The law considers it generally fair that persons who commit a crime together shall be tried for it together.
The back page includes a series of undertakings on behalf of the Corporate Defendants.
Who makes more money in Brantford, Ontario? A Doctor? A Lawyer? Or a French fry vendor?
That was just one of the questions during this nine day trial which [focused] on everyone — except the tax man — getting their fair share.
The testimony of the plaintiff as to his satisfaction with the Lexus was quite different.
The reader will note from the suit number that this action was commenced eight years ago.
[The defendant], on the other hand, is a devious man and an unbelievable witness who will do or say anything to advance his position.
The Supreme Court of Canada has instructed that, "[t]he primary interpretive principle is that when the language of the policy is unambiguous, the court should give effect to clear language, reading the contract as a whole.
This motion highlights the relative sanctity of a consent order.
Overall, [the appealant]'s testimony — its unsupported nature, its inconsistencies — along with his frequent evasiveness, vagueness and deflections — leaves me entirely uninclined to accept any material portion of [the appealant]'s testimony that is not corroborated.
No counsel should draft a pleading without reading the appropriate rules on pleadings each time before they draft the pleading.
Of course [the defendant] was entitled to change its organization as it saw fit and to terminate the plaintiff or anyone else, subject to the law requiring proper notice.
Both parties have declared victory, the appellant because he obtained a new hearing on sanction and the respondent because it was successful on eleven of the twelve points raised, including five allegations of professional misconduct.