HELD Sample Clauses

HELD. Accused convicted. The evidence was clear that the accused was in possession of a loaded firearm, which he concealed in his pocket. Walking around the community with a loaded firearm in one's pocket was not only a careless use of a firearm, but was dangerous. Furthermore, at the time of the offences, the accused did not possess a licence permitting him to possess a firearm and he was ordered by a court, on two prior occasions, not to possess a firearm. In addition, the accused as- saulted a police officer when he punched an officer while trying to escape. As there was no evi- dence of where the accused obtained the firearm, it could not be concluded that he knew that the firearm was obtained by the commission of an offence. None of the accused's Charter rights were breached. The officers' decision to stop and talk to the accused and his acquaintance was a sponta- neous decision and not racial profiling. The force used by the police to restrain the accused once the gun was discovered was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances and did not result in injuries to the accused. Consequently, there was no breach of the accused's s. 7 Charter rights. Additionally, the accused was not arbitrarily detained. Prior to the pat-down search, the accused was not detained, and by the point where the police conducted the pat-down search, they had reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused had a gun and detain him. Furthermore, the accused was not subjected to an unlawful search and seizure as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information the police discovered when they checked his name with dispatch and the pat-down search was lawful given the officers reasonably believed their safety was at risk, and the search was brief. Finally, there was no breach of the accused's s. 10 Charter rights as he was advised of his rights as soon as he was secured and placed in the police vehicle. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 44, Schedule B, s. 0, x. 8, s. 9, s. 10, s. 10(b), s. 11, s. 15, s. 24(2) Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 86(3), s. 90(2), s. 92(3), s. 95(2), s. 96(1), s. 117.01, s. 270(2) Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, Counsel: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Esq.: for the Crown. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Esq.: for the Accused. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT X.X. XXXXXXX J.:-- INTRODUCTION
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
HELD. Xxxxxx Xxxx shall issue two separate checks for the penalty payment: (a) one check made payable to OEHHA in the amount of $1,500.00 representing 75% of the total penalty; and (b) one check to “The Chanler Group in Trust for Xxxxxxx X. Held” in the amount of $500.00 representing 25% of the total penalty. Two separate 1099s shall be issued for the above payments. The checks and 1099s shall be delivered to the addresses listed in Section 3.3 below.
HELD. (1) Xxxxxx was acting as complete stranger to the contract between Xxxxxxxxx and Dew and thus on account of privity of contract couldn’t xxx Xxxxxxxxx for breach of its agreement with Dew. It was a mere beneficiary to it on account of Price Maintenance Clause.
HELD. Red Steer shall issue two separate checks for the penalty payment: (a) one check made payable to OEHHA in the amount of $2,250.00 representing 75% of the total penalty; and (b) one check to “The Chanler Group in Trust for Xxxxxxx X.. Held” in the amount of $750.00 representing 25% of the total penalty. Two separate 1099s shall be issued for the above payments. The checks and 1099s shall be delivered to the addresses listed in Section 3.3 below.
HELD allowing the appeal and awarding costs to the appellant in the High Court and in the appeal: The parties made Article 4.3.2 of the agreement a condition precedent to arbitration. The question whether the Claim was time-barred and prescribed raised an issue of procedural arbitrability, which rule 8(a) of the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association puts within the purview of the arbitrator. Since the respondent, DCG Properties, unsuccessfully challenged the arbitrator’s assumption of jurisdiction in the dispute, and did not appeal the arbitrator’s decision through the arbitral appeal process, the High Court should not have entertained a case which DCG Properties brought on the same issue. That litigation occasioned the court to make a conflicting decision to that of the arbitrator on the same grounds as DCG Properties had unsuccessfully challenged the arbitration. Saint Lucia has a strong public policy in favour of arbitration which the Arbitration Act exemplifies. The court, in support of that policy, should cause parties to act in accordance with the processes provided by that Act. Xxxxx Xxxxxx v Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (10 December 2002) Contec Corporation v Remote Solutions Co. Ltd., 398 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2005), adopted. JUDGMENT [1] XXXXXXX, X.X.: The outcome of this appeal hinges on the interpretation of certain clauses contained in a contract between the parties in this appeal, which relate to claims and arbitration. Contractual provisions [2] The grounds of appeal, which will be set out later in this judgment, mirror some of the provisions that the agreement between the parties contain, which counsel for White Construction urged us to consider in the appeal. Other provisions were referred to in the submissions by both counsel. I set out their contents at this juncture in order to put this appeal into the contractual context. [3] The contractual provisions to which counsel referred us are Articles 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 13.1.1, 13.3.1, 13.4.2 and 13.7.1.
HELD. Such employee may also displace a less senior employee (utilizing total City seniority) in another department in a classification which the employee has previously held and performed in a satisfactory manner.
HELD. The term “charge” is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, taking into account the Act’s overall objectives of consumer protection against hidden costs, the parties are required to quantify the charge and specify the manner in which it is to be paid when they determine their contractual terms and conclude the credit agreement. However, the profit shares, as envisioned by the parties, had no fixed repayment date, were not guaranteed and ran the possibility of not eventuating. Furthermore, as the amount was to be determined by the Appellant at his sole discretion, the profit share also failed to meet the requirement of fixed quantification. Thus, said profit share did not qualify as a charge under the Act. As a result, the loans did not amount to credit agreements, in terms of Section 8(1) of the Act, as no charges were attached to them. As such, the Respondent was not required to register as a credit provider. The Court upheld the decision of the court a quo, holding that the cheques in repayment of a loan are exempted from the operation of the Act and that the Respondent was entitled to invoke the provisional sentence procedure to enforce his claims.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
HELD. The Court held that:
HELD. Motions allowed in part. The bank was granted leave to amend its statement of defence. The balance of the bank's motions were dismissed. The bank was aware of the facts underlying its motions in relation to the limitation period, Xxxxxxxx'x bankruptcy and the issue of security for costs well before the trial dates were set. On this basis, leave to bring the motions was denied. Even had leave been granted, the bank's motions in relation to these issues would have been dismissed since based upon the affidavit of Xxxxxxxx, there was some evidence upon which the case could be built. While the action was not an easy one, it was not frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. Although leave was not granted, the merits of the bank's motion for security for costs was considered and it was determined that it would not be just to award security for costs since it would deny Xxxxxxxx his day in court. The determination of the question of law was not appropriately brought under Rule 21.01(1)(a) and was dismissed for that reason. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited: Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S. 1985, c. B-3, s. 68(1). Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 20.01, 20.05(3)(b), 21.01(1)(a), 21.01(3)(d), 25.11, 26.01, 26.02, 48.04, 48.04(2), 56.01(1)(d), 56.01(1)(e). Counsel: Xxxxx Xxxx, for the plaintiffs. Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx, for the defendant.
HELD. On receipt of a request <Ti, pi> at pj (i ⁄ j) if (state = HELD or (state = WANTED and (T, pj) < (Ti, pi))) then queue request from pi without replying; else reply immediately to pi; end if To exit the critical section state := RELEASED; reply to any queued requests; A Token Ring Algorithm Comparison Completely different algorithm: Algorithm Messages per entry/exit Delay before entry (in message times) Problems Centralized 3 2 Coordinator crash Distributed 2 ( n – 1 ) 2 ( n – 1 ) Crash of any process Token ring 1 to ∞ 0 to n – 1 Lost token, process crash • Construct a logical ring from all processes, with each process knows the successor • On initialising, process 0 gets a token, which circulates around the ring • Having the token, a process is allowed once to enter a critical region. After leaving it, the token is passed on The centralised algorithm seems to be best... There are still problems: Token loss, token duplication, process crashes, maintenance of the current ring configuration Xxxxxxx's Voting Algorithm It is not necessary to have a permission from all processes before entering a critical region; permissions are only needed from subsets (which have to have overlaps) Associate a voting set V with each process p , where V ⊆{p , p , ..., p } so that for all Xxxxxxx’s algorithm – part 1 On initialization state := RELEASED; voted := FALSE; i,j = 1, 2, ..., N • p ∈V For pi to enter the critical section state := WANTED; All processes in Vi have answered
Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.