Factbites
 Where results make sense
About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   PR   |   Contact us  

Topic: Divisional Court


Related Topics

In the News (Sun 16 Jun 19)

  
  OHRC - 1997 Case Summaries
The Divisional Court dismissed the respondents' appeal and held that the board of inquiry correctly found that the application of the employer' s sick leave policy constituted direct discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and sex by denying benefits to the complainant.
Secondly, the Divisional Court found that the Commission erred in its decision to refuse to investigate the allegations of reprisal in the context of the original complaint of discrimination and in its insistence that a separate complaint of reprisal was necessary.
The Divisional Court, in its 1991 decision, held that there was insufficient evidence before the Board of Inquiry for it to conclude that age was a factor in the Complainant being refused the apartment.
www.ohrc.on.ca /en_text/cases/summary-1997.shtml   (3683 words)

  
 {DIVISIONAL COURT RULES ON GRAVEL PIT EVALUATION}   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-24)
The Divisional Court disagreed that the size, shape and nature of the area expropriated was such that there was no general demand or market for it.
The Divisional Court also felt that there had been an error by the Ministry’s appraiser in that he did not determine the market value of "the whole of the claimant’s land", but only of Parts 1 and 2 leaving Parts 3 and 4 out of his analysis.
The Divisional Court held that the OMB had erred in valuing the parcel as if the aggregate would be extracted immediately.
www.oea.on.ca /{one}.htm   (289 words)

  
 City of Toronto: Preserving Rental Housing
The Court found that s.16(1) of the Planning Act clearly authorizes the by-law, particularly in light of s.2(j) of the Planning Act, which states that the adequate provision of a full range of housing is a matter of provincial interest, for which municipalities and the OMB must have regard.
The Court relied in part on the legislative debates surrounding the TPA where the Minister of Municipal Affairs clearly stated that the intent of the TPA was not to remove the authority that municipalities had prior to its enactment.
The Divisional Court found that in the present case: "the authority in broad terms is given to the City to enact the subject amendment to the official plan...Whatever the difference is between the municipality and the province in the case before this panel, they are not in conflict."
www.toronto.ca /torontoplan/bkgr_opa2.htm   (789 words)

  
 Discipline Committee Decisions
Rafaj’s motion for leave to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.
The Court said that this caused concerns related to the fairness of the process, as the standards of professional practice in the field of alternative allergy medicine were at the core of the case.
On March 13, 2000, the Divisional Court allowed Dr. Jagoo’s appeal of the decision of the Discipline Committee on the basis that its reasons were inadequate, and that it had made errors with respect to the apprehension of some of the evidence.
www.cpso.on.ca /Publications/Dialogue/oct05/appeals.htm   (1275 words)

  
 OHRC - 1999 Case Summaries
The majority of the Divisional Court held that the "facts upon which the complaint is based" in clause 34(1)(d) must be facts which involve the complainant'since the most recent fact involving the complainant occurred outside six months, the Commission had jurisdiction pursuant to clause 34(1)(d).
In the Tilberg case, the Divisional Court held that the Board did not have the jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of the complaint in the absence of the Commission which had the statutory duty to "have the carriage of the complaint," pursuant to section 39(2) of the Code.
The Divisional Court held that its limited role was to determine whether or not the Commission's decision to not deal with the complaint was patently unreasonable in the circumstances.
www.ohrc.on.ca /en_text/cases/summary-1999.shtml   (6206 words)

  
 McCarthy Tétrault LLP - Publications - Divisional Court Says Employer On the Hook for Ontario Health Premium   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-24)
The Divisional Court’s decision in Lapointe is significant as the first court decision to consider the issue of whether old collective agreement language obliging an employer to pay the former "OHIP Premium" obligates that employer to pay the new cost of employees’ Ontario Health Premium.
The Divisional Court determined the applicable standard of review of Arbitrator Barrett’s award to be patent unreasonableness and in so doing it gave a high degree of deference to the Arbitrator.
The Divisional Court found the reasoning in Ontario Power Generation to be "logical, reasonable and compelling" and equally applicable to Arbitrator Barrett’s award.
www.mccarthy.ca /pubs/publication.asp?pub_code=2048   (760 words)

  
 McCarthy Tétrault LLP - Publications - Disability and the ESA: Have Employers Been Frustrated?   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-24)
The Divisional Court also found that there was no connection between the denial of severance pay and the circumstances of disabled individuals whose employment had become frustrated.
The Divisional Court concluded that denying severance pay to employees who are unable to continue their employment due to disability sends the message that the contributions of those employees were not as valuable as the contributions of able-bodied employees.
Lastly, the Divisional Court concluded that the fact that Tilley had received disability benefits was irrelevant to a determination of whether it was discriminatory to deny her severance pay, as the purpose of severance pay was to compensate Tilley for her past service to the Hospital.
www.mccarthy.ca /pubs/publication.asp?pub_code=1819   (1178 words)

  
 Litigation can prove a costly nightmare
But when the case finally reached the Court of Appeal in December, 2005, three judges of that court ruled that it did not have the right to hear the appeal and it should be heard by the Divisional Court, after all.
The factors to be considered by the Court in the exercise of its discretion are the conduct of the applicant, the gravity of the breaches, and the disparity between the value of the property forfeited and the damage caused by the breach.
It is not the role of an appellate court to replace the exercise of discretion by the motions judge.
www.aaron.ca /columns/2006-03-25.htm   (4682 words)

  
 House of Lords - Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others EX Parte Pinochet (on ...
As for the second provisional warrant, the Divisional Court rejected the respondent's argument that it was unlawful to proceed on the second warrant and that the Magistrate erred in not holding an inter partes hearing.
The Court did not rule at that stage on the respondent's argument that the acts alleged did not constitute crimes in the United Kingdom at the time they were done, but added that it was not necessary that the conduct alleged did constitute a crime here at the time the alleged crime was committed abroad.
The Court read the international warrant as accusing the respondent not of personally torturing or murdering victims or causing their disappearance, but of using the powers of the State of which he was Head to do that.
members.tripod.com /~mneumann/pinolord.htm   (16869 words)

  
 J.R. of Order M-23 (Divisional Court)
41(13)).In considering the procedure adopted by the Commissioner, this court should accord curial deference in light of the difficult circumstances faced by the Commissioner subject, of course, to the overriding concerns of procedural fairness.
The issue on this interim application is the extent of access to a sealed record that should be granted to counsel for the purpose of preparing for the main application.
Pursuant to s.137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C-43, the record of the Commission is to be sealed and not form part of the public record.
www.accessandprivacy.gov.on.ca /english/jr/m23div.htm   (1189 words)

  
 Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - Goodis v. Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services)
The panel accepted the argument that “it may be of assistance, both to counsel and to the court, to see the documents ordered produced as well as those that were not to make what he or she [counsel for the requester] can of any distinctions and to provide context” (para.
In the view of the Court of Appeal, Blair J., as a judge of the Divisional Court, had jurisdiction to control the process of the court and to ensure procedural fairness to all parties.
The procedure of the court is governed by the provisions of the relevant statutes and rules that apply to the court.
scc.lexum.umontreal.ca /en/2006/2006scc31/2006scc31.html   (3940 words)

  
 Appeal Information Package
The Divisional Court is a branch of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
An appeal to the Superior Court of Justice and an appeal to the Divisional Court within the same proceeding may be combined and heard by the Divisional Court.
If an appeal has been commenced in the Superior Court of Justice, a motion may be brought to transfer it to the Divisional Court for the purpose of a combined appeal.
www.ontariocourts.on.ca /divisional_court/appealinformation.htm   (4144 words)

  
 Indexed as Anderson v. Wilson
The Divisional Court was wrong to put aside the group of persons who received notice of the possibility of infection, were tested, and were uninfected.
Thus, the Ontario Court of Appeal has firmly embraced the "plain and obvious" test, and has made clear that it too is of the view that the test is rooted in the need for courts to ensure that their process is not abused.
I have no difficulty agreeing with both Jenkins J. and the Divisional Court and their reasons for finding that these patients comprise a class, that the pleadings disclose a cause of action, and that there is a commonality which suggests resolution in the context of a class action.
www.hartelaw.com /hepb/cacert.htm   (4966 words)

  
 Ministry of the Attorney General - Court Services
Court staff schedule court cases, maintain court records and files, collect fines and fees, enforce civil orders, provide justice information to the public, and facilitate the delivery of other justice services, including civil and family mediation programs, victims' services and legal aid services.
Court Services also provides administrative and courtroom support to all judicial officers in the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice.
Court staff manage the jury system and provide the courtroom clerks, court reporters, registrars and court interpreters required for court proceedings.
www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca /english/courts   (339 words)

  
 Child Support | Issues | Ontario Women's Justice Network
It found that the motions court judge had erred in failing to carry out the second sep in the analysis outlined above, and that she was, therefore, wrong to depart from the Guidelines amount.
Conclusion and Disposition: The Divisional Court set aside the motions court decision and restored the original child support order of 1998, increasing the amount of child support to be paid to $688, in accordance with the father's increased income.
The Divisional Court makes it clear in its ruling that payors will only be able to reduce their level of support if there is clear and compelling evidence that this is in the child's interests, and not by merely claiming that the child spends a significant amount of time in the payor's custody.
www.owjn.org /issues/child/shared.htm   (1294 words)

  
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
The Divisional Court ordered a full disclosure by the OHRC to the respondent "to ensure that justice be done" on the consideration that "The allegations of racial discrimination against the respondents are extremely serious, with the result that the duty of fairness requires full disclosure."
However, the Divisional Court 's integrity must be challenged if the Court refuses to apply the same practice and reasoning to the disclosure requests of human rights complainants (such as that of mine) even it is in the judicial review process where the OHRC is bond by law to fully disclose all documentary evidence.
This has set a precedent in the Canadian justice system that the courts can openly and literally refuse to apply the Canadian law to minority litigants, and this is an overt and blatant racial discrimination in court by the court.
home.globility.com /~wxl85/sccargue.html   (4155 words)

  
 RSC ORDER 52 - COMMITTAL
An application made to a Divisional Court by virtue of paragraph (4) must be made within 8 days after the judge’s refusal to give permission or, if a Divisional Court does not sit within that period, on the first day on which it sits thereafter.
Except with the permission of the court hearing an application for an order of committal, no grounds shall be relied upon at the hearing except the grounds set out in the statement under rule 2 or, as the case may be, in the claim form or application notice under rule 4.
The court by whom an order of committal is made may by order direct that the execution of the order of committal shall be suspended for such period or on such terms or conditions as it may specify.
www.dca.gov.uk /civil/procrules_fin/contents/schedule1/rscorder52.htm   (1059 words)

  
 Divisional Court Releases Decision in The Brian Costello Matter : ArriveNet Press Releases : Business   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-24)
Costello's appeal but for the issue of the costs order which the Court directed to be reconsidered by the Commission.
This is the first case in Canada where the Courts have interpreted the meaning of "adviser" under securities legislation.
On costs, the Court affirmed that the Commission is "procedural master in its own house" and that the Commission can choose a fair procedure to follow in ordering costs that provides appropriate support for the costs requested.
press.arrivenet.com /business/article.php/392739.html   (303 words)

  
 The Court Service - Divisional Court - Judgments
The High Court or the Court of Appeal could refer litigants to a solicitor, provided that their means fell within prescribed limits and their case was reasonable.
The papers before the court reveal one firm which maintained that it had done 50 housing cases and 100 welfare benefit cases during the baseline period, whereas the Board ascertained the true figures to be 25 and 19 respectively.
She has told the court that that unit has now been dissolved, and that there is now only one part-time solicitor at her old firm who undertakes community care cases.
www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk /judgmentsfiles/j748/div_la.htm   (19512 words)

  
 The Court Service - Divisional Court - Judgments
The court itself is empowered to determine a question raised by case stated by the requesting state under section 10, to determine an application for habeas corpus under section 11; and to determine an application for leave to move for judicial review under section 13.
Mr Woolf, who appeared as amicus curiae, and to whom the court is indebted for his assistance, submitted that the magistrate has a residual discretion to hear a proposed defendant if he felt it necessary for the purpose of reaching a decision.We would accept this contention.
The thrust therefore of that warrant makes it plain that the applicant is charged not with personally torturing or murdering victims or causing their disappearance, but with using the power of the state of which he was head to that end.
www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk /judgmentsfiles/j136/div_pin1.htm   (9873 words)

  
 obc - PEO Application to the Divisional Court   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-24)
On March 20, 2006, the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) filed a Notice of Application with the Divisional Court seeking to question the application of Building Code qualification and registration amendments as they apply to professional engineers.
Pending the determination of this issue by the Court, designers, including professional engineers, are required to comply with the qualification and registration requirements of the Building Code Act, 1992 and the Building Code.
The Province and PEO have tried to resolve the issues and have engaged in extensive efforts to develop a designation system for professional engineers, but ultimately PEO and the Province were not able to reach an accord.
www.obc.mah.gov.on.ca /userfiles/HTML/nts_4_26779_1.html   (170 words)

  
 Ministry of the Attorney General - List of Ontario Court Addresses
A satellite court provides selected and limited court services in conjunction with a main court office.
Please contact the satellite court office for hours of operation.
The Ministry of the Attorney General does not provide legal advice to the public.
www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca /english/courts/cadaddr.asp   (154 words)

  
 Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43   (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-24)
      (7) The opinion of the court shall be deemed to be a judgment of the court and an appeal lies from it as from a judgment in an action.  R.S.O. c.
      (2) A judge of the Court of Appeal is, by virtue of his or her office, a judge of the Superior Court of Justice and has all the jurisdiction, power and authority of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.  R.S.O. 1990, c.
   (2) A regional senior judge of the Superior Court of Justice shall, subject to the authority of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice, exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Chief Justice in respect of the Superior Court of Justice in his or her region.
www.e-laws.gov.on.ca /DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c43_e.htm   (5256 words)

  
 Statutory Instruments 1998 No. 3132 (L. 17)
Rule 11 The Court hearing a case stated by a Minister, tribunal, arbitrator or other person may amend the case or order it to be returned to that person for amendment, and may draw inferences of fact from the facts stated in the case.
(3) Unless the Court otherwise orders, the notice must be issued within 5 days after the judgment, order or decision appealed against was given or made and must be served within five days after issue and an appeal to which this rule applies shall not be heard sooner than two clear days after such service.
(3) Except with the permission of the Court of Appeal, a single judge or the registrar, the appellant shall not be entitled on the hearing of an appeal to rely on any grounds of appeal, or to apply for any relief, not specified in the notice of appeal.
www.opsi.gov.uk /si/si1998/98313228.htm   (2599 words)

  
 Ontario Rules Civil Procedure Rules 61 62 63
(b) in the Divisional Court, the registrar in the regional centre of the region where the appeal is to be heard in accordance with subsection 20(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.
Part I, containing a statement identifying the moving party and the court from which it is proposed to appeal, and stating the result in that court.
(2.1) A motion required by subsection 7(2) or 21(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to be heard and determined by one judge may be heard and determined by a panel hearing an appeal or another motion in the proceeding properly made to the panel.
www.travel-net.com /~billr/Rules/appeals.html   (7533 words)

  
 12
In reasons delivered orally, the panel decided to exercise its discretion not to grant the adjournment on the basis that Ms Liao had not exercised diligence, nor was the crossexamination of the Registrar likely to serve any useful purpose.
(3) The right to cross-examine shall be exercised with reasonable diligence, and the court may refuse an adjournment of a motion or application for the purpose of cross-examination where the party seeking the adjournment has failed to act with reasonable diligence.
Divisional Court, Ms Liao has had an opportunity to appeal the original ruling.
home.globility.com /~wxl85/ohrc.html   (2003 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)

Factbites
  About us   |   Why use us?   |   Reviews   |   Press   |   Contact us  
Copyright © 2005-2007 www.factbites.com Usage implies agreement with terms.