IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA"

Transcription

1 Citation: R. v. Moman (R.), 2011 MBCA 34 Date: Docket: AR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) C. J. Mainella and ) O. A. Siddiqui (Respondent) Applicant ) for the Applicant ) ) J. C. Prober and ) H. A. Khan - and - ) for the Respondent ) ) Chambers motion heard: ) March 24, 2011 ROBERT MOMAN ) ) Decision pronounced: (Accused) (Appellant) Respondent ) April 13, 2011 MARC M. MONNIN J.A. 1 The Crown seeks leave to appeal a decision of a summary conviction appeal judge pursuant to s. 839 of the Criminal Code (the Code). After a trial, the accused was convicted on two counts (under s. 239(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act) of making false or deceptive statements in his income tax returns by understating his taxable income, on one count (under s. 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act) of wilfully evading the payment of taxes by understating his taxable income, and on one count (under s. 327(1)(c) of the Excise Tax Act) of wilfully evading the remittance of GST by failing to declare income. Stays were entered on the first two counts and he was See: 2008 MBQB 311, 234 Man.R. (2d) 149; and 2010 MBQB 178, 256 Man.R. (2d) 53

2 Page: 2 sentenced to 12 months in jail and payment of a fine equal to the taxes owed. He appealed the convictions and sentence to a judge of the Court of Queen s Bench, sitting as a summary conviction appeal judge (the appeal judge). The appeal judge overturned the trial judge s decision, set aside the convictions on all counts and ordered a new trial before a different judge. The Crown now seeks leave to appeal. FACTS 2 The accused is a resident of Neepawa, Manitoba, and for the taxation years in question operated a construction business. He failed to file tax returns for the taxation years 1996 through 2000 and received notices to do so. He was charged with failing to comply with these notices and convicted on January 8, 2003, in the Provincial Court of Manitoba. In addition to a fine, he was ordered to file tax returns for the relevant years. 3 He did file his tax returns, but inserted the number zero with respect to income and net taxable income. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) conducted an investigation which included reviewing bank accounts, building permits and documents seized upon a search of his home. 4 As a result of the investigation, he was charged with the four counts which form the basis of these proceedings. PROVINCIAL COURT TRIAL 5 The trial took place over a period of four days. At the outset of the trial, counsel for the Crown indicated that, in addition to calling a number of

3 Page: 3 witnesses who had commissioned work from the accused, they would also call two employees from the CRA involved in the investigation. The first was the lead investigator in the Special Investigations Unit who performed the analysis on the information obtained and concluded that there had been failure to report income and to remit tax. That investigator relied upon the calculation of expenses performed by a second CRA employee, an auditor, who derived the figures from suppliers invoices seized from the accused s home. As only the invoices for 2002 were available, expenses using the invoices for that year were used to calculate a percentage of what expenses were to the gross revenue. For the years 1999 to 2001, those percentage figures were used to estimate expenses based on the gross revenues for each of those three years and ultimately assess taxable income. Under crossexamination, the lead investigator could offer no information as to the calculation of expenses other than referring to the work done by the auditor. 6 When the auditor who had prepared the expense calculations was called to testify at trial, Crown counsel (not the same counsel as on appeal) sought to introduce additional documents. Defence counsel asked for an adjournment to allow him to review the documents. The Crown took the position that the witness was not necessary to prove its case and opted not to call the auditor and to close its case. At that point, defence counsel moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence although being advised that he would be precluded from calling evidence if he was unsuccessful. The thrust of the accused s motion was that the Crown had led no admissible evidence on the issue of expenses, thereby failing to establish that there was taxable income as opposed to mere revenue. The Crown argued that the evidence provided

4 Page: 4 by the Crown was sufficient to establish a net income and that the expenses were irrelevant to a determination of guilt. 7 The trial judge concluded that the accused was conducting a business and that he had wilfully avoided reporting net taxable income. She referred to the expenses for the year 2002 as business records of the CRA, having been obtained by the CRA as part of its investigation. She found that reliance upon those expense figures by the lead investigator was not reliance upon hearsay evidence. She found that the accused had evaded paying income taxes and also failed to pay the GST, based on the evidence of income. 8 At the sentencing hearing, at the suggestion of the Crown, the trial judge entered conditional stays on the two counts of filing false returns and sentenced the accused to one year incarceration and payment of fines equal to the amounts of the tax evaded. SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL 9 The accused appealed to the Court of Queen s Bench. The only ground of appeal relevant to this leave application was that the trial judge erred in admitting the expense figures into evidence as a business record. Counsel for the accused noted that under s. 30(10)(a)(i) of the Canada Evidence Act (the CEA), the exception provided for the admissibility of business records does not include documents obtained as a result of an investigation.

5 Page: 5 10 In response, the Crown s position before the appeal judge was that, having established that the accused had received income and paid no taxes, the charges had been made out. In its submission, expense calculations were irrelevant to the conviction. The Crown also argued that the expense figures and corroborating invoices were exhibits in the cause and therefore properly before the trial judge. Finally, it argued that the CEA provisions were enabling and did not prevent admissibility under other common law principles. 11 The appeal judge concluded that the admission of the expense records by the trial judge was an error in law as the CEA specifically excluded records obtained in the course of an investigation. He noted that the trial judge had relied upon the expense calculations and did not do her own calculations. He concluded that the convictions were founded on inadmissible evidence and set them aside, but sent the matter back for rehearing before another judge, as he found that there was considerable admissible evidence for the court to consider. ALLEGED ERRORS OF LAW 12 The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear and determine an appeal from an appeal judge is s. 839 of the Code, which requires leave be obtained on a question of law alone. 13 The Crown argues the following errors are to be found in the appeal judge s reasons:

6 Page: 6 (a) The appeal judge erred in his interpretation of the offence of income tax evasion as requiring the Crown to prove the expenses of an accused as an element of the offence. (b) The appeal judge erred in his interpretation of the offence of evading the remittance of GST as requiring the Crown to prove the expenses of an accused as an element of the offence. (c) The appeal judge erred as to the admissibility of the calculation of the 2002 tax year expenses. (d) The appeal judge erred in ordering a new trial on all counts as opposed to proceeding with a de novo hearing on the question of quantum of income tax evaded pursuant to s. 822 of the Code. STANDARD OF REVIEW ON A SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL 14 There is no dispute that the scope for leave being granted is narrow, given the accepted policy to discourage second-level appeals. The criteria to obtain leave to appeal are as follows: (a) Any ground of appeal must involve a question of law alone. (b) Even if a question of law does arise, leave should only be granted if the matter raises an arguable case of substance. (c) The arguable case must be of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the full court.

7 Page: 7 See R. v. Oliver, 2011 MBCA 12; R. v. Denys (C.D.), 2009 MBCA 39, 240 Man.R. (2d) 13; and R. v. McCorriston (G.J.), 2010 MBCA 3, 251 Man.R. (2d) To this I would add that the decision under review and in which there must be an arguable error of law is that of the summary conviction appeal court and not of the trial court. See R. v. Langlois (D.J.), 2008 MBCA 72, 228 Man.R. (2d) 256 at para As well, a judge on a leave application should be reluctant to grant leave on an issue which has been raised for the first time in this court. See R. v. R. (R.), 2008 ONCA 497, 234 C.C.C. (3d) 463 at para. 38. ANALYSIS Issue No. 1 Did the appeal judge err in law in his interpretation of the offence of income tax evasion as requiring the Crown to prove the expenses of the accused as an element of the offence? 17 The Crown s position is that it does not have to prove the amount of the expenses as an element of income tax evasion. It argues that the CRA gave the benefit of the doubt to the accused to offset his gross business revenue by attributing prorated expenses. It could have simply taken the position that, given the lack of proper records, the revenue had been proven with no expenses attributed against them. 18 The accused s position is that what is at issue is whether there was net

8 Page: 8 taxable income. All the Crown has proven is that the accused received revenue, not that this revenue was in fact net income. In defence counsel s words, the Crown has failed to show a tax liability. While conceding that quantum (the amount of taxes due) is a question for sentencing, the Crown must still prove that there was net income before tax liability and therefore tax evasion is founded. 19 I agree with the defence contention that, on the facts of this case, the expense calculations were relevant to a determination of whether there was a tax liability for the counts under appeal. The trial judge certainly thought so, hence the ruling on their admissibility. 20 The Crown s position would be stronger had it not indicated that its case would be presented in a manner whereby there would be evidence as to expenses provided by one of its witnesses and that expenses incurred by the accused in running his business were part and parcel of the CRA s own determination of tax liability. It is only once faced with the prospect of a further adjournment that Crown counsel decided not to call the witness whose only purpose was to present evidence relating to expense calculations. 21 I do not read the appeal judge s decision as requiring that expenses be proven as a necessary element of the offence of tax evasion. The crux of his decision is that the Crown s trial strategy had made expenses an issue in determining tax liability and the trial judge had improperly relied upon inadmissible evidence to reach her decision on that issue. 22 Therefore, while the ground of appeal raises a question of law, it is

9 Page: 9 not one that is arguable on the basis of the appeal judge s decision. Issue No. 2 Did the appeal judge err in law in requiring the Crown to prove the accused s expenses as an element of evading the remittance of GST? 23 Again, the Crown argues that it is not required to prove expenses with respect to a charge of avoiding payment of GST, given that all that is required is for it to show that income upon which tax was required to be collected was received by the accused. The accused is then required, by virtue of holding these funds in trust, to remit them to the Crown. The Crown s position is that it clearly showed that income was received for which tax was payable and none was remitted by the accused. 24 The accused s counsel argues that the calculation of expenses is important as it goes to the extent to which taxes had to be remitted, given that the accused would have been entitled to input credits based upon the expenses incurred in producing the income. The expenses would have been used to determine what, if any, tax was owed by the accused to the government. 25 There is an interrelationship between the two in that the Crown was seeking convictions based upon the evidence as applying to both counts. The Crown used the expense calculations for the purposes of determining the amount of tax which it claims was owed and the GST to be remitted. It

10 Page: 10 would appear that the trial judge used the expense calculations to decide whether or not tax liability or GST remittances were owed. 26 The appeal judge did not differentiate between the liability for income tax and GST remittances. His reasoning would have been the same. That is, if the expense calculations were germane to the Crown s case, they needed to be adduced by admissible evidence before the trial judge could use them to reach her conclusion that there was a GST liability as required to convict. 27 Consequent upon my decision as to the first ground advanced by the Crown, I do not believe this ground raises an arguable question of law on the basis of the appeal judge s decision. Issue No. 3 Did the appeal judge err as to the admissibility of the auditor s calculations of the accused s 2002 tax year expenses? 28 The Crown argues that the appeal judge erred in concluding that the reference to business records in the trial judge s oral reasons was a reference to s. 30 of the CEA and that, if it was, s. 30(10)(a)(i) was applicable. Section 30(10)(a)(i) provides as follows: Evidence inadmissible under this section 30. (10) Nothing in this section renders admissible in evidence in any legal proceeding (a) such part of any record as is proved to be

11 Page: 11 (i) a record made in the course of an investigation or inquiry. 29 The Crown s submission is that whether or not the expense calculations were created as a result of an investigation does not answer the question as s. 30 of the CEA is an enabling section, not a restrictive one. The provisions of s. 30 of the CEA are in addition to whatever rules of admissibility which exist at common law (see s. 30(11)). 30 In the Crown s submission, the information provided to the lead investigator by the other CRA employee was simply summaries of calculations which are admissible in their own right since they were based on evidence which had already been properly admitted at the trial. See R. v. Scheel (1978), 42 C.C.C. (2d) 31 (Ont. C.A.). Furthermore, as argued previously by the Crown, there was no legal relevance to the calculations. The Crown did not have to prove the accused s expenses. They were relevant only for sentencing. Finally, since they were business records according to the common law exception to the hearsay rule, they could have been admitted on that basis. 31 It is noteworthy that, before the summary conviction appeal court, the Crown did not argue that the expense calculations were admissible as business records under the common law exception. It argued that the expense figures in the corroborating invoices were exhibits in the cause properly before the trial judge. They were facts the trial judge was entitled to consider and ultimately accept through the evidence of the lead investigator.

12 Page: However, as noted by the appeal judge and defence counsel, that is not how the matter was treated by the trial judge. The trial judge considered the expense calculations and records as business records of the CRA. She relied upon the calculations in her assessment of overall tax liability. The accused s counsel had indicated at the outset that he was intending to question the expenses calculated by the CRA, what steps were taken to determine what they were and what was included. 33 The reference to business records by the trial judge is unclear. If it is a reference to a business record as contemplated by the CEA, then the trial judge erred. If it is a reference to a business record under the common law exceptions, they may have been admissible in appropriate circumstances after an assessment of their necessity and reliability had been done in accordance with the principled approach for the admissibility of hearsay statements. See R. v. Khan, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531, and R. v. Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57, [2006] 2 S.C.R That does not appear to have been undertaken or even argued. 34 In my view, the Crown has not demonstrated an arguable case of substance that the appeal judge erred in concluding that the reference was to a business record as contemplated by the CEA and that the evidence was inadmissible under that Act. Issue No. 4 Did the appeal judge err in ordering a new trial as opposed to proceeding with a de novo hearing?

13 Page: The summary conviction appeal proceeded under s. 813 of the Code. The Crown argues that s. 822 of the Code applied to the appeal. Pursuant to that section, the appeal court, if it is of the opinion that the interests of justice would be better served, has the jurisdiction to determine the appeal by holding a trial de novo. In the Crown s submission in this case, the trial de novo would have been a sentencing hearing where evidence on the expenses could have been adduced to determine the proper quantum. The Crown argues that this is an important issue which will allow this court to provide direction to the summary conviction appeal court with respect to proceedings under s Section 822(4) provides that conducting an appeal by holding a trial de novo can only occur upon application by one of the parties. No such application was made to the appeal judge. I fail to see that this ground raises an arguable point of law. CONCLUSION 37 Even if I had found arguable points of law with respect to the grounds advanced by the Crown, I would have not found any so compelling that they warranted review by this court and would not have exercised my discretion to grant leave. 38 I am also of the view that the decision to return this matter to Provincial Court for a retrial is the appropriate course of action in order to ensure fairness to the accused.

14 Page: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. J.A.

Citation: Korsch v. Human Rights Commission Date: (Man.) et al., 2012 MBCA 108 Docket: AI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

Citation: Korsch v. Human Rights Commission Date: (Man.) et al., 2012 MBCA 108 Docket: AI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: Korsch v. Human Rights Commission Date: 20121113 (Man.) et al., 2012 MBCA 108 Docket: AI 12-30-07792 Coram: B E T W E E N : IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Madam Justice Barbara M. Hamilton

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Date: 20180111 Manitoba v Kochanowski et al, 2018 MBCA 2 Docket: AI17-30-08752 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B ETWEEN : HER MAJESTY THE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006

IN 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 information

Citation: Layton Eldon Manning v. The Queen Date: PESCAD 26 Docket: AD-0861 Registry: Charlottetown

Citation: Layton Eldon Manning v. The Queen Date: PESCAD 26 Docket: AD-0861 Registry: Charlottetown Citation: Layton Eldon Manning v. The Queen Date: 20011101 2001 PESCAD 26 Docket: AD-0861 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: LAYTON

More information

PENALTIES FOR TAX EVASION

PENALTIES FOR TAX EVASION PENALTIES FOR TAX EVASION This issue of the Legal Business Report provides current information to the clients of Alpert Law Firm on Tax Evasion under the Income Tax Act (Canada) and the possible challenges

More information

Case Name: Mohammed v. York Fire and Casualty Insurance Co.

Case Name: Mohammed v. York Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. Case Name: Mohammed v. York Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. Between Jameel Mohammed, appellant, and York Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, respondent [2006] O.J. No. 547 Docket: C43374 Also reported

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN. ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS LIMITED AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN. ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS LIMITED AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL No. 214 of 2010 BETWEEN ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] APPELLANT AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MUGWEDI MAKONDELELE JONATHAN

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MUGWEDI MAKONDELELE JONATHAN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 694/13 In the matter between Not Reportable MUGWEDI MAKONDELELE JONATHAN APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Mugwedi v The

More information

SEARCH WARRANTS, DISCLOSURE & CLIENT PRIVILEGE

SEARCH WARRANTS, DISCLOSURE & CLIENT PRIVILEGE SEARCH WARRANTS, DISCLOSURE & CLIENT PRIVILEGE This issue of the Legal Business Report provides current information to the clients of Alpert Law Firm on Search Warrants, Disclosure and Client Privilege

More information

Cotton, T. (2010) 'Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire', Journal of Criminal Law, 74 (5), pp

Cotton, T. (2010) 'Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire', Journal of Criminal Law, 74 (5), pp TeesRep - Teesside's Research Repository Court of appeal: Confession evidence and the circumstances requiring a voir dire Item type Authors Citation DOI Publisher Journal Additional Link Rights Article

More information

CASE NO. 1D David P. Healy of Law Offices of David P. Healy, PLC, Tallahassee, for Appellants.

CASE NO. 1D David P. Healy of Law Offices of David P. Healy, PLC, Tallahassee, for Appellants. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ROBERT B. LINDSEY, JOSEPH D. ADAMS and MARK J. SWEE, Appellants, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

Rajen 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 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 information

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA508/2015 [2016] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND MRINAL SARDANA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 8 March 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Peters and Collins

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: A 100/2008 DATE:26/08/2011 REPORTABLE In the matter between LEPHOI MOREMOHOLO APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Criminal

More information

Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHALKLEY. Between MANSOOR ALI.

Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHALKLEY. Between MANSOOR ALI. IAC-FH-GJ-V6 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 20 August 2012 Determination Promulgated Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 6 th February 2018 On 1 March Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 6 th February 2018 On 1 March Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/13377/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 6 th February 2018 On 1 March 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

DEFENDING TAX EVASION CHARGES

DEFENDING TAX EVASION CHARGES DEFENDING TAX EVASION CHARGES This issue of the Legal Business Report provides current information to the clients of Alpert Law Firm on Tax Evasion under the Income Tax Act (Canada) and the possible challenges

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: R v Sweeney, 2016 MBCA 6 Date: 20160113 Docket: AR15-30-08364 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: B E T W E E N: Madam Justice Barbara M. Hamilton Mr. Justice Alan D. MacInnes Madam Justice

More information

VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 29 June 2010 Before Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, WILTON-SIEGEL, MYERS JJ. ) ) ) Respondents )

ONTARIO 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 information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Dawson v Jewiss; Thompson v Jewiss [2004] QCA 374 PARTIES: STUART BEVAN DAWSON (plaintiff/respondent) v HENRY WILLIAM JEWISS also known as HARRY JEWISS (defendant/appellant)

More information

Reasons and decision Motifs et décision

Reasons and decision Motifs et décision Reasons and decision Motifs et décision RAD File No. / N de dossier de la SAR : VB3-02197 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Person(s) who is(are) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause the subject of the

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB. Between NM (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) And

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB. Between NM (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) And Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06052/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Newport Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 31 st March 2016 On 15 th April 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA. SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the 6 th December, 2011 and 8 th May, 2012

JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA. SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the 6 th December, 2011 and 8 th May, 2012 IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Criminal Jurisdiction) SCZ/103/2011 BETWEEN: JOSEPH MWAMBA KALENGA APPELLANT VS THE PEOPLE RESPONDENT Coram: SAKALA, CJ, MUYOVWE and MUSONDA, JJS On the

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A M MURRAY. Between MR NEEAJ KUMAR (ANONYMITY HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTED) and

THE 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

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS

TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Enns (Guardian ad Litem) v. Voice of Peace Foundation, 2004 BCCA 13 Between: And Date: 20040113 Docket: CA031497 Abram Enns by his Guardian ad Litem the Public

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACT. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACT. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACT Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. APPELLANT S / RESPONDENT S FACTUM (Select One)

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. APPELLANT S / RESPONDENT S FACTUM (Select One) C.A. N o A-123-11 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Appellant) - and - RAHEEM KHAN (Respondent) APPELLANT S / RESPONDENT S FACTUM (Select One) NAME OF LAW FIRM Address of law

More information

Court of Criminal Appeals April 22, 2015

Court of Criminal Appeals April 22, 2015 Court of Criminal Appeals April 22, 2015 Ehrke v. State No. PD-0071-14 Case Summary written by Kylie Rahl, Staff Member. JUDGE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the court in which JUDGE MEYERS, JUDGE KEASLER,

More information

The Law Society of Saskatchewan. TARA DIONNE CHORNOBY December 3, 2010 Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Chornoby, 2010 SKLSS 8

The Law Society of Saskatchewan. TARA DIONNE CHORNOBY December 3, 2010 Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Chornoby, 2010 SKLSS 8 The Law Society of Saskatchewan TARA DIONNE CHORNOBY December 3, 2010 Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Chornoby, 2010 SKLSS 8 IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 1990 AND IN THE MATTER OF TARA DIONNE

More information

HOSPITAL APPEAL BOARD. In the matter of DR. IMRAN SAMAD. And

HOSPITAL APPEAL BOARD. In the matter of DR. IMRAN SAMAD. And HOSPITAL APPEAL BOARD In the matter of DR. IMRAN SAMAD And PROVINCIAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY and THE CHILDREN S AND WOMEN S HEALTH CENTRE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DECISION ON DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS On January

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G

More information

Supreme Court of the State of New York Second Department Appellate Term 9th and 10th Judicial Districts Appellate Term

Supreme Court of the State of New York Second Department Appellate Term 9th and 10th Judicial Districts Appellate Term Supreme Court of the State of New York Second Department Appellate Term 9th and 10th Judicial Districts Appellate Term THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK --Against-- Respondent, ERIC ROSENBAUM, Appellant.

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01787/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Determination Promulgated On 7 July 2014 On 15 th Aug 2014 Judgment given

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Sprague v. Spencer, 2018 NSSC 125. Jason William Sprague. v. Paula Denise Spencer

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Sprague v. Spencer, 2018 NSSC 125. Jason William Sprague. v. Paula Denise Spencer SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Sprague v. Spencer, 2018 NSSC 125 Date: 2018-05-28 Docket: SKPA 107147 Registry: Kentville Between: Jason William Sprague v. Paula Denise Spencer Applicant Respondent

More information

CIVIL EVASION PENALTY - Importation of cigarettes appeal dismissed. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JENNIFER DEAN MR MICHAEL ATKINSON

CIVIL EVASION PENALTY - Importation of cigarettes appeal dismissed. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JENNIFER DEAN MR MICHAEL ATKINSON [16] UKFTT 0292 (TC) TC006 Appeal number: TC//062 CIVIL EVASION PENALTY - Importation of cigarettes appeal dismissed FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER SHAZAD ANJUM Appellant - and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT RISTO JOVAN WYATT, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D12-4377 [ May 20, 2015 ] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth

More information

DIRECTORS LIABILITY FOR TAX - PART I

DIRECTORS LIABILITY FOR TAX - PART I DIRECTORS LIABILITY FOR TAX - PART I This issue of the Legal Business Report provides current information to the clients of Alpert Law Firm on the potential liability of a corporation s directors under

More information

PROCEDURE Costs of interlocutory proceedings Application for Further and Better Particulars. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS

PROCEDURE Costs of interlocutory proceedings Application for Further and Better Particulars. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS [2017] UKFTT 0509 (TC) TC05962 Appeal numbers: TC/2014/05870 TC/2015/00425 PROCEDURE Costs of interlocutory proceedings Application for Further and Better Particulars FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER AWARD

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D N HARRIS. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

THE 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 information

HOLY ALPHA AND OMEGA CHURCH OF TORONTO. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA. Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.

HOLY ALPHA AND OMEGA CHURCH OF TORONTO. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA. Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Date: 20090331 Docket: A-214-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 101 Present: BETWEEN: HOLY ALPHA AND OMEGA CHURCH OF TORONTO Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance

More information

ICTR REGISTRY THE HAGUE -+-->-+ APPEALS L"NIT. ~Is -- Action: PG- Copied To:I}U Ju ~, ~ s April 2001 'Jmor,~~r.t~:~~l-vrl~~

ICTR REGISTRY THE HAGUE -+-->-+ APPEALS LNIT. ~Is -- Action: PG- Copied To:I}U Ju ~, ~ s April 2001 'Jmor,~~r.t~:~~l-vrl~~ Received: 6/ 4/01 11 :32; 0031705128932 -> ictr; Page g 06104 '01 FRI 08:40 FAX 0031705128932, '-./ '->

More information

- and - Sitting in public in Manchester on 5 February Dr Mohammed Asif of M Asif & Co Accountants for the Appellant

- and - Sitting in public in Manchester on 5 February Dr Mohammed Asif of M Asif & Co Accountants for the Appellant [14] UKFTT 422 (TC) TC031 Appeal number: TC/12/07811 VALUE ADDED TAX assessment whether understatement of sales penalty Schedule 24 Finance Act 07 whether deliberate and concealed quantum of VAT assessment

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case Nos: JR1061-2007 In the matter between: SAMANCOR LIMITED Applicant and NUM obo MARIFI JOHANNES MALOMA First Respondent TAXING MASTER, LABOUR

More information

Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS Circuit Court for Frederick County Case No.: 10-C-01-000768 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 00047 September Term, 2017 WILLIAM BENNISON v. DEBBIE BENNISON Leahy, Reed, Shaw Geter,

More information

TARA DIONNE CHORNOBY December 3, 2010 Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Tara Dionne Chornoby, 2010 LSS 8

TARA DIONNE CHORNOBY December 3, 2010 Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Tara Dionne Chornoby, 2010 LSS 8 TARA DIONNE CHORNOBY December 3, 2010 Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Tara Dionne Chornoby, 2010 LSS 8 IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 1990 AND IN THE MATTER OF TARA DIONNE CHORNOBY, OF SASKATOON,

More information

Arbitration CAS 2010/A/2046 Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan v. National Anti-Doping Committee of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), award of 5 October 2010

Arbitration CAS 2010/A/2046 Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan v. National Anti-Doping Committee of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), award of 5 October 2010 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration Samir Ibrahim Ali Hassan v. National Anti-Doping Committee of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Panel: Mr Gerhard Bubnik (Czech Republic),

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Court Justice Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 3 rd July 2017 On 5 th July 2017 Before

More information

ORDER MO Appeal MA Brantford Police Services Board. September 6, 2018

ORDER MO Appeal MA Brantford Police Services Board. September 6, 2018 ORDER MO-3655 Appeal MA15-246 Brantford Police Services Board September 6, 2018 Summary: The appellant made an access request under the Act to the police for records relating to a homicide investigation

More information

Case Name: R. v. Serré. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diane Serré. [2011] O.J. No ONSC Court File No.

Case Name: R. v. Serré. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diane Serré. [2011] O.J. No ONSC Court File No. Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Serré Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Diane Serré [2011] O.J. No. 6414 2011 ONSC 3609 Court File No. 05-30105 Ontario Superior Court of Justice C.D. Aitken J. Heard: May 10,

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 17 th February 2015 On 24 th February Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 17 th February 2015 On 24 th February Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 17 th February 2015 On 24 th February 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D E TAYLOR

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On : 11 November 2014 On : 12 November Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE. Between SHAPLA BEGUM CHOWDHURY.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On : 11 November 2014 On : 12 November Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE. Between SHAPLA BEGUM CHOWDHURY. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at : Field House Determination Promulgated On : 11 November 2014 On : 12 November 2014 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE Between

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/42299/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 10 February 2016 On 29 February 2016.

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/42299/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 10 February 2016 On 29 February 2016. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/42299/2013 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 10 February 2016 On 29 February 2016 Before DEPUTY

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013 MAY, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013 PALM BEACH POLO HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation,

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN CITATION: Krishnamoorthy v. Olympus Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 873 DATE: 20171116 DOCKET: C62948 Strathy C.J.O., Cronk and Pepall JJ.A. Nadesan Krishnamoorthy Plaintiff

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 March 2015 On 20 April 2015 Delivered orally. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GOLDSTEIN.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 March 2015 On 20 April 2015 Delivered orally. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GOLDSTEIN. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 17 March 2015 On 20 April 2015 Delivered orally Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GOLDSTEIN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Hoet [2016] QCA 230 PARTIES: R v HOET, Reece Karaitana (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 64 of 2016 DC No 548 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Court of Appeal Appeal against

More information

[1] This appeal, which is against both the conviction and the sentence, is with leave of

[1] This appeal, which is against both the conviction and the sentence, is with leave of P a g e 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) CASE NO: A259/10 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED. 18/04/2013.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the

More information

Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Case name: CW Agencies Inc. v. Canada Date: 2001-12-11 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 393 File numbers: A-601-00 Date: 20011213 Docket: A-601-00 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG) 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 (NORTH WEST DIVISION,

More information

and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Motion heard on November 19, 2014 at Montréal, Québec. Before: The Honourable Justice Gerald J.

and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Motion heard on November 19, 2014 at Montréal, Québec. Before: The Honourable Justice Gerald J. BETWEEN: J.G. GUY SIMARD, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Docket: 2014-2454(IT)G Appellant, Respondent. Appearances: Motion heard on November 19, 2014 at Montréal, Québec. Before: The Honourable Justice Gerald

More information

ADDIE NKOSINGIPHILE SHABANGU

ADDIE NKOSINGIPHILE SHABANGU 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 (GAUTENG DIVISION,

More information

Cooper et al. v. Farmer's Mutual Insurance Company [Indexed as: Cooper v. Farmer's Mutual Insurance Co.]

Cooper et al. v. Farmer's Mutual Insurance Company [Indexed as: Cooper v. Farmer's Mutual Insurance Co.] Page 1 Cooper et al. v. Farmer's Mutual Insurance Company [Indexed as: Cooper v. Farmer's Mutual Insurance Co.] 59 O.R. (3d) 417 [2002] O.J. No. 1949 Docket No. C37051 Court of Appeal for Ontario, Abella,

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 30 March 2015 On 15 April Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BIRRELL. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 30 March 2015 On 15 April Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BIRRELL. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Piccadilly Decision Promulgated On 30 March 2015 On 15 April 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BIRRELL Between

More information

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. and GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CANADA INC. Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. and GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CANADA INC. Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20101101 Docket: A-1-10 Citation: 2010 FCA 290 CORAM: MAINVILLE J.A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant and GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CANADA INC.

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th April 2016 On 9 th June Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th April 2016 On 9 th June Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th April 2016 On 9 th June 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE D N HARRIS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 230/2015 In the appeal between: ELPHAS ELVIS LUBISI First Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Neutral citation: Lubisi v The State

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Date: 20180510 Docket: CI 17-01-05942 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Diduck v. Simpson Cited as: 2018 MBQB 76 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: ROBERT DIDUCK, ) Counsel: ) plaintiff, ) DANIEL

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 3 February 2016 On 24 February Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RAMSHAW. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 3 February 2016 On 24 February Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RAMSHAW. Between IAC-AH-DN-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/30396/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 3 February 2016 On 24 February 2016

More information

Roderick V. Streater v. State of Maryland, No. 717, September Term, 1997

Roderick V. Streater v. State of Maryland, No. 717, September Term, 1997 HEADNOTE: Roderick V. Streater v. State of Maryland, No. 717, September Term, 1997 STALKING EVIDENCE -- The existence of a protective order and its contents referencing prior bad acts by defendant directed

More information

Syed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SPENCER. Between. and

Syed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SPENCER. Between. and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Syed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT 00144 IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House on 18 th January 2013 Determination Promulgated Before

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th February 2016 On 19 th April Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th February 2016 On 19 th April Before IAC-AH-DP-V2 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th February 2016 On 19 th April 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 28 November 2006 On 27 February Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 28 November 2006 On 27 February Before SS (s104(4)(b) of 2002 Act = application not limited) Nigeria [2007] UKAIT 00026 Asylum and Immigration Tribunal THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 28 November 2006

More information

PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN

PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN Appeal number: TC/13/06946 PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER JUMBOGATE LIMITED Appellant - and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE & CUSTOMS

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between LIDIJA DESPOTOVIC ANDJELA DESPOTOVIC (ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE) and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between LIDIJA DESPOTOVIC ANDJELA DESPOTOVIC (ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE) and IAC-AH-VP/DP-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 17 th December 2015 On 6 th January 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2012

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2012 J-S70010-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD JARMON Appellant No. 3275 EDA 2012 Appeal

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 9 July 2014 On 9 July Before. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Pickup Between

THE 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 information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MOULDEN. Between. MR NSIKANABASI UMOH ESSIEN (No Anonymity Direction Made) and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MOULDEN. Between. MR NSIKANABASI UMOH ESSIEN (No Anonymity Direction Made) and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/27276/2012 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 27 May 2014 On 29 May 2014 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE

More information

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the appeal between:- Appeal No. : A176/2008 BRAKIE SAMUEL MOLOI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent CORAM: EBRAHIM, J et LEKALE, AJ HEARD

More information

March 13, Dear Minister: Tax Court of Canada

March 13, Dear Minister: Tax Court of Canada March 13, 2008 The Honourable Robert D. Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada East Memorial Building, 4th Floor 284 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 Dear Minister:

More information

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, RSO 1990, c S.5 - AND -

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, RSO 1990, c S.5 - AND - Ontario Commission des 22nd Floor 22e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 October 2017 On 25 October 2017 Before Deputy

More information

ORDER PO Appeal PA Peterborough Regional Health Centre. June 30, 2016

ORDER PO Appeal PA Peterborough Regional Health Centre. June 30, 2016 ORDER PO-3627 Appeal PA15-399 Peterborough Regional Health Centre June 30, 2016 Summary: The appellant, a journalist, sought records relating to the termination of the employment of several employees of

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY. Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY. Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA [Cite as State v. Howard, 2010-Ohio-2303.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-11-144 : O P I N I O N - vs -

More information

JUDGMENT. [1] In the Court a quo the appellant was refused bail by the Port Elizabeth

JUDGMENT. [1] In the Court a quo the appellant was refused bail by the Port Elizabeth IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH Case no: CA&R15/2016 Date heard: 25 th January 2017 Date delivered: 2 nd February 2017 In the matter between: LUTHANDO MFINI

More information

SOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL DECISION Appeal Division

SOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL DECISION Appeal Division Citation: S. V. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2016 SSTADIS 87 Tribunal File Number: AD-15-1088 BETWEEN: S. V. Appellant and Minister of Employment and Social Development (formerly known

More information

SUMMARY OF APPEALS CHAMBER SENTENCING JUDGEMENT. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic 26 January 2000

SUMMARY OF APPEALS CHAMBER SENTENCING JUDGEMENT. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic 26 January 2000 SUMMARY OF APPEALS CHAMBER SENTENCING JUDGEMENT The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic 26 January 2000 The Appeals Chamber of this International Tribunal is now delivering judgement in this matter. Copies of the

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 4 th February 2015 On 17 th February 2015 Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON

More information

NOS CR CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

NOS CR CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS NOS. 12-17-00298-CR 12-17-00299-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS DONALD RAY RUNNELS, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE APPEALS FROM THE 123RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

More information

THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents

THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) AA/04981/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 16 th January 2015 On 20 th January 2015.

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) AA/04981/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 16 th January 2015 On 20 th January 2015. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) AA/04981/2014 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 16 th January 2015 On 20 th January 2015 Before DEPUTY

More information

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA361/2016 [2017] NZCA 69 BETWEEN AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: Court: Counsel: Judgment: 15 February 2017 (with an application

More information

MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE. and ROBERT MCNALLY. Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.

MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE. and ROBERT MCNALLY. Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. CORAM: NEAR J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. Date: 20151106 Docket: A-358-15 Citation: 2015 FCA 248 BETWEEN: MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE and Appellant ROBERT MCNALLY Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance

More information

DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

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: Stephen Jeremy Bache Heard on: 27 July 2015 Location: Committee: Legal Adviser: Persons

More information

Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION. TIM O HALLORAN, doing business as Tim s Island Wide Marine Services

Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION. TIM O HALLORAN, doing business as Tim s Island Wide Marine Services Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: Whiteway v. O Halloran 2007 PESCAD 22 Date: 20071031 Docket: S1-AD-1110 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: TIM

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Hampton Securities Limited v. Dean, 2018 ONCA 901 DATE: 20181109 DOCKET: C64908 Lauwers, Hourigan and Pardu JJ.A. Hampton Securities Limited and Christina

More information

THE 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

THE 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 information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JUSS. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT DECISION AND REASONS

THE 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 information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/01880/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/01880/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/01880/2015 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 January 2018 On 08 February 2018 Before DEPUTY

More information