COURT'S DECISION. 33.01 In the event of any articles or portions of this Agreement being held improper or invalid by any Court of Law or Labour Relations Board, such decision shall not invalidate any other portions of this Agreement than those directly specified by such decision to be invalid, improper or otherwise unenforceable.
COURT'S DECISION. 15.01 It is assumed by the parties hereto that each provision of this Agreement is in conformity with all applicable laws of the Dominion of Canada and/or the Province of Manitoba. Should it later be determined that it would be a violation of any legally effective Dominion and/or Provincial statute and/or regulation(s) made thereunder to comply with any provision or provisions of this Agreement for the sole purpose of making such provision or provisions conform to such Dominion or Provincial statute or regulation(s) thereunder, and all other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
COURT'S DECISION. 24.01 It is understood that any changes in municipal, provincial or federal law applicable to the Employer, and which may void any individual portions of this Agreement will be complied with, yet will not be construed to void the remainder of this Agreement.
COURT'S DECISION. 27.01 Should it be determined by a court of law that it would be a violation of any legally effective Dominion of Canada or Province of Manitoba statute or any regulation(s) made thereunder to comply with any provision or provisions of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to amend this Agreement for the sole purpose of making such provision or provisions conform to such Dominion of Canada or Province of Manitoba statute or regulation(s) thereunder, and all other provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect.
COURT'S DECISION. In making its decision, the Court shall be bound by the factual findings of the Hearing Officer and shall give substantial difference to the recommended disposition of the Hearing Officer, except the Court shall not be bound by factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.
COURT'S DECISION. This case came before the Court for a bench trial on February 2, 2016, with Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxxx (“the Brusers”) represented by Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx, Esq. Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Bank of Hawai`i, as successor Trustee under that certain Trust Agreement dated June 6, 1974 (“BOH”), was represented by Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Esq. Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx Irrevocable Trust; Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxx X. Xxxxxx Irrevocable Trust; Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Xx., Irrevocable Trust; and Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxx Irrevocable Trust (collectively “the Xxxxxxxxx/Gowans”) were represented by Xxxxx X.X. Xxxx, Esq. Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, Trustee of the Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Trust and the Xxxxxx X. Yokoyama, Jr. Trust (collectively “Xxxxxxxx”) were represented by Xxxxxxxxxxx X.X. Xxxxx, Esq. Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Xxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxx (collectively “Xxxxxx Xxx”) were represented by Xxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx, Jr., Esq. Finally, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff the Association of Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay (“AOAO”) was represented by Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxx, Esq. The Court hereby outlines its decision. BOH is instructed to prepare the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“FOF/COL”) consistent with the Court’s ruling herein, and annotated to the record and the trial transcript by no later than March 22, 2016. The Brusers may respond to those portions of BOH’s proposed FOF/COL that they object to by filing an alternative proposed FOF/COL, annotated to the record and the trial transcript, and addressing the portions objected to, by no later than April 12, 2016. Thereafter, a final FOF/COL shall be issued by the Court that will supersede any rulings, findings, or conclusions herein, and that will serve as the final decision in this matter.
COURT'S DECISION. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinstating the MeTC’s ruling in favor of the petitioner. It clarified that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not the nomenclature given to it by the plaintiff or how the parties might have termed their dispute. The Court found that the complaint for ejectment sufficiently established a case for unlawful detainer as it outlined how the respondent’s possession, originally lawful, became unlawful upon non-compliance with the demand to vacate. The Court emphasized that in unlawful detainer cases, the key issue is the factual possession of the property, irrespective of any claim of ownership, and the summary nature of the proceedings is designed to quickly restore possession to the aggrieved party. Doctrine: The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of an action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, and that in actions for unlawful detainer, the principal issue is the de facto possession of the property, not the parties’ claims to ownership. Class Notes: – Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. – Unlawful detainer actions focus on the factual possession of the property. – In unlawful detainer cases, claims of ownership are resolved only provisionally and as necessary for settling possession issues. – Compliance with the jurisdictional requirement of demand is necessary for filing an unlawful detainer action. – The MeTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases, subject to the assessed value of the property involved.
COURT'S DECISION. 70) The Court accepts that the matter upon which the article sought to comment was a matter of public interest. In my view, it is not correct to say, as the Claimant’s submission asserts that: The issue for this court is not so much as to whether the contents of the article is a matter of public interest but whether the “whole thrust of the article was true” in so far as the conclusion that the ordinary reader would have come to having read to the article once regarding the conduct of the public official in lending his “firm/company…$307 million” at a time when he had ministerial portfolio over the lending agency. Rather, with respect, the issues are whether the publication as a whole is defamatory as understood by the ordinary reasonable reader of the Gleaner and, if it is, it is a matter of public interest in which the Defendant has exercised the principles of responsible journalism so as to avail itself of the Xxxxxxxx defence. The Court is therefore cognizant of the fact that the determination as to whether the article, if otherwise defamatory, should be considered as protected by Xxxxxxxx defence, depends upon an assessment of whether it lived up to the principles of responsible journalism as determined by the court. There is a balancing act here which the Court must exercise in coming to a decision.
