Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Small Claims Court Goderich, Ontario. - and - Bill Steenstra
|
|
- Homer Walton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Court File No. 231/08 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Small Claims Court Goderich, Ontario Between: Hydro One Networks Inc. - and - Bill Steenstra Heard: April 21, June 4 and August 30, 2010 Judgment: November 23, 2010 Plaintiff Defendant Representation: Thomas Schoenleber, Agent for the Plaintiff Karl McNamara, Lawyer for the Defendant Overview: Reasons for Judgment The Defendant, Bill Steenstra, owned a house that he wanted moved from one lot in the Town of Clinton, in the Municipality of Central Huron, to another lot in the Town of Clinton. Mr. Steenstra hired the Plaintiff, Hydro One Networks Inc. (herein referred to as Hydro One ) to provide an escort service because there were hydro lines which needed to be moved along the route. Hydro One provided an estimate to Mr. Steenstra of what the escort service would cost. After the move was completed, Hydro One gave Mr. Steenstra a bill for the actual cost. The difference between the estimate and the final bill is what this lawsuit is about. Facts: The amount in dispute is $ 6, Over the course of 3 days of trial, the court heard from 5 witnesses, 3 on behalf of Hydro One and 2 on behalf of Mr. Steenstra. The following facts are not in dispute: 1. Before giving Mr. Steenstra an estimate, Hydro One had Mr. Steenstra sign an Oversized/House/Vessel Move Document (herein referred to as the Move Document ). The relevant parts of that document are as follows:
2 2 2.0 Estimated Cost The initial estimate is free of charge. Should a Hydro One escort be required, your payment for the escort will be based on actual Hydro One charges incurred. The estimate is +/- 50% of actual costs. 4.1 Cost Overruns In the event that a move does not evolve as anticipated, resulting in cost overruns, the [Hydro One] Supervisor shall advise the mover of additional costs. The mover shall be responsible to pass that information along to other relevant parties. 2. The Move Document required Mr. Steenstra to provide certain information about the building to be moved as well as a map of the route, which he did provide. 3. Paragraph 8.0 of the Move Document had provision for including a Start Date/Time. In the document which Mr. Steenstra completed and signed, the Start Date/Time was left blank. On the page giving the proposed route, Mr. Steenstra wrote Move date (ASAP), meaning as soon as possible. 4. Hydro One gave Mr. Steenstra its estimate dated November 1, 2006 on a form entitled Requestor Approval to Proceed. The relevant parts of it are as follows: The estimated cost for Hydro One to assist with the escort for your move is $17, Payment equal to 50% of this cost is due prior to the move proceeding. The amount owing to Hydro One at this time is $ 8745 including G.S.T. Your final bill will be based on Hydro One s actual costs incurred to complete the move. Estimate Prep and clean up, one truck two men 16 hours x $250 per hr = $ Day of move, Four trucks, eight men, 4 x 8 hr x $250 per hr = $ Day of move, one man and pickup, 8 hr x $100 per hr = $ Temporary anchors, = $ Switching and Outage Planning = $ Total = $ When 6 % G.S.T. was added to the $ 16,500.00, the total estimate was $ 17, Mr. Steenstra paid Hydro One the requested $ 8, deposit. 7. The move took place on December 13, Some time after the move was completed, Mr. Steenstra paid Hydro One a further $ 8,
3 3 9. Hydro One s actual bill to Mr. Steenstra was in the amount of $ 24,229.31, which was $ 6, more than the estimate (or 38.5% more). 10. Hydro One s Supervisor never told Mr. Steenstra s mover on the day of the move, or on any day thereafter, about any additional costs (as contemplated in paragraph 4.1 of the Move Document). 11. In fact, no one from Hydro One told Mr. Steenstra or his mover on the day of the move or at any reasonable time thereafter about any cost overruns. 12. The Ontario Provincial Police provided police escort for this move. 13. Mr. Steenstra s mover did not do anything to cause any delays. In fact, the Hydro One Supervisor who oversaw the Hydro One crews on the day of the move testified that the mover did a good job. There was conflicting evidence about what time Hydro One s employees were to be prepared to start the move. There was also conflicting evidence given about delays that may or may not have occurred on the day of the move. In his submissions, Mr. Schoenleber stated that Hydro One did not have to justify its actual bill because Hydro One s actual costs were within the +/- 50% of the estimate (as referred to in paragraph 2.0 of the Move Document). Then Mr. Schoenleber went on to submit that Hydro One had given evidence as to why the final bill was 38.5% more than the estimate. To determine if that submission is accurate, we need to look at the evidence. I want to first refer to the evidence of Mr. Michael Leitch, the Area Distribution Engineering Technician for Hydro One. He was the last witness to give evidence in the trial. In fact, he was actually called as a Reply witness, after the Defendant had called all of his witnesses. Considering the totality of Mr. Leitch s evidence, he should have been called as part of the main case of the Plaintiff, instead of leaving him until after the Defendant had testified. Some of the relevant portions of Mr. Leitch s evidence are as follows: 1. He works out of the Clinton office, and hence is very familiar with the area. 2. He is the one who had the direct dealings with Mr. Steenstra. 3. He prepared the written estimate. 4. He said if things went well, the estimate should be pretty close. 5. His estimate contemplated that Hydro One s employees would be required from 7 am until 4 pm on the day of the move.
4 4 6. The estimate also took into account the work that would have to be done on the day before the move and on the day after the move. 7. His estimate allowed for a 1 hour lunch break for all of Hydro One s employees for which Mr. Steenstra would not be charged. 8. His involvement with Mr. Steenstra ended before the day of the move, and, accordingly, he was not on site the day of the move. 9. Every work order that he receives for use in preparing an estimate has a start time. 10. He had no idea where the work order for this move was. (In fact, no one was able to produce it during the trial.) 11. He confirmed that he was not aware of any document in this file that showed the time the move was to start. 12. His estimate was based on the following: a) 4 trucks; b) 2 men in each truck; c) Michael Henderson would act as the Supervisor; d) 1 truck for Mr. Henderson; e) 8 hours of work for each man, being 7 am until 4 pm, with 1 hour for lunch; f) 8 hours of preparatory work on the day before the move; g) 8 hours of work on the day after the move to put everything back; h) The cost of some material. 13. His written estimate was given to Mr. Steenstra in advance of the move. 14. His estimate included time for the Supervisor, Mr. Henderson, to meet with his crews at the Hydro One yard before travelling to where the crews would meet up with the house. 15. His estimate was based on 5 crews (including Mr. Henderson, the Supervisor, as one of those crews). Next I want to refer to the evidence of Michael Henderson, the Hydro One Supervisor who supervised the Steenstra move. Some of the relevant portions of Mr. Henderson s evidence are as follows:
5 5 1. He was given a house move folder for the Steenstra move in advance of the move. That folder contained details of the move, including the start time for the move. 2. He did not know where that house move folder is. (In fact, no one was able to produce the folder during the trial.) 3. Under cross-examination, Mr. Henderson said he could not remember if the folder had a specific start time in it. 4. His meeting with his crews took place at Hydro One s yard around 7 am on the morning of the move. 5. He and his crews then travelled to where they were to meet the house. 6. He and his crews arrived before 8 am at the designated location where they were to meet the house. (He was unable to give an exact time of when they arrived there.) 7. He said a total of 7 crews took part in the move (including himself as one of the crews). 8. He said that this should have been an ordinary routine move. 9. Then he went on to provide details of 4 delays that he says occurred throughout the day of the move. 10. He said that all of the Hydro One crews were back in the yard of Hydro One by 4 pm on December 13, He confirmed that Hydro One employees did not do any work after 4 pm on December 13 th related to the Steenstra move. 12. He confirmed that the work done on the day after the move was included in the original estimate. 13. He identified a sheet entitled Details of Charges. 14. He also indentified a sheet entitled Details of Delayed Charges. The Defendant, Bill Steenstra, testified on his own behalf. Some of the relevant portions of Mr. Steenstra s evidence are as follows: 1. He hired Murray Abra and his company, Continental Building Movers Ltd., to move the house. 2. Prior to the house move, the only person at Hydro One with whom he had contact was Mr. Leitch. 3. He filled in the blanks on the Move Document and signed it.
6 6 4. He received the estimate from Hydro One in the amount of $ 16, G.S.T., for a total of $ 17, He accompanied the house the entire route on the day of the move. 6. He said the move went smoothly. 7. He said the move was done by 3:30 pm on December 13, He said that Hydro One s part on the day of the move was finished before 3 pm. 9. Approximately one month after the move, he received an invoice from Hydro One saying that he still owed $ 8, (This invoice was not produced at the trial.) 10. He contacted Hydro One and said that there must be a mistake. He told Hydro One that he was all paid up. (He had paid the initial deposit of $ 8, before the move and had paid a further $ 8, after the move, the total of these 2 payments equalling the amount of the estimate that he had received from Hydro One prior to the move.) 11. He did not hear from Hydro One again until approximately the end of February That is when he received a letter from Hydro One saying that he still owed approximately $ 6,500.00, with no reason or explanation given. (Again, this letter was not produced at the trial.) 12. Sometime on or after May 24, 2007, Mr. Steenstra received an Invoice numbered dated May 24, This invoice showed a balance owing of $ 15, It neglected to give Mr. Steenstra credit for the $ 8, that he has paid after the move. 13. It was not until August 2009 that Mr. Steentra (through his lawyer) received a letter dated August 28, 2009 from Hydro One. (I note that this lawsuit was commenced by Hydro One on December 10, 2008.) 14. The August 28, 2009 letter stated in part as follows: a) Further to your request at the last Settlement Conference, I have received a document, attached, detailing the portion of Invoice No which can be attributed to delays. b) Please note that Mr. Steenstra was billed for the move from 7:00am 4:00pm, which includes travel time to and from the site. c) The amount that Mr. Steenstra was charged in excess of the estimated amount is attributable to the foregoing. 15. The document which was attached to the letter dated August 28, 2009 is the one which is entitled Details of Delayed Charges.
7 7 Mr. Murray Abra gave evidence during the trial. Some of the relevant portions of his evidence are as follows: 1. He owns Continental Building Movers Ltd. 2. He has been moving structures, including houses, for over 30 years. 3. He had Mr. Steenstra make the arrangements with Hydro One. 4. Mr. Abra arranged for the escort by the Ontario Provincial Police (herein referred to as the OPP ). 5. The letter that he received from the OPP dated December 6, 2006 was filed as Exhibit On the day of the move, he drove the truck which transported the house. 7. The Steenstra move was a standard, normal move that went fine without any problems. 8. The move was done by 4 pm. 9. The OPP were on site from 9 am until 3:30 pm (which would be the same hours that Hydro One was required to be present). 10. He paid each of the 2 OPP officers who drove the escort cruisers for 6.6 hours of their time. This is evidenced by Exhibit 3, page He paid the OPP for 13 hours for 2 cruisers, being 6.5 hours for each cruiser. This is evidenced by Exhibit 3, page 1. Analysis: As I have already said, Mr. Schoenleber submitted that Hydro One did not have to justify its final bill because its actual costs were within the +/- 50% of the estimate (as referred to in paragraph 2.0 of the Move Document). I respectfully disagree with that submission. I find that even though the final bill was only 38.5% more than the estimate (and clearly within the +/- 50% ), Hydro One still has to prove: 1. What its actual costs were; and 2. If those actual costs varied from the estimate given, what caused the variance. There was no evidence at all to indicate that anything that happened before or after the day of the move caused the increase between the estimate and the final bill. A great deal of time was spent during the trial hearing about: a) What time the Hydro One crews were to show up on the day of the move; and
8 8 b) What delays there were on the day of the move. It is clear from the evidence of the witnesses referred to above, and I find: 1. The estimate provided by Hydro One contemplated that the time required for the move on the day of the move was a maximum of 8 hours, being from 7 am until 4 pm, with 1 hour for lunch. 2. The times on the day of the move did not exceed the times used in the estimate that Hydro One gave to Mr. Steenstra. 3. There were no additional time requirements for Hydro One on either the day before or the day after the move outside of those contemplated by the estimate which Hydro One provided. Therefore, what time the Hydro One crews were to meet the house and what delays there were on the day of the move are irrelevant to this case. The only other evidence that was offered by Hydro One to support the variance between the estimate and the final bill was: 1. The letter from Hydro One dated August 28, The document entitled Details of Delayed Charges. 3. The document entitled Details of Charges. The Hydro One letter of August 28, 2009 contains the following comment: The amount that Mr. Steenstra was charged in excess of the estimated amount is attributable to the foregoing. Before that comment is made in the letter, Hydro One refers to the Details of Delayed Charges document and to the fact that Mr. Steenstra was billed for the move from 7:00am 4:00pm, which includes travel time to and from the site. As I have already found, the estimate that Hydro One submitted to Mr. Steenstra already contemplated Hydro One starting work at 7 am and finishing at 4 pm. So therefore, the August 28 th letter must be referring to the document entitled Details of Delayed Charges. Again, as I have already found, any delays that occurred on the day of the move took place between 7 am and 4 pm. Therefore, I do not know how those delays could cause the difference between the estimate and the final bill. As I examine the documents entitled Details of Delayed Charges and Details of Charges and compare them to the written Estimate, I note the following: 1. The estimate expected that on the day of the move there would be a total of 5 crews for a total of 9 men.
9 2. In reality 7 crews were used on the day of the move, for a total of 11 men. 3. The estimate expected that there would be 5 trucks used on the day of the move. 4. In reality 7 trucks were used on the day of the move Regular hours ranging from 6 hours for 1 man, 8 hours for each of 4 men, 10 hours for another man, 12 hours for another, 18 hours for another, 20 hours for each of 2 men, and 22 hours for 1 man were charged to Mr. Steenstra. 6. Thus, a total of 140 regular hours were actually charged to Mr. Steenstra, whereas the estimate contemplated a total of 104 hours hour of overtime for each of the 11 men, for a total of 11 hours, was charged to Mr. Steenstra, whereas the estimate did not contemplate any overtime hours. 8. The estimate provided for all but one of the men being charged out at the rate of $ per hour. That remaining man was charged out at the rate of $ per hour. 9. The regular hours of 2 of the men were actually charged at a rate of $ per hour. 10. The regular hours of 8 of the men were charged at a rate of $ per hour. 11. The regular hours of the remaining man, being the Supervisor, were charged at a rate of $ per hour. 12. The overtime hours of the men were charged at a rates varying from a low of $ per hour to a high of $ per hour. 13. The Temporary anchors and Switching and Outage Planning in the estimate accounted for $ 3, (plus G.S.T. on that amount). 14. While the Details of Charges does not refer to Temporary anchors and Switching and Outage Planning, it does refer to a charge of $ 5, (plus G.S.T.) for Transport and Work Equipment. 15. There are charges for Markup of 5% and Corporate Overhead of 17% referred to in the Details of Charges. 16. The estimate does not make any reference to either Markup or Corporate Overhead. There was no evidence whatsoever presented at the trial to indicate: 1. Why 7 crews and 7 trucks were used, instead of 5 crews and 5 trucks. 2. Why the total regular hours exceeded the estimated hours by 36 hours. 3. Why there was any need for overtime hours.
10 10 4. Why the hourly rates for the men were different from the hourly rates in the estimate. 5. What the Transport and Work Equipment was and whether it was connected in any way with Temporary anchors and Switching and Outage Planning. 6. Why a markup was being charged, when it was not referred to in the estimate. 7. Why there was a charge for Corporate Overhead, when it was not referred to in the estimate. With the exception of some possible delays throughout the day of the move (which did not extend the work day past that contemplated by the estimate), the evidence clearly indicated that this was a regular straightforward move. Paragraph 4.1 of the Move Document clearly stipulates that In the event that the move does not evolve as anticipated, resulting in cost overruns, the Supervisor [of Hydro One] shall advise the mover of additional costs. No one told the mover, Mr. Abra, or Mr. Steenstra about any cost overruns on the day of the move or at any reasonable time thereafter. When Mr. Henderson was shown the Details of Charges document, he initially said: a) It gave the details of the labour and equipment used on this job; and b) To my knowledge, the hours of the employees and the hours of the equipment are correct. But later in his evidence, Mr. Henderson said that he had not seen the Details of Charges document before the day that he was testifying. Still later in his evidence Mr. Henderson said that he did not know if the information that he gave to Mr. Rob Vader, another Hydro One employee, was transferred correctly. Therefore, how can Mr. Henderson say that what is contained in the Details of Charges is correct? I am not satisfied that the Plaintiff has proven why Mr. Steenstra should pay the difference between the estimate and the final bill that he received from Hydro One when the final bill represents a 38.5% increase over the estimate. In the event that I am wrong about the irrelevance of the start time and the delays on the day of the move, I will make the following comments about those topics: Start Time on Day of Move: 1. Hydro One was adamant that its employees were to start at 7 am and planned to be at the move site by approximately 7:30 am. 2. Mr. Steenstra was equally positive in his evidence that the Hydro One employees were not to be at the move site before 9 am.
11 11 3. In actual fact, the Hydro One crews sat at the move site from 7:30 am until 9 am. The reason for this 1.5 hour delay was because of school buses. 4. Both Mr. Leitch and Mr. Henderson knew that there were 2 high schools and at least 1 elementary school in the immediate vicinity of where Hydro One crews were going to start assisting the move. They also knew that both high schools and perhaps an elementary school would have school buses arriving just before 9 am. 5. When Mr. Leitch did the estimate, he used 7:30 am as the actual time that the Hydro One crews would arrive at the move site. 6. Mr. Leitch was expecting that the mover and the Hydro One crews would clear the area where school buses were coming before the school buses started arriving at 8:30 am. 7. Mr. Leitch denied that 9 am was ever mentioned as the start time from the move site. 8. We don t have the benefit of the work order that Mr. Leitch was given to prepare the estimate. 9. Mr. Abra said that he wanted to wait until the school buses were off the road before he started to move the house down the highway (which is where Hydro One crews would be needed). 10. Therefore, Mr. Abra arranged for the OPP to be at the move site where Hydro One was meeting by 9 am. This is clearly stipulated in the letter that the OPP sent to the mover. 11. Paragraph 8 of the Move Document where it says Start Date/Time is blank. 12. We don t have the benefit of the house move folder that Mr. Henderson was given. In any event, Mr. Henderson could not remember if the folder had a specific start time in it. 13. Mr. Henderson s evidence was that the first he knew about the school bus issue was when he and the Hydro One crews arrived at the site and were told by Mr. Abra that they would have to wait unto after the school buses had gone before starting the move. 14. The burden of proof in a civil trial is on the Plaintiff on a balance of probabilities. 15. Considering all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that Hydro One has proven that its crews were to be at the move site by 7:30 am. 16. But having said that, for reasons given earlier, I find that it is irrelevant whether the crews were to be at the move site by 7:30 am or 9 am. The estimate prepared by Mr. Leitch is based on the crews being at the Hydro One yard by 7 am (which they were). Delays on Day of Move: 1. The evidence given by the witnesses called on behalf of Hydro One purported to outline 4 delays on the day of the move.
12 12 2. Mr. Rob Vader, the Customer Operations Manager for the Clinton Operations Centre of Hydro One, testified that he first became involved in the Steenstra file in late March or early April 2007 because Mr. Steenstra had complained about the amount of the final bill from Hydro One. 3. Mr. Vader confirmed the following: a) He was involved in the preparation of the document entitled Details of Delayed Charges. b) The Details of Delayed Charges was not prepared until approximately July 2009, approximately 2.5 years after the move. c) There was no documentation concerning the delays or the reasons for those delays. d) Mr. Vader talked to some of the men 2.5 years after the move to find out what happened on the day of the move. 4. The first delay mentioned lasted from 7:30 am until 9 am because of the school bus issue mentioned above. 5. I accept the fact that the Hydro One crews had to sit at the move site for 1.5 hours waiting for the school buses to finish passing. 6. But I find, for the reasons given above, that the delay was not the fault of Mr. Steenstra or his mover. Instead, the reason was because Hydro One crews showed up earlier than they should have. 7. The remaining 3 delays were not documented by Hydro One until 2009, some 2.5 years after the move. 8. The second delay that was alleged by Hydro One was from 9:15 until 9:30 am and occurred just east of Clinton. Mr. Henderson said that delay was caused by a tree that needed some more trimming. 9. The third delay that was alleged by Hydro One was from 11 am until 12:30 pm and occurred in front of the cemetery. Mr. Henderson said that delay was caused by some more trees that needed trimming. 10. The fourth and final delay that was alleged by Hydro One was from 1:15 until 1:30 pm and occurred close to School House Road west of Clinton. Mr. Henderson said that delay was caused by another tree that needed some more trimming. 11. Mr. Henderson said that the men likely ate their lunch during one of the delay times. (And we know from Mr. Leitch s evidence that he allowed for a 1-hour lunch break in the estimate for which Mr. Steenstra would not be charged.)
13 Mr. Henderson said that none of the men documented the delays or the times of the delays on the day of the move. 13. Mr. Henderson said that he could not verify that the time lines in the Details of Delayed Charges were accurate. 14. Mr. Henderson admitted that the information in the Details of Delayed Charges was strictly an estimate when Mr. Vader was reconstructing the day 2.5 years after the move. 15. Mr. Steenstra did have a tree trimmer with a bucket truck travel with the convoy on the day of the move. 16. Mr. Steenstra admits that there was a delay for about 1 hour in front of the cemetery delay number 3 referred to above while the tree trimmer did some more trimming. 17. Mr. Steenstra says there may have been a 5 minute delay around the School House Road delay number 4 referred to above. 18. Mr. Steenstra denies that there were any other delays. 19. Therefore, the only delay in dispute is delay number 2. But according to Mr. Henderson, it was only 15 minutes long. I find that length of time to be insignificant. 20. As I have already found based on the evidence, the total time for Hydro One on the move day was not any greater than the time that Mr. Leitch used to prepare his estimate. 21. Therefore, if there had been no delays, it is clear from the evidence that the move would have been completed in less time than was contemplated by the estimate. Result: Hydro One gave Mr. Steenstra an estimate for $ 17, Mr. Steenstra has paid that amount. The difference between what Mr. Steenstra had paid and the amount being claimed in this lawsuit is $ 6,739.31, which is the difference between the estimate and the final bill. I acknowledge that the difference is within the +/- 50% range referred to in the estimate. However, for the reasons that I have stated above, I am not satisfied that Hydro One has proven on a balance of probabilities that it is entitled to collect that additional amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff s Claim is dismissed. Costs: I do not know what written Offers to Settle were made. Therefore, I will delay making a ruling on costs until after I receive further submissions. Hopefully the parties can agree on the costs of this trial without further intervention by me.
14 14 However, if they cannot, each of them may provide me with copies of any written Offers to Settle and make brief written submissions (no more than 3 pages in length), within 30 days of the release of these Reasons. Prior to providing the written submissions to me, I want the parties to exchange their submissions with each other. If I am asked to rule on costs in this action, I will be considering the following: 1. The fact that this trial consumed the better part of 3 days; 2. Any written Offers to Settle as provided for in Rule 14; 3. The fact that the letter and attached document entitled Details of Delayed Charges which were marked as Exhibit 2 were not produced until after the Settlement Conference (which was held 8 months after this lawsuit was commenced and more than 2.5 years after the move); 4. The fact that a great deal of trial time was consumed by evidence concerning the irrelevant issues of what time the Hydro One crews were to show up and what delays there were on the day of the move; 5. The fact that Mr. Leitch was called by Hydro One to testify as a witness after the Defence had completed its case. (If he had been the first witness to testify, the trial may have been shortened because it may have become clearer to everyone sooner that the start time and the delays were irrelevant). 6. Rule In making the above comments, I do not want anyone to think that I am putting all of the blame on Mr. Schoenleber for the undue length of the trial. He did not have charge of this file until after the Settlement Conference was held. I also do not know what his instructions were from Hydro One about calling Mr. Leitch as a witness. Norman B. Pickell, Deputy Judge
Ruling on Withdrawal of Refusal of Enrollment in Social
Ruling on Withdrawal of Refusal of Enrollment in Social Insurance (Shakai Hoken) (translation of abstract) Judgment Rendered Mar. 20, Heisei 27 (2015). [Gyo.U.#70]Claim for Cancellation of decision, etc.
More informationJoti Jain for Respondent DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND [2015] NZERA Auckland 318 5560398 BETWEEN AND GURINDERJIT SINGH Applicant NZ TRADINGS LIMITED TRADING AS MASALA BROWNS BAY Respondent Member of Authority:
More informationHEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Jawad Raza Heard on: Thursday 7 and Friday 8 June 2018 Location: ACCA Head Offices,
More informationThe 5 th Annual Michael Kirby Contract Law Moot Melbourne, Australia. 28 September 1 October Clarifications
The 5 th Annual Michael Kirby Contract Law Moot Melbourne, Australia 28 September 1 October 2015 Clarifications 1. How similar is the contract in dispute to previous contracts with Parties on Axles? What
More informationDECISION. 1 The complainant, Ms JN, first made a complaint to the Tolling Customer Ombudsman (TCO) on 28 May 2012, as follows: 1
DECISION Background 1 The complainant, Ms JN, first made a complaint to the Tolling Customer Ombudsman (TCO) on 28 May 2012, as follows: 1 My name is [JN] govia account ****170. I live in [Town, State].
More informationChapter 3 Preparing the Record
Chapter 3 Preparing the Record After filing the Notice of Appeal, the appellant next needs to specify what items are to be in the record (the official account of what went on at the hearing or the trial
More informationCitation: Mercier v. Trans-Globe Date: File No: Registry: Vancouver. In the Provincial Court of British Columbia (CIVIL DIVISION)
Citation: Mercier v. Trans-Globe Date: 20020307 File No: 2001-67384 Registry: Vancouver In the Provincial Court of British Columbia (CIVIL DIVISION) BETWEEN: MARY MERCIER CLAIMANT AND: TRANS-GLOBE TRAVEL
More informationRight to sue; In the course of employment (proceeding to and from work); In the course of employment (reasonably incidental activity test).
SUMMARY 766/91 DECISION NO. 766/91 Foley v. Bondy PANEL: B. Cook; Lebert; Preston DATE: 13/03/92 Right to sue; In the course of employment (proceeding to and from work); In the course of employment (reasonably
More informationSuperior Court of New Jersey Essex Vicinage ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL FACT PATTERN. Mary Peabody v. Virgil Goodman
Superior Court of New Jersey Essex Vicinage ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL FACT PATTERN Mary Peabody v. Virgil Goodman Table of Contents Section Page Number(s) Law Day Fact Pattern 3 Instructions for Teachers
More informationLand Titles Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter L. 5., as amended
Notice: Personal information from this decision has been redacted for the purposes of making this decision available online. For additional information contact: Senior Legal and Technical Analyst at 416-325-4130.
More informationNOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO FILE A CLAIM FORM. NOT ALL CLASS MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A CLAIM FORM.
The Superior Court of the State of California authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT If you are a lawyer or law firm that has paid,
More informationHERMUS CYRUS CHRISTOPHER WYLLIE. 2011: June : February 7 JUDGMENT
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 232 OF 2008 BETWEEN: HERMUS CYRUS v CHRISTOPHER WYLLIE Claimant Defendant Appearances:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ATTALA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Jun 30 2016 11:18:49 2015-CA-01772 Pages: 11 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BROOKS V. MONAGHAN VERSUS ROBERT AUTRY APPELLANT CAUSE NO. 2015-CA-01772 APPELLEE APPEAL
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 68 EMPC 248/2015. MATTHEW PHILLIPS Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2016] NZEmpC 68 EMPC 248/2015 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority MODERN TRANSPORT ENGINEERS (2002) LIMITED
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, WILTON-SIEGEL, MYERS JJ. ) ) ) Respondents )
CITATION: Papp v. Stokes 2018 ONSC 1598 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-17-0000047-00 DATE: 20180309 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, WILTON-SIEGEL, MYERS JJ. BETWEEN: Adam Papp
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11. Plaintiff. VINCENT SINGH Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11 IN THE MATTER OF an application for compliance order BETWEEN AND NOEL COVENTRY Plaintiff VINCENT SINGH Defendant Hearing: 23 February 2012 (Heard
More informationANDREW DENNIS CHARLES HUTCHINSON JUDGMENT
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE
More informationIN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL. The Mauritius Commercial Bank (Sey) Ltd Of Caravelle House, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles (1 st Defendant)
IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL The Mauritius Commercial Bank (Sey) Ltd Of Caravelle House, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles APPELLANT (1 st Defendant) VS M/S Kantilal of Mumbai, India herein represented By
More informationOntario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. 264
1218897 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. Ontario Judgments [2016] O.J. No. 2016 ONSC 354 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC ANTHONY RAHIRI MARSH Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-409-000048 [2013] NZHC 2234 BETWEEN AND ANTHONY RAHIRI MARSH Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 28 August 2013 Appearances:
More informationDip Chand and Sant Kumari. Richard Uday Prakash
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2012] NZIACDT 60 Reference No: IACDT 006/11 IN THE MATTER BY of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationPENSION SCHEMES ACT 1993, PART X DETERMINATION BY THE DEPUTY PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN. AEGON Scottish Equitable Personal Pension Plan
PENSION SCHEMES ACT 1993, PART X DETERMINATION BY THE DEPUTY PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN Applicant Scheme Respondent(s) Mr Michael Nower AEGON Scottish Equitable Personal Pension Plan AEGON Subject Mr Nower complains
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2006 BETWEEN: LAURIANO RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationThis guide applies only to England & Wales. There are different procedures in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
debt recovery small debt Someone owes you money. You have given them time to pay, and chased them repeatedly. They have not paid. It s too much for you to write it off as a bad debt. You feel you have
More informationGoodmang. July 22, Our File No.: VIA FACSIMILE AND
Goodmang July 22, 2015 Barristers & Solicitors Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2S7 Telephone: 416.979.2211 Facsimile: 416.979.1234 goodmans.ca Direct Line: 416.849.6895
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC 2055
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV-2014-059-000156 [2016] NZDC 2055 BETWEEN AND JAMES VELASCO BUENAVENTURA Plaintiff ROWENA GONZALES BURGESS Defendant Hearing:
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JUSS. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT DECISION AND REASONS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/29910/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th June 2017 On 27 th June 2017 Before DEPUTY
More informationVOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE., Arbitrator Lee Hornberger Employer. DECISION AND AWARD
In the Matter of:, VOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE Union, Class Action/Layoff-Recall and FMCS, Arbitrator Lee Hornberger Employer. For the City: 1. APPEARANCES
More informationBefore: HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMITH MR ANTHONY SMITH. -v- EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED. Lay Representative for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondent:
IN OUNTY OURT AT MANSTR laim No. 0P94/M17X062 Manchester ounty ourt and amily ourt earing entre 1 ridge Street West Manchester M60 9J Thursday, 8 th June 2017 efore: IS ONOUR JU SMIT etween: ANTONY SMIT
More informationTHE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
521/82 N v H EMERGENCY TRUCK AND CAR HIRE JAGATHESAN JOHN CHETTY and THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED SMALBERGER, JA :- 521/82 N v H IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06052/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationHome Mortgage Foreclosures in Maine
Home Mortgage Foreclosures in Maine Find more easy-to-read legal information at www.ptla.org Important Note: This is very general information about home mortgage and foreclosure rules in Maine. It is not
More informationBRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G M E N T
Sneller Verbatim/MLS IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01 2003-03-24 In the matter between M KOAI Applicant and THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G
More informationIssue 11 Case Studies February 2008 Guidance on Guidance on cashback agency, evidence and direct debits: cashback agency,
Issue 11 February 2008 Case Studies Guidance on cashback agency, evidence and direct debits Guidance on cashback agency, evidence and direct debits: 1. Sometimes there is confusion over whether a reseller
More informationCouncilman Prendergast stated that we have had some interest from other squads and he feels that we should look into this.
Supervisor Jenkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Town Board Members Present Tom Cumm Bob Prendergast Gina LeClair Todd Kusnierz Preston Jenkins Councilman Councilman Councilwoman Councilman
More informationHome Mortgage Foreclosures in Maine
Home Mortgage Foreclosures in Maine Find more easy-to-read legal information at www.ptla.org Important Note: This is very general information about home mortgage and foreclosure rules in Maine. It is not
More informationOPINION FILED MAY 12, 2017
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO.: G309822 FREDRICK A. WATERS, EMPLOYEE ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYER ARCBEST CORPORATION, INSURANCE CARRIER/TPA CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT
More informationREAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION
REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO. 10 OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO John Van Dyk Respondent This document also
More informationDISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Martyn Gary Wheeler Heard on: 24 June 2015 Location: Committee: Legal Adviser: Chartered
More informationSOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 10582-2010 BETWEEN: SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY Applicant and DENISE ELAINE GAMMACK Respondent Before: Miss J Devonish
More informationDISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Girish Patel Heard on: Wednesday, 25 October 2017 Location: The International Dispute
More informationVAT Flat Rate Scheme Assessment Strike Out Application Granted. - and - COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
[2016] UKFTT 0816 (TC) TC05541 Appeal number: TC/2016/00967 VAT Flat Rate Scheme Assessment Strike Out Application Granted FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER DAVID JENKINS Appellant - and - COMMISSIONERS
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD. 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD. 2010 CLAIM NO. 773 of 2010 BETWEEN: HAVEN HOUSE CLAIMANT AND THADEUS LESLIE DEFENDANT Before: Justice Minnet Hafiz-Bertram Ms. Pricilla Banner of Courtenay Coye LLP for
More informationAhmed Muhsen Ikbarieh. Osama (Sam) Hammadieh
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2014] NZIACDT 49 Reference No: IACDT 0048/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationOntario Superior Court of Justice. Small Claims Court Goderich, Ontario. Between: Robert Winter Sr., Robert Winter Jr. and Heritage Estates Inc.
Ontario Superior Court of Justice Small Claims Court Goderich, Ontario Court File No. 51/09 and 53/09 Between: Robert Winter Sr., Robert Winter Jr. and Heritage Estates Inc. - and - Earl Gaines and Ruby
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT D E C I S I O N
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT INFERIOR APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2004 BETWEEN: (ANTHONY WHITE ( ( ( AND ( ( (EDITH
More informationI. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HEARING OFFICER, CAREER SERVICE BOARD CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Appeal No. 53-08 DECISION AND ORDER IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF: KARENEE WILLIAMS, Appellants, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, and
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT. DOUGLAS WILFRED DAVIDSON and DOWN SYNDROME ASSOCIATION, WESTERN CAPE
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Not Reportable C296/2013 In the matter between: DOUGLAS WILFRED DAVIDSON and Applicant DOWN SYNDROME ASSOCIATION, WESTERN
More informationYOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT: SUBMIT A CLAIM
Superior Court for the State of Connecticut Judicial District of Hartford If you were a customer of Discount Power, Inc. s variable rate electricity supply services between June 1, 2013, and July 31, 2016,
More informationVOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION
In the Matter of the Arbitration between: CASE: OPPERWALL #4 AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION UNION Union, and UNIVERSITY, Employer, VOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD An arbitration
More informationReport to the Speaker. Re: The Honourable Fred Schell, MLA
Legislative Assembly of Nunavut Report to the Speaker Re: The Honourable Fred Schell, MLA October 29, 2012 Norman Pickell Integrity Commissioner Re: The Honourable Fred Schell, MLA Table of Contents Page
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mrs S Canon (UK) Ltd Pension Scheme (the Scheme) Trustees of the Canon (UK) Retirement Benefit Scheme (the Trustees) Complaint Summary 1. Mrs S complaint
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED
EDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE CRI-2016-044-000555 [2017] NZDC 6342 COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Prosecutor v SOLE
More informationCLAIMS AGAINST INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS
CLAIMS AGAINST INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS Martin M. Ween, Esq. Partner Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker,
More informationDECISION, ORDER AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS In the Matter of NORTH EAST TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. - and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
More informationFD: ACN=3132 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 358 STY:Neukom v. Solaroli PANEL: Signoroni; Drennan (dissenting); Mason DDATE: ACT: 8(9) KEYW: Right to sue;
FD: ACN=3132 ACC=R FD: DT:D DN: 358 STY:Neukom v. Solaroli PANEL: Signoroni; Drennan (dissenting); Mason DDATE: 231286 ACT: 8(9) KEYW: Right to sue; In the course of employment. SUM: The defendants in
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO and GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY Defendants STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE GEORGE STIFEL Plaintiff -and- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO and GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY Defendants TO THE DEFENDANTS Proceeding under
More informationCHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO (THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO) CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 2010 DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO (THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO) CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 2010 DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE IN THE MATTER OF: Allegations against JOE CLEMENT
More informationNOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT For Qualifying Owners of Property on Which Certain Fiber Cement Siding Manufactured by CertainTeed Corporation
More informationIN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CHARLES THOMAS WATSON. and STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CLAIM NO: ANUHCV 2008/0577 BETWEEN: CHARLES THOMAS WATSON and Claimant STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Defendant Appearances:
More informationWORKWEEK DISPUTE FORM
WORKWEEK DISPUTE FORM CPT ID: «ID» SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO James v. Park N Fly Service, LLC et al. Case No. 17CIV05465 CPT ID: 1 *1* Aanenson, Taylor Alan
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. 1 Introduction 2 Choosing small claims 4 Going to court 6 Litigation funding 7 Your privacy 8 Further resources
SMALL CLAIMS GUIDE Disclaimer: this Guide is meant to be legal information and not legal advice. Users should not rely on this information but should rather seek independent legal advice regarding their
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Not of interest to other judges Case no: JS171/2014 In the matter between: LYALL, MATHIESON MICHAEL Applicant And THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 23 rd March 2015 Prepared on 17 th March Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT
IAC-FH-AR/V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/52919/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 23 rd March 2015
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D N HARRIS. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/43426/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Determination Promulgated On 10 th July 2014 On 2 nd September 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationDate: June 21, City Manager. City Auditor, Carlos L. Holt. Subject: Hotline Complaint Message #102 and 108, CASE
Date: June 21, 2018 To: From: City Manager City Auditor, Carlos L. Holt Subject: Hotline Complaint Message #102 and 108, CASE 2018-001 Source of Allegations The City Auditor s Office received a hotline
More informationREAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 10040) LESLEY DE RUYTER
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2013] NZREADT 106 READT 033/11 IN THE MATTER OF a charge laid under s.91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC
More informationBOULOS v. MORRISON. Supreme Court of Louisiana Feb. 23, 1987
BOULOS v. MORRISON Supreme Court of Louisiana Feb. 23, 1987 Sherif Y. Boulos and Paul J. Durso seek the sum of $8,250 from Morris Lew [incorrectly named Lou Morrison in the original petition, ed. note]
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2000
Lawrence Mtefu v. Germana Mtefu 206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2000 (Appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Court
More informationDECISION ON A MOTION
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: KAMALAVELU VADIVELU Applicant and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A
More informationIN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT COMMUNICATION WORKERS - PARTY NO. 1 UNION TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES - PARTY NO. 2 OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO LIMITED
23 TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO E.S.D. T.D. No. 52 OF 2006 IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT Between COMMUNICATION WORKERS - PARTY NO. 1 UNION And TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES - PARTY NO. 2 OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO LIMITED
More informationSOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No
SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 10922-2012 On 28 June 2013, Mr Moseley appealed against the Tribunal s decision on sanction. The appeal was dismissed
More informationON BEHALF OF. TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 6.2 of IIROC s Rules of Practice and Procedure, that the hearing shall be designated on the:
INVESTMENT INDUSTRY REGULATORY ORGANIZATION OF CANADA ON BEHALF OF INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA IN THE MATTER OF: THE DEALER MEMBER RULES OF THE INVESTMENT INDUSTRY REGULATORY ORGANIZATION
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CITATION: Hazaveh v. Pacitto, 2018 ONSC 395 COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-404841 DATE: 20180116 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: FARZAD BIKMOHAMMADI-HAZAVEH Plaintiff and RBC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
More informationArbitration CAS 2010/A/2078 Gabros International Football Club v. Hertha BSC Berlin, award of 16 November 2010
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2010/A/2078 Panel: Mr Mark Hovell (United Kingdom), Sole Arbitrator Football Transfer Withdrawal of the offer before its acceptance
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: CAF 7/10. TSHEPO BOSIELO Appellant
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the matter between:- CASE NO: CAF 7/10 TSHEPO BOSIELO Appellant ATANG BOSIELO First Second Appellant and THE STATE Respondent FULL BENCH APPEAL HENDRICKS J; LANDMAN
More informationBasnet (validity of application - respondent) [2012] UKUT 00113(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Basnet (validity of application - respondent) [2012] UKUT 00113(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at George House, Edinburgh on 7 February 2012 Determination
More informationORDER OF THE COURT NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND CLAIM AND EXCLUSION PROCEDURES
ORDER OF THE COURT NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND CLAIM AND EXCLUSION PROCEDURES Jose H. Solano et al. v. Kavlico Corporation, et al. Ventura County Superior Court
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA LABOUR DISPUTE NO: 112/2014 (ORIGINAL HCCS 0776/2011) PAUL MICHEAL BUKENYA.
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA LABOUR DISPUTE NO: 112/2014 (ORIGINAL HCCS 0776/2011) PAUL MICHEAL BUKENYA.CLAIMANT GLOBAL TRUST BANK...RESPONDENT. VS BEFORE: 1. The Hon. Chief
More informationC.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant. Winkelmann, Brewer and Toogood JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA637/2015 [2017] NZCA 3 BETWEEN AND C.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant WASIM SARWAR KETAN, FARKAH ROHI KETAN AND WASIM KETAN TRUSTEE COMPANY
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between
IAC-AH-SC-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/29100/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 nd October 2015 On 12 th October
More informationIndependent reviews Small claims court Appraisals Rates Appeal Board. Appeal options
Independent reviews Small claims court Appraisals Rates Appeal Board Appeal options What you can expect from Manitoba Public Insurance We strive to treat all our customers fairly. It s important to understand
More informationFOREIGNER'S GUIDE TO PURCHASING A MOTORCYCLE IN SOUTH AFRICA (JOHANNESBURG) AND REGISTERING IT IN THEIR OWN NAME
FOREIGNER'S GUIDE TO PURCHASING A MOTORCYCLE IN SOUTH AFRICA (JOHANNESBURG) AND REGISTERING IT IN THEIR OWN NAME This information was gathered on August 2014 and is best intended for tourists/foreigners
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS. and SARAH GERALD
MONTSERRAT CIVIL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2003 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS and SARAH GERALD Before: The Hon. Mr. Brian Alleyne, SC The Hon. Mr. Michael Gordon, QC The Hon Madam Suzie d Auvergne
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 9 July 2014 On 9 July Before. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Pickup Between
Upper Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/32415/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 9 July 2014 On 9 July 2014 Before Deputy Upper Tribunal
More informationBEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES ) ) ) )
BEFORE THE ALASKA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ON REFERRAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES In the Matter of N D OAH No. 17-0842-SNA Agency No. DECISION I. Introduction N D quit his
More informationIN THE SUPEME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT COROZAL DISTRICT
1 IN THE SUPEME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 INFERIOR COURT OF APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2006 APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT COROZAL DISTRICT (DAVID LAWRENCE ( BETWEEN( AND ( (KEVIN McCAULEY APPELLANT RESPONDENT Coram:
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA DON ACKAH - PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT VRS. JUDGMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA CORAM: 1. AKAMBA J. A. PRESIDING 2. QUAYE J. A. 3. MARFUL-SAU J. A SUIT NO. HI/185/07 13 th DECEMBER 2007 DON ACKAH - PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
More informationRajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an
Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption. 2010 SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an appeal from the Intermediate Court where the Appellant
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: OA/03496/2014 OA/03497/2014 OA/03500/2014 OA/03504/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: OA/03496/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 24 th March 2015 Prepared on
More informationNOTICE OF CERTIFICATION AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE HONDA CIVIC HYBRID FUEL ECONOMY CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION AND SETTLEMENT APPROVAL HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE HONDA CIVIC HYBRID FUEL ECONOMY CLASS ACTION Read this Notice Carefully as it May Affect Your Rights TO: Former or present owners
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MONSON. Between MR MUNIR AHMED (ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE) and
IAC-AH-CO-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/05178/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 June 2015 On 8 July 2015 Before
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/04305/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 16 June 2015 On 7 July 2015.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/04305/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 16 June 2015 On 7 July 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MARY BUSH Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS LAWRENCE v. Appellee No. 1713 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered April 26,
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2017] NZERA Wellington
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2017] NZERA Wellington 39 5620879 BETWEEN AND GRAHAM RURU Applicant MR APPLE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Respondent Member of Authority: Representatives: Investigation
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10. DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND application for leave to file challenge out of time DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant TRANSFIELD SERVICES (NEW
More informationSEVENTY-SIXTH SESSION
Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. SEVENTY-SIXTH SESSION In re GAUTREY Judgment 1326 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Considering the complaint filed by Mr. Michael Leslie Howard
More informationHarriman pursuant to Sections 10 and 20 of the Municipal Home Rule Law at Harriman Village
6: 45 P.M. AUDIT OF MONTHLY BILLS 7: 10 P.M. BUDGET WORKSHOP- BUILDING DEPT. 7: 15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LAW# 4 OF 2013 7: 30 P.M. REGULAR MEETING PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW# 4 of 2013 The Omnibus
More informationUNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION Unemployment compensation is a state program to help workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own. It is run by the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). How do I
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A M MURRAY. Between MR NEEAJ KUMAR (ANONYMITY HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTED) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 13 September 2018 On 9 November 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A M MURRAY
More information