Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Appeals from the Court of Appeal lie with the Supreme Court of Canada, Canada's court of last resort. Other than certain criminal matters, appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada are heard only by leave of that court. Since the Supreme Court denies leave in most cases, the Court of Appeal is the final court for most matters originating in Alberta.
Accordingly, he ordered Hryniak to pay more than US$2 million in damages. The ruling marked the first successful use of summary judgment in an Ontario fraud case. [6] The Ontario Court of Appeal heard the appeal together with others, in its first consideration of the 2010 changes made to summary judgment procedures in Ontario. While concluding ...
While the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require no judicial permission and impose no intervention deadline, common law dictates that a party may not intervene post-judgment unless the trial court first sets aside the judgment. [8] For the same reason, an intervenor must enter the lawsuit before final judgment to have standing to bring an appeal.
As his lawyers hit appellate court Thursday, Trump's NY civil fraud penalty, swollen by $111,984 in interest each day, will hit $478 million. ... That's $24 million just in post-judgment interest.
The Personal Property Security Act ("PPSA") is the name given to each of the statutes passed by all common law provinces, as well as the territories, of Canada that regulate the creation and registration of security interests in all personal property within their respective jurisdictions.
Canadian contract law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian contract law is derived from English contract law, though it has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
On April 24, 1978, Sir Patrick O'Connor of the British High Court ordered Saltzman to pay an American law firm £13,000 (US$28,000) plus £5,000 (US$10,500) in post-judgment interest and court costs. [14] Saltzman had retained the firm to resolve his financial difficulties. [19] Saltzman's productions in the 1970s also proved problematic.