Search - 2002年 抽纸品牌 质量排名

On status review, a party in default is required to respond to two questions: (i) is there a justification for the failure to move the matter forward; and (ii) what measures does the party propose to take to move the matter forward (see Netupsky v R, 2004 FCA 239 at para 11 citing Baroud v R, [1998] FCJ No 1729 [Baroud] and Manson v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), 2002 FCA 357. ... DATED: September 20, 2019   APPEARANCES: Rahma Saidi   For The Plaintiffs   Camille Aubin Catherine Thall Dubé Barry Gamache   FOR THE DEFENDANTS   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Saidi Law Corporation Barrister and Solicitor Surray, British Columbia   For The Plaintiffs   ROBIC, S.E.N.C.R.L. Montréal, Québec   For The Defendants     ...

Tran in November 2002 at college where they were just classmates. She next connected with him in June 2009 when he was in Vietnam visiting family. ... Those problems included significant issues with the progress of the marital relationship from being former classmates in 2002, who did not stay in touch and did not have a romantic relationship during that time, to Mr.  ... DATED: august1, 2019   APPEARANCES: Wennie Lee   For The Applicant   Gordon Lee   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lee & Company Immigration Advocacy, Counsel and Litigation Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario   For The Respondent     ...

Kinghorne says he was denied even the minimum level of procedural fairness, i.e., notice of the decision and a reasonable opportunity to respond (citing Nicholson v Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Police Commissioners, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311 at para 27; Baker at para 28; Moreau-Bérubé v New Brunswick (Judicial Council), 2002 SCC 11 at para 75). ... Finally, while not determinative, the procedural choices of the Board must be taken into account (Baker at para 27). [50]   The Harbour Authority was free to adopt public safety policies at its discretion (Mobil Oil Canada Ltd v Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202, [1994] SCJ No 14 at 228; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Patel, 2002 FCA 55 at paras 5 & 12). ... DATED: September 17, 2019   APPEARANCES: Patrick E. Hurley, Q.C. Ryan Baxter   For The Applicant   Patricia McPhee   For The Respondent   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: McInnes Cooper Barristers and Solicitors Fredericton, New Brunswick   For The Applicant   Attorney General of Canada Halifax, Nova Scotia   For The Respondent     ...

The Court refused to expand the class definition to include persons who, during the relevant period, were “advised orally or in writing by the defendants, the Commission or HRSDC, that they did not qualify for sickness leave because they were on parental leave or not otherwise available to work at the time of their sickness leave application, on which advice and representations they relied in not applying for sickness leave”. [5]   For the purpose of this application, the details of the Settlement Agreement, its implementation and the application for review process are key. [6]   Section 4.02 of the Settlement Agreement defines the class as follows: All persons who, during the period from March 3, 2002 to, and including, March 23, 2013: i)   Applied for and were paid parental benefits under the EI Act or corresponding types of benefits under Quebec’s An Act Respecting Parental Insurance; ii)   Suffered from an illness, injury or quarantine while in receipt of parental benefits; iii)   Applied for sickness benefits in respect of an illness, injury or quarantine referred to in ii; and iv)   Were denied a conversion of parental benefits to sickness benefits because: a)   the person was not otherwise available for work; or b)   the person had not previously received at least one week of sickness benefits during the benefit period in which the parental benefits were received. [7]   Pursuant to Section 5.01 of the Settlement Agreement, any person who can establish that they meet the class definition and received less than 15 weeks of sickness benefits during the benefit period in which the original application to convert to sickness benefits was made is eligible for an Individual Payment (as defined in the Settlement Agreement). [8]   The Settlement Agreement provides that certain persons who have been identified through the File Review Project are deemed eligible class members. ... “Mandy Aylen” Prothonotary FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD   Docket: T-210-12   STYLE OF CAUSE: JENNIFER MCCREA V. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA and COURTNEY SWINIMER   PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario JUDGMENT AND REASONS: MADAM PROTHONOTARY mandy aylen   DATED: OCTOBER 3, 2019   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Steven J Moreau Cavalluzzo LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   Christine Mohr Ayesha Laldin Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent   Courtney Swinimer For herself For The CLAIMANT     ...

I.   Background [2]   The applicants are a family of Syrian citizens. ... II.   Analysis [6]   Despite counsel for the applicants’ able advocacy, I am dismissing this application. ... C.   Testimony of the Child [16]   The applicants also argue that the officer should have heard from Ms. ...

Goodman gave during a scientific conference in Baltimore in 2002. That poster presented the results of a study conducted by Dr. ... The Plaintiffs assert that they do not have the actual poster used in Baltimore in 2002, either as a full-size original, a full-size copy or a reduced-size copy. ... SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP Barrister and Solicitor Ottawa, Ontario   For The plaintiffs   Aitken Klee LLP Barrister and Solicitor Ottawa, Ontario   For The defendant   Goodmans LLP Barrister and Solicitor Ottawa, Ontario   For The defendant   Aitken Klee LLP Barrister and Solicitor Ottawa, Ontario   For The defendant     ...

The Court refused to expand the class definition to include persons who, during the relevant period, were “advised orally or in writing by the defendants, the Commission or HRSDC, that they did not qualify for sickness leave because they were on parental leave or not otherwise available to work at the time of their sickness leave application, on which advice and representations they relied in not applying for sickness leave”. [5]   For the purpose of this application, the details of the Settlement Agreement, its implementation and the application for review process are key. [6]   Section 4.02 of the Settlement Agreement defines the class as follows: All persons who, during the period from March 3, 2002 to, and including, March 23, 2013: i)   Applied for and were paid parental benefits under the EI Act or corresponding types of benefits under Quebec’s An Act Respecting Parental Insurance; ii)   Suffered from an illness, injury or quarantine while in receipt of parental benefits; iii)   Applied for sickness benefits in respect of an illness, injury or quarantine referred to in ii; and iv)   Were denied a conversion of parental benefits to sickness benefits because: a)   the person was not otherwise available for work; or b)   the person had not previously received at least one week of sickness benefits during the benefit period in which the parental benefits were received. [7]   Pursuant to Section 5.01 of the Settlement Agreement, any person who can establish that they meet the class definition and received less than 15 weeks of sickness benefits during the benefit period in which the original application to convert to sickness benefits was made is eligible for an Individual Payment (as defined in the Settlement Agreement). [8]   The Settlement Agreement provides that certain persons who have been identified through the File Review Project are deemed eligible class members. ... “Mandy Aylen” Prothonotary FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD   Docket: T-210-12   STYLE OF CAUSE: JENNIFER MCCREA V. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA and ANGELA AMIRAULT   PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario JUDGMENT AND REASONS: MADAM PROTHONOTARY mandy aylen   DATED: NOVEMBER 29, 2019   SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Steven J Moreau Cavalluzzo LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario   For The Applicant   Christine Mohr Ayesha Laldin Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent   Angela Amirault For herself For The CLAIMANT     ...

Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicles), [2002] O.J. No. 3740.) [16]            As mentioned, with respect to the second ground for denying the motion for an interlocutory injunction, Tabacs Galaxy did not persuade the Court of the existence of a serious issue or and that the balance of convenience favoured it. [17]            However, Tabacs Galaxy established the existence of irreparable harm, referring to the judgment of Gauthier J. in case T-253-05, between the same parties, in which the judge stayed the enforcement of the Agency decision dated January 31, 2005, cancelling licence 51-TL-35, until a decision was rendered on the application for judicial review. ... I quote paragraphs 40 and 41 of her judgment: ¶ 40       As the Supreme Court noted in R.J.R. ... First, despite the fact that Blais J. had held the contrary, he maintained that there was still a serious issue regarding the retroactivity of the Regulations which came into effect on April 1, 2003, as the facts alleged in the finding of guilt occurred on September 3, 2002. ...

[16]      In Merck & Co. v. Apotex, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1925 (F.C.A.) ... Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752, at 766, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the conditions for this:             (1)        there must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by the federal Parliament;             (2)        there must be an existing body of federal law which is essential to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction;             (3)        the law on which the case is based must be "a law of Canada" as the phrase is used in s. 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867. [20]      I feel that these three criteria are met in the case at bar. ... Gadbois, 2002 FCA 228, [2002] F.C.J. No. 836 (C.A.) (QL). Incidentally, articles 1512 and 1627 C.C.Q. may be used. ...

The constitutional exemption provides a form of complete immunity from testifying where proceedings are undertaken or predominately used to obtain evidence for the prosecution of the witness. [14]   The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the application of these principles to investigations conducted under the Income Tax Act in R v Jarvis, 2002 SCC 73, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 757 [Jarvis]. ... Campbell.   JUDGMENT in T-1618-17 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: 1.   ... Barristers and Solicitors Montréal, Quebec   For The Applicant   Attorney General of Canada   FOR THE RESPONDENT     ...