Search - connection

(ii          In this connection, Ms. Alouache referred the Court in particular to the following passage (page 3 of Judge Springate's reasons): I met the applicant at her hearing. ...

After the attempted coup d’etat, the Mauritanian authorities apparently questioned his family about his connection with the insurgents. [7] Clearly, the panel had serious reservations about whether the photos of the demonstration had been posted on the Internet in such a way that they were accessible to the general public. ...

As I have refused to intervene in connection with the other facts which were before him, namely those set out in the affidavit filed in support of the motion to disqualify, and which he found to be sufficient by themselves to justify dismissing the said motion, it will not be necessary for me to consider the objector's further arguments relating to the facts [TRANSLATION] "added" in paras. 15 to 24 of the decision a quo. [10]       For these reasons, the motion is dismissed with costs.       ...

How is it going to deal with any fact finding process that I may have engaged in in connection with this motion? ...

However, I would say that since in a trial de novo facts may be disclosed which were not brought to the attention of the customs officer when he made his decision, it is necessary to proceed with care when the time comes to decide whether the customs officer validly found a breach of the Act or its Regulations. [11]      In this connection, I would note at once certain facts disclosed at the hearing in this Court but which the customs officer did not know when he made his decision to seize the vehicle, namely (a) Essex Sports Car Inc. in fact had nothing to do with the transaction; (b) the signatures of S. ...

  [9] First, whether they are questions of a technical nature or arising out of the interpretation of the patent in dispute directed at the inventors and for which experts will be called upon to provide their opinion at the trial; questions relating to the marketing and implementation, by Eurocopter, of a helicopter landing gear assembly; questions regarding the date when Eurocopter learned about various parts and how that occurred; questions in connection with the damages and profits claimed by Eurocopter; questions regarding prosecution of the patent in dispute (including obtaining correspondence with the patent agents and the internal prosecution file); or other questions for which the Prothonotary sustained Eurocopter’s objections, Bell Helicopter has not satisfied me that the Prothonotary’s order involves questions that have a decisive influence over the outcome of the case ...

Lastly, questions 17 to 19 apparently have no connection with the alleged infringement in this case and would therefore not be relevant. ...

In her decision, Madam Justice L’Heureux‑Dubé explicitly recognized that the H&C decision is an important one since it not only affects the future of individuals’ lives in a fundamental manner, but “it may also have an important impact on the lives of any Canadian children of the person whose humanitarian and compassionate application is being considered, since they may be separated from one of their parents and/or uprooted from their country of citizenship, where they have settled and have connections” (paragraph 15). ...

Background [4] It appears that, in July 2007, JYGA brought a action for patent invalidity (patent 2,556,959, hereinafter patent ‘959) under section 60 of the Patent Act given that it was facing threats of infringement by the defendants in connection with patent ‘959 that the defendants had apparently obtained for a computerized pig-feeding system. [5] According to JYGA, some former employees of JYGA, namely Mr.  ...

(Emphasis added) [15]            It should be quickly noted in passing here that although in the Superior Court the applicant appears to only challenge the decision from September 7, 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal, in the same decision cited above, clearly sees a connection between this decision from September 7, 2004, and the decision from December 17, 2004. ...