the contract altogether, and to have returned any consideration paid under that contract. It is as if the contract never existed. [32] This court has discussed the concept of fundamental breach in past cases. In Aarons Sales and Lease v. Rafuse, 2013 NSSM 40 (CanLII), I had occasion to say this: 14 In my view, this view would only be correct if the breaches by the Defendant could be said to have been "fundamental breaches" of contract, serious enough to excuse the Claimant from continuing to perform any of its obligations. Not every contract breach excuses performance by the "innocent" party. 15 One of the leading case in Canada on fundamental breach of contract is Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Hunter Engineering Co. (1989), 1989 CanLII 129 (SCC), 57 D.L.R. (4th) 321 (S.C.C.). Wilson J. wrote at p. 369: The formulation that I prefer is that given by Lord Diplock in Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd., [1980] A.C. 827 (H.L.). A fundamental breach occurs "Where the event resulting from the failure by one party to perform a primary obligation has the effect of depriving the other party of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties that he should obtain from the contract" (p. 849).
11 -9- (Emphasis added.) This is a restrictive definition and rightly so, I believe. As Lord Diplock points out, the usual remedy for breach of a "primary" contractual obligation (the thing bargained for) is a concomitant "secondary" obligation to pay damages. The other primary obligations of both parties yet unperformed remain in place. Fundamental breach represents an exception to this rule for it gives to the innocent party an additional remedy, an election to "put an end to all primary obligations of both parties remaining unperformed" (p. 849). It seems to me that this exceptional remedy should be available only in circumstances where the foundation of the contract has been undermined, where the very thing bargained for has not been provided. 16 Applying this test, the Claimant would only be excused from performing its obligation to provide fire insurance, if the breaches by the Defendant were fundamental. For breaches of a contract that are not fundamental, the remedy of the innocent party is to claim damages for the breach, assuming any had been suffered. [33] The argument in favour of fundamental breach rests on the premise that the Claimants were entitled to have video covering a substantial part of their wedding day, and to have a finished video within a reasonable time. They say that the video is missing many of the important events of the day, and that it was delivered so late as to have frustrated their intention. [34] These defects, if seen as fundamental breaches, are not curable. There is no way that the Defendant can capture events that were missed, or provide the finished product within a reasonable time - even by her own measure. [35] Other aspects of the video could probably be fixed. Assuming there is enough good raw footage, a decent edit could still be created out of it (assuming that what was created is not up to par.)
12 -10- [36] On the other side of the coin, the Defendant could argue that the work was done and the video has some value. She could argue that it is unfair that she would have to forfeit compensation for all of the time spent, both at the wedding and thereafter. [37] While I am not without some sympathy for the Defendant s arguments, I find that her breaches were fundamental. Regrettably, she did not present as an honest witness. She had no good explanation for the lengthy delay in finishing the work. Her attempts to minimize her obligations suggest to me that she was unhappy with the amount of money that the Claimants were paying, and was prepared to shortchange them by spending less time than was promised. She also appears to have given completion of the project a very low priority. [38] In the end, instead of receiving a nicely done video in a timely manner, the Claimants received excuses. Instead of joy reliving their wedding, they experienced frustration. By the time they demanded their money back, I believe they had a valid claim to terminate the contract. The later delivery by the Defendant of a possibly-substandard product does not cure the fundamental breach. [39] The law of fundamental breach can have harsh results, but in some types of contracts - using this case as an example - the Defendant cannot expect to do a half job and collect part-payment. Whether part payment is deserved or not will depend on the nature of the contract. The Claimants here contend that the video has no value to them, at this time, and I accept their position. The Defendant is entitled to have whatever product she delivered returned to her, so long as she pays the judgment.
13 -11- [40] The Claimants have also sought general damages of $100.00, interest plus costs. General damages are meant to compensate for injury, which includes hurt feelings. I am satisfied that this minimal amount sought is well justified. [41] The Claimants paid their $ on August 27, Interest at the annual rate of 4%, as mandated by regulation, amounts to $49,48. Costs claimed are $99.70 for filing fee and $ to serve the claim. [42] The Claimants are accordingly entitled to recover from the Defendant the total of $1,108.43, consisting of the following: Debt owing (refund) $ General damages $ Interest $49.48 Costs $ Total $1, [43] Upon the Defendant presenting payment in full, she is entitled to have returned to her all of the video products delivered. It would not be in the spirit of this decision for the Claimants to make and retain any copies of this material. Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Eastpoint Engineering Ltd. v. Fisher, 2017 NSSM 51 REASONS FOR DECISION
BETWEEN: Claim No: SCCH - 464447 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Eastpoint Engineering Ltd. v. Fisher, 2017 NSSM 51 EASTPOINT ENGINEERING LTD. Claimant - and - COLIN SCOTT FISHER Defendant
More informationIN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Custom Clean Atlantic Ltd. v. GSF Canada Inc., 2016 NSSM 17 PRELIMINARY RULING ON JURISDICTION
Claim No. SCCH-449291 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Custom Clean Atlantic Ltd. v. GSF Canada Inc., 2016 NSSM 17 BETWEEN: CUSTOM CLEAN ATLANTIC LTD. Claimant - and - GSF CANADA INC.
More informationIN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Molnar v. BMW Canada Inc., 2017 NSSM 24 REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
BETWEEN: Claim No: SCCH - 461264 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Molnar v. BMW Canada Inc., 2017 NSSM 24 REBECCA MOLNAR - and - Claimant BMW CANADA INC. Defendant REASONS FOR DECISION
More informationIN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bourque Security Services NS v. Maroon Hill Properties Limited, 2018 NSSM 8 REASONS FOR DECISION
BETWEEN: Claim No: SCCH - 472150 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bourque Security Services NS v. Maroon Hill Properties Limited, 2018 NSSM 8 BOURQUE SECURITY SERVICES NS Claimant - and
More informationIN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Ben-Simon v. Capital Auto Sales, 2016 NSSM 34 REASONS FOR DECISION
BETWEEN: Claim No: SCCH-449438 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Ben-Simon v. Capital Auto Sales, 2016 NSSM 34 DANIEL BEN-SIMON Claimant - and - CAPITAL AUTO SALES and 2304606 NOVA SCOTIA
More informationIN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Chute v. McCulloch, 2016 NSSM and -
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Chute v. McCulloch, 2016 NSSM 60 Claim: SCCH-454292 Registry: Halifax Between: Joseph Troy Chute Claimant - and - Danny McCulloch and Country Hills Auto
More informationWebsite Development Agreement
Website Development Agreement This WEB SITE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is an agreement between Lotta Digital (Lotta Digital is a registered name of Qikmo Technology Inc.) ("Company") and the party
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-00349 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN VICARDO GONSALVES CLAIMANT AND CHAN PERSAD DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances: For the Claimant:
More informationMitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11, [2009] 1 AC 874, [2009] 2 WLR 481, [2009] 3 All ER 205 HL
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11, [2009] 1 AC 874, [2009] 2 WLR 481, [2009] 3 All ER 205 HL Summary James Mitchell, 72, was attacked in July 2001 with an iron bar by his neighbour, James
More informationIN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Seacoast Automotive Ltd. v. Parsons, 2016 NSSM 54 REASONS FOR DECISION
Claim No: SCCH-453678 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Seacoast Automotive Ltd. v. Parsons, 2016 NSSM 54 BETWEEN: SEACOAST AUTOMOTIVE LTD. - and - DANNY PARSONS Claimant Defendant BETWEEN:
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: An Jager v. Jager, 2019 NSCA 9. v. Wiebo Kevin Jager. January 31, 2019, in Halifax, Nova Scotia in Chambers
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: An Jager v. Jager, 2019 NSCA 9 Date: 20190131 Docket: CA 472720 Registry: Halifax Between: Julie Deborah An Jager v. Wiebo Kevin Jager Appellant Respondent Judge:
More informationThe Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series
The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series The American civil judicial system is slow, and imperfect, but many times a victim s only recourse in attempting to me made whole after suffering an injury. This
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND AND RAMKARRAN RAMPARAS. Before the Honourable Madame Justice Eleanor J. Donaldson- Honeywell
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2015-01399 Between SURJNATH RAMSINGH Claimant AND SURJEE CHOWBAY Defendant And by Ancillary Claim SURJEE CHOWBAY Defendant/ Ancillary
More informationand JUDGMENT [2011: 15, 27 June]
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL DIVISION CLAIM NO: BVlHCV 2009/388 BETWEEN: CURTIS ZIMMERMAN Dba THE ZIMMERMAN AGENCY Claimant and BRITISH
More informationIMPORTANT TERMS IN BUSINESS
CHAPTER 4 CONTRACTS SECTION 1 IMPORTANT TERMS IN BUSINESS ANSWERS TO BUSINESS LAW WHAT S YOUR OPINION? QUESTIONS 1. a) The first agreement was an agreement in respect of land and therefore it had to be
More informationNO CV. JOHN GANNON, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee V. MATTHEW D. WIGGINS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Opinion issued July 8, 2010 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-08-00994-CV JOHN GANNON, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee V. MATTHEW D. WIGGINS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant On Appeal
More informationTRIAL DOCUMENTS PROVING, TENDERING AND CROSS-EXAMINATION
TRIAL DOCUMENTS PROVING, TENDERING AND CROSS-EXAMINATION I take my topic to require a discussion of the use of documents in one s own case evidence in chief and in the opponent s case cross-examination.
More informationOrder F05-21 LAND AND WATER BRITISH COLUMBIA INC.
Order F05-21 LAND AND WATER BRITISH COLUMBIA INC. Celia Francis, Adjudicator July 12, 2005 Quicklaw Cite: [2005] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 29 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/orderf05-21.pdf Office URL:
More informationDEVELOPING A COLLECTION PLAN FOR GATHERING VIDEO EVIDENCE
DEVELOPING A COLLECTION PLAN FOR GATHERING VIDEO EVIDENCE Filming for human rights can be dangerous. It can put you, the people you are filming and the communities you are filming in at risk. Carefully
More informationA breach of contract occurs where a party does not comply with one or more of the terms of contract, express or implied.
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG Breach and Remedy Refer to Richards, P. Law of Contract Chapters 16-18 Uff, J. Construction Law 9 th Edition Chapter 9 BREACH OF CONTRACT A breach of contract occurs where
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 informationIN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Renshaw v. Parker, 2018 NSSM 7 REASONS FOR DECISION
BETWEEN: Claim No: SCCH - 465737 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Renshaw v. Parker, 2018 NSSM 7 DAVE RENSHAW, LEE PERRIN, and ROBERT HOOD Claimant - and - DWIGHT PARKER Defendant REASONS
More informationAssessment Review Board
Assessment Review Board RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (made under section 25.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act) INDEX 1. RULES Application and Definitions (Rules 1-2) Interpretation and Effect
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2010-2764 BETWEEN VISHNU CHATLANI 1 st Claimant PREETI CHATLANI 2 nd Claimant AND LA FORTRESSE COMPANY LIMITED 1 st Defendant D.T.L. PROPERTY DEVELOPERS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D GERALD ALEXANDER RHABURN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2012 CLAIM NO. 31 of 2011 MICHELLE CARD CLAIMANT AND GERALD ALEXANDER RHABURN DEFENDANT Hearings 2012 24 th January 6 th February 7 th May 31 st May 16 th July Ms.
More information(a) the purpose of the agreement was to achieve the objective of reconstructing the Lloyd s market:
Jones v Society of Lloyds; Standen v Society of Lloyds CHANCERY DIVISION The Times 2 February 2000, (Transcript) HEARING-DATES: 16 DECEMBER 1999 16 DECEMBER 1999 COUNSEL: D Oliver QC and R Morgan for the
More informationStandard Conditions of Sale and Terms of Delivery of
Standard Conditions of Sale and Terms of Delivery of I. General 1. These Standard Conditions of Sale and Terms of Delivery (hereinafter referred to as Terms of Delivery ) apply exclusively to our goods
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67. v. Christopher Longaphy. Section 11(B) Charter - Decision - Unreasonable Delay
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67 Date: 2017-11-21 Docket: 2668787, 2668788, 2668789, 2668790 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Christopher Longaphy
More informationIN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Mark Jacques Custom Upholstery v. Buchanan, 2017 NSSM 63
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Mark Jacques Custom Upholstery v. Buchanan, 2017 NSSM 63 Claim: SCAR and SCY No.456460 Registry: Yarmouth Between: MARK JACQUES CUSTOM UPHOLSTERY CLAIMANT
More informationProfessionally drafted STANDARD TERMS OF BUSINESS. by legal counsel (Andrew Noble FRICS, FCIArb, Barrister at law)
Professionally drafted STANDARD TERMS OF BUSINESS by legal counsel (Andrew Noble FRICS, FCIArb, Barrister at law) Introduction 1. This service has been set up to assist UK businesses to develop and to
More informationMarthinus Greyling. Sergey Gimranov DECISION
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2016] NZIACDT 22 Reference No: IACDT 047/15. IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationSENIOR PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY CONTRACT
SENIOR PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY CONTRACT SENIOR PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY CONTRACT Photographer: Client (Parent/Legal Guardian): Minor: Julie Goerler NAME NAME 4107 Blue Creek Rd ADDRESS ADDRESS Brookville IN 47012
More informationI ve Been Charged With an Offence: What Now?
I ve Been Charged With an Offence: What Now? Getting a Lawyer If the police have charged you with a criminal, drug or Youth Criminal Justice offence and you have been given a court date down the road:
More informationProcess Guide to Appeal Driver s License Suspensions under Section 279B
Motor Vehicle Appeal Board Process Guide to Appeal Driver s License Suspensions under Section 279B October 23, 2012 Disclaimer The legislation referred to in this Guide is subject to amendment from time
More informationLAW OFFICE OF MARK ROYSNER Mulholland Highway, Suite 382 Calabasas, CA
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Definitions of Legal Terms Typically Found in Meetings and Exhibition Industry Contracts. By Mark Roysner, Esq. This is a glossary of legal terms and phrases commonly found in hotel,
More informationCLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep an open
CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS I. GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep
More informationSmall Claims Court. A Guide for Claimants, Defendants & Third Parties
Small Claims Court A Guide for Claimants, Defendants & Third Parties Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick (PLEIS-NB) is a non-profit charitable organization which provides information
More informationJUDGE DENISE POSSE LINDBERG STOCK CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS
JUDGE DENISE POSSE LINDBERG STOCK CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Stock Opening Instructions Introduction and General Instructions... 1 Summary of the Case... 2 Role of Judge, Jury and Lawyers...
More informationAdjudication Claim Dated [insert date]
Under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an Adjudication BETWEEN ABC CONSTRUCTION LTD Claimant AND JOHN DOE Respondent [AND JANE DOE] [Owner] (only relevant to an adjudication brought
More informationAnnual Stars of Life Celebration & Legislative Summit
Annual Stars of Life Celebration & Legislative Summit Registration Deadline: April 8, 2019 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 150 SACRAMENTO, CA 95833 www.the-caa.org 877.276.1410 (toll free) 916.924.7323 (fax)
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006
WARNER, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006 THOMAS J. BARRY, Appellant, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 4D05-2060 [October 4, 2006] In a
More informationBrookshire Brothers, LTD. v. Aldridge, ---S.W.3d----, 2014 WL (Tex. July 3, 2014)
Brookshire Brothers, LTD. v. Aldridge, ---S.W.3d----, 2014 WL 2994435 (Tex. July 3, 2014) 1 Chronology of events 9/2/2004 DOI slip and fall 6/26/2008 Judgment signed by trial court 9/11/2008 Notice of
More informationSpecial Topics in Small Claims
Special Topics in Small Claims Contracts Module 4: What Are the Terms? Objectives By the end of this session, you will be able to: Correctly determine whether you are barred from considering particular
More informationThe Top 10 Misconceptions about Mechanic's Liens By: David J. Barnier Esq.
The Top 10 Misconceptions about Mechanic's Liens By: David J. Barnier Esq. 1. A Preliminary Notice must be served within 20 days of the claimant first providing labor/materials/equipment/etc. (benefit)
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 informationA Survivor s Guide. to Sexual Assault Prosecution. Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service
A Survivor s Guide to Sexual Assault Prosecution Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service A Survivor s Guide to Sexual Assault Prosecution Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service Table of Contents Contact
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Ru, 2018 NSSC 155. Dai Ru. Her Majesty the Queen
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Ru, 2018 NSSC 155 Date: 20180622 Docket: Hfx No. 472559 Registry: Halifax Between: Dai Ru v. Appellant Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Judge: Heard: Counsel:
More informationConstruction Law: Recent Developments of Importance
Construction Law: Recent Developments of Importance Bruce Reynolds and James MacLellan Published in the Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada (2002 Lexpert/American Lawyer Media) During the past year
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 informationGENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to
GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must follow the law as I state it
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. MARITIME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. CV 2015-02046 BETWEEN NATALIE CHIN WING Claimant AND MARITIME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable Mr.
More informationSelf-Help Legal Information Packet: Filing an Eviction Case
Self-Help Legal Information Packet: Filing an Eviction Case Self-Help Legal Information Packets are provided for the benefit of justice courts and individuals seeking access to justice through the court
More information1. Scope of application, general provisions 3. Prices, payment, delays in payment 2. Offers, samples, guarantees, contracts
1. Scope of application, general provisions 1.1 All present and future deliveries of goods and services (referred to hereinafter as deliveries ) shall be effected solely on the basis of the following terms
More informationReview Office FAQs FEQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT REVIEWS OF LAWYER S CHARGES
Review Office FAQs FEQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT REVIEWS OF LAWYER S CHARGES 1. What is a review of lawyer s charges? 2. Do the lawyer s charges have to be for a particular type of legal service? 3.
More informationSOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No and. Before:
SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 10971-2012 BETWEEN: SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY Applicant and TIMOTHY JAMES PENNY Respondent Before: Mr D. Green (in
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION
In the matter of: Claimant/Appellee STATE OF FLORIDA REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION vs. Employer/Appellant R.A.A.C. Order No. 13-04687 Referee Decision No. 13-31687U ORDER OF REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE
More informationGTCP. General terms and conditions of purchase VALIDITY FROM
GTCP General terms and conditions of purchase VALIDITY FROM 01.02.2017 1 General remarks, area of validity (1) The present general terms and conditions of purchase (AEB) apply to all business relationships
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00546-CV Veronica L. Davis and James Anthony Davis, Appellants v. State Farm Lloyds Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION
[Cite as Mauger v. Inner Circle Condominium Owners Assn., 2011-Ohio-1533.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) LEN MAUGER II, et al. Appellants C.A.
More informationPROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK. Labour and Employment Board
PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK Labour and Employment Board HR-005-07 IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF A BOARD OF INQUIRY BETWEEN: Jennifer Steeves Riverview, New Brunswick Complainant
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22. Robert Blois Colpitts. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Colpitts, 2017 NSSC 22 Date: 20170124 Docket: CRH 346068 Registry: Halifax Between: Robert Blois Colpitts v. Her Majesty the Queen MID-TRIAL RULING TRIAL MANAGEMENT
More informationConsumer Rights Bill
[AS AMENDED IN GRAND COMMITTEE] CONTENTS PART 1 CONSUMER CONTRACTS FOR GOODS, DIGITAL CONTENT AND SERVICES CHAPTER 1 1 Where Part 1 applies 2 Key definitions INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 GOODS What goods contracts
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: LENNON MAPSON AND BERRY JAMES
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES GRENADA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2008/0458 BETWEEN: LENNON MAPSON AND BERRY JAMES Claimant Defendant Appearances:
More informationToronto Local Appeal Body Public Guide
Toronto Local Appeal Body Public Guide Revised on August 15, 2017 Contact information: Toronto Local Appeal Body 40 Orchard View Boulevard Suite 211 Toronto, ON M4R 1B9 Tel: (416) 392-4697 Web: www.toronto.ca/tlab
More informationHURT PROVING CAUSATION IN CHRONIC PAIN CASES
Posted on: January 1, 2011 HURT PROVING CAUSATION IN CHRONIC PAIN CASES One of the most significant challenges we face as personal injury lawyers is proving chronic pain in cases where there is no physical
More informationOFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK Circuit Court of St. Louis County 105 South Central Avenue Clayton, Missouri 63105
JOAN M. GILMER Circuit Clerk OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK Circuit Court of St. Louis County 105 South Central Avenue Clayton, Missouri 63105 This pamphlet is intended to assist you in filing a Small Claims
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D DEBORAH DEAN RAE KILBY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 CLAIM NO. 440 of 2007 PATRICIA STURMAN CLAIMANT AND DEBORAH DEAN RAE KILBY 1 st DEFENDANT 2 nd DEFENDANT Hearings 2011 6 th July 12 th August 18 th August 25 th
More informationCONSIGNMENT AGREEMENT The Golden Closet 7243 Coldwater Canyon Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605
CONSIGNMENT AGREEMENT The Golden Closet 7243 Coldwater Canyon Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605 Date of Agreement: Name of Consignor: This Consignment Agreement sets forth the terms of the agreement between
More informationPRACTICE NOTE 1/2015
IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL PRACTICE NOTE 1/2015 (DEPORTATION - RESIDENT) (including any appeal under section 162 by a non-citizen previously recognised as a refugee or a protected person, whose
More informationfailing to get the contract signed (something that never ceases to amaze lawyers!);
Professionals involved in design-build projects should be aware of the risks they face when they contract with the owner to be solely responsible for both construction and design. In this respect, the
More informationInsight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group
Insight from Horwich Farrelly s Large & Complex Injury Group Issue #27 01 September 2016 Alexander House 94 Talbot Road Manchester M16 0SP T. 03300 240 711 F. 03300 240 712 www.h-f.co.uk Page 1 Welcome
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Contracts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question On April 1, Pat, a computer software
More informationBUSINESS TORTS / COMMERCIAL LITIGATION: EFFECTIVE TRIAL TECHNIQUES
BUSINESS TORTS / COMMERCIAL LITIGATION: EFFECTIVE TRIAL TECHNIQUES I. Introduction There has been a marked increase in tort litigation filed both in Federal and State Courts by corporations and other business
More informationARTICLE 2.0 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
ARTICLE 2.0 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT Section 2.01 Compliance Required. No structure, site or part thereof shall be constructed, altered or maintained and no use of any structure or land shall be
More informationINSTALMENT SALE FORFEITURE CLAUSE UNFAIR
INSTALMENT SALE FORFEITURE CLAUSE UNFAIR Botha and Another v Rich N.O. and Others (CCT 89/13) [2014] ZACC 11 (17 April 2014) This is an important judgment in which the Constitutional Court held that where
More informationRECIPE FOR FRESH AND CRISPY ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WILL DO YOU PROUD
RECIPE FOR FRESH AND CRISPY ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WILL DO YOU PROUD Staples Hughes Nuts and Bolts of Appellate Procedure, NCATL Headquarters, July 7, 2006 No client s chance for relief
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2018 NSCA 3. v. Her Majesty the Queen
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2018 NSCA 3 Date: 20180109 Docket: CAC 470957 Registry: Halifax Between: Rita Mary Spencer v. Her Majesty the Queen Applicant Respondent Judge: Motion
More informationB e f o r e: MR JUSTICE BURTON. Between: THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF ASSOCIATION FOR INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP PSYCHOTHERAPY & OTHERS Claimant
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3702 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CO/3229/10 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday, 10th December
More informationSOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No and. Before:
SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 11207-2013 BETWEEN: SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY Applicant and JOANNE ELIZABETH COUGHLAN Respondent Before: Mr R. Nicholas
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D and A.D BETWEEN: (RANDOLPH HOPE PLAINTIFF ( ( AND (
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 1998 and A.D. 2003 CLAIM NO: 55 OF 1998 CLAIM NO: 60 OF 2003 CLAIM NO: 55 OF 1998 BETWEEN: (RANDOLPH HOPE PLAINTIFF ( ( AND ( (CHARLES MCINTOSH DEFENDANT CLAIM NO:
More informationB e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE FLOYD EUROPEAN HERITAGE LIMITED
Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 238 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION B2/2012/0611 Royal Courts of Justice Strand,London WC2A
More informationMaking a breach of contract claim. Information Kit. Advice Line or
Making a breach of contract claim Information Kit Advice Line 1300 130 956 or 9227 0111 Making a breach of contract claim Disclaimer... 3 How to use this guide... 4 What are unpaid entitlements?... 4 Can
More informationSmall Claims Manual (2012) Noble Superior Court, Division N. Orange Street Albion, Indiana (260)
Small Claims Manual (2012) Noble Superior Court, Division 2 101 N. Orange Street Albion, Indiana 46701 (260) 636-2129 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Application of Manual... 3 Important Information About Suing in
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT ) IN THE OFFICE OF THE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
More information18 July 2011 The Oaks No 2, Westwood Way, Westwood Business Park, Coventry CV4 8JB
Report on an investigation into complaint no against the London Borough of Bexley 18 July 2011 The Oaks No 2, Westwood Way, Westwood Business Park, Coventry CV4 8JB Investigation into complaint no against
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV [2017] NZHC UNDER the Insolvency Act 2006 PRESCOTT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV-2017-404-1097 [2017] NZHC 2701 UNDER the Insolvency Act 2006 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the bankruptcy
More informationCommercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes)
Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes) Rules Amended and Effective October 1, 2013 Fee Schedule Amended and Effective June 1,
More information1. In these conditions ( these Conditions ) unless the context requires otherwise:
CP Creative Ltd Terms & Conditions: Business to Business When using the services and/or purchasing content from CP Creative Ltd (and Lease Planners) you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions,
More informationGOING TO COURT ON SMALL CLAIMS
LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT GOING TO COURT ON SMALL CLAIMS A GUIDE TO BRINGING AND DEFENDING SUITS ON SMALL CLAIMS IN OHIO JUDGE LISA A. LOCKE GRAVES JUDGE GARY C. BENNETT MAGISTRATE RICHARD K. SCHWARTZ ERIC
More informationGeneral Terms and Conditions of: F & M Richard Tummers B.V. Ambyerstraat-Noord EJ Maastricht
General Terms and Conditions of: F & M Richard Tummers B.V. Ambyerstraat-Noord 162 6225 EJ Maastricht (AS 224-10) Chamber of Commerce No. for Limburg: 140548040000 Article 1: Applicability/definitions
More informationGeneral Terms and Conditions (GTCs) Valid as of: 1 October 2016
General Terms and Conditions (GTCs) Valid as of: 1 October 2016 Our General Terms and Conditions (GTCs) are valid in the current version. uma Schreibgeräte Ullmann GmbH reserves the right to review the
More informationRules of Procedure 10/2018
Rules of Procedure 10/2018 Table of Contents Part I Definitions and Introduction... 5 1.1 Objective and Disclaimer... 5 1.2 Definitions... 5 1.3 Introduction... 7 1.4 Mandate... 8 1.5 Jurisdiction... 8
More informationAMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
USAGE NOTE: Following our preliminary hearing, I commonly enter a scheduling order of this sort in all AAA-administered arbitrations. A similar form is used in NASD-administered arbitrations and in private
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2005 CLAIM NO. 175 OF 2005 (ROMEL PALACIO ( BETWEEN (AND ( (BELIZE CITY COUNCIL CLAIMANT DEFENDANT Mr. Dean Lindo, SC, for the Claimant Mr. Edwin Flowers, SC, for the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Barkhouse (Re), 2018 NSSC 101. In the Matter of The Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act, RCS. 1985, c.
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Barkhouse (Re), 2018 NSSC 101 Date: 20180426 Docket: Hfx. No. 472745 Registry: Halifax In the Matter of The Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act, RCS. 1985, c. B-3, as amended
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-12-0000541 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I DONNALYN M. MOSIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEITH PARKINSON and SHERRI PARKINSON, Defendants-Appellants. APPEAL FROM THE
More informationCase Comment: Ictensev v. The Minister of Employement and Immigration
Journal of Law and Social Policy Volume 5 Article 10 1989 Case Comment: Ictensev v. The Minister of Employement and Immigration Michael Bossin Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp
More informationEVIDENCE REQUIRED 1. COVER LETTER
EVIDENCE REQUIRED If you are attempting a Guinness World Records title without the presence of an official Adjudicator, then we will require the following material to evaluate and verify your record attempt:
More informationBIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD v ABDOOLALLY EBRAHIM & CO (HONG KONG) LTD - [1994] 3 HKC 518
1 BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD v ABDOOLALLY EBRAHIM & CO (HONG KONG) LTD - [1994] 3 HKC 518 HIGH COURT KAPLAN J ACTION NO 11313 OF 1993 28 July 1994 Civil Procedure -- Summary judgment -- Lack
More information