Search for: "MacFarlane v. MacFarlane"
Results 101 - 120
of 152
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2013, 5:33 pm
This also means that for these tenancies cases such as Church Commissioners v Meya, Macdonald v Fernandez, and Lower St Properties v Jones are also all irrelevant as they all deal with aspects of s21(4)(a) notices. [read post]
7 Dec 2013, 5:33 pm
This also means that for these tenancies cases such as Church Commissioners v Meya, Macdonald v Fernandez, and Lower St Properties v Jones are also all irrelevant as they all deal with aspects of s21(4)(a) notices. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 7:00 am
For those unfamiliar with this docket court, the recent decision of Associate Chief Justice Rivoalen in Skinner v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 6:40 am
As described in the blog, the steps to the most recent decision, Bergen v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 6:40 am
As described in the blog, the steps to the most recent decision, Bergen v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:41 am
Well, for one, it is so obvious that the Charter of Values infringes freedom of conscience and religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter, as it was most famously described by Chief Justice Dickson in R. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 6:56 pm
Ashcroft v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 7:12 pm
Meads (2012 ABQB 571), discussed by Simon Fodden in Meads v. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 3:00 am
In Wright v. [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 7:18 am
Justice Macfarlane in Serban v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 4:30 am
In Gray v. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 11:37 am
The decision in Anderson v. [read post]
9 Sep 2012, 1:28 pm
The facts of these cases, heard as Macfarlane and other v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 1:22 pm
Macfarlane said, "Resolving this issue successfully is a Commission priority. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 12:34 pm
Macfarlane and others v United Kingdom (ECHR 329 (2012) – read press release Tomorrow the Strasbourg Court will hear complaints in four applications that UK law has failed adequately to protect the applicants’ right to manifest their religion, contrary to Articles 9 (freedom of religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 12:21 pm
The case, Macfarlan v. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 1:30 pm
In making its determination, the court followed MacFarlane v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 4:01 am
In Kata v Westminster CC [2011] EWCA Civ 1456 and Simpson-Lowe v Croydon BC [2012] EWCA Civ 131 (neither are on baili or westlaw, but are on Lexis; Kata is noted in February's Legal Action at p 13), permissions to appeal not vulnerable s 202 homelessness reviews, upheld by the county court, were refused by the CA. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 4:01 am
In Kata v Westminster CC [2011] EWCA Civ 1456 and Simpson-Lowe v Croydon BC [2012] EWCA Civ 131 (neither are on baili or westlaw, but are on Lexis; Kata is noted in February's Legal Action at p 13), permissions to appeal not vulnerable s 202 homelessness reviews, upheld by the county court, were refused by the CA. [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 1:38 pm
The Court of Appeal has just handed down a significant judgment in the twin appeals of R v Kayani and R v Solliman. [read post]
