Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The last edition of the RSO was dated 1990 pursuant to the Statutes Revision Act, 1989, consolidating the statutes in force prior to January 1, 1991. [3] More recently, acts have been consolidated on the e-Laws website, organized by reference to their existing citations in the Statutes of Ontario or Revised Statutes of Ontario. [4]
The Melbourne Magistrates' Court.In Victoria, Australia, all summary offences are heard in the Magistrates' Court. A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, [1] [2] [3] without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment (required for an indictable offence).
They are defined as "summary" within the Act and, unless otherwise stated, are punishable by a fine of no more than $5,000 and/or six months in jail. Examples of offences which are always summary offences include trespassing at night (section 177), [ 2 ] causing a disturbance (section 175) [ 2 ] and taking a motor vehicle without the owner's ...
In Canada, the rules of civil procedure are administered separately by each jurisdiction, both federal and provincial. Nine provinces and three territories in Canada are common law jurisdictions. One province, Quebec, is governed by civil law. [1] In all provinces and territories, there is an inferior and superior court. [1]
In R. v. Rowbotham, (1988), the Ontario Court of Appeal found that Section 11(d), when read in conjunction with Section 7, requires the appointment of counsel for an accused who is facing a serious criminal charge, not capable of representing himself, and not financially able to retain counsel.
Summary contempt proceeding, a proceeding to adjudicate contempt in the immediate presence of the court, without pleading, affidavit, or formal charges—albeit the accused may be entitled to a hearing or at least opportunity to make an explanation of his conduct under oath. 17 Am J2d Contpt §§ 86–88.
"Substantial interference" with that right was found to infringe section 2(d). However, in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser, the Court assessed the challenged law on a standard of "substantial impossibility": a law would not violate section 2(d) unless it "has the effect of making it impossible to act collectively to achieve workplace goals."
Narcotic Control Act, 1961; Canada Labour Code, 1967; Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69; Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, 1970; Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act, 1970; Weights and Measures Act, 1970; Divorce Act, 1968 - replaced by Divorce Act, 1985; Canada Wildlife Act, 1973; National Symbol of Canada Act, 1975; Anti-Inflation ...