Search for: "State v. McMillan" Results 41 - 60 of 166
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Sep 2023, 1:44 pm by susan
© McMillan LLP 2023 The post Director Liability: The Corporate Veil May Not Be Pierced, But It Will Not Protect You From An Oppression Remedy Claim appeared first on McMillan LLP. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 11:35 am by An Pham
© McMillan LLP 2023 The post No Merit: Scope of Pre-Certification Disclosure Remains Limited appeared first on McMillan LLP. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 6:49 pm by susan
Introduction In a recent decision of Kremler v Simon Fraser University, 2023 BCSC 805 dismissing an application for an interlocutory injunction, the British Columbia Supreme Court confirms the high threshold that an applicant is required to meet in relation to the merits of their claim on such an application. [read post]
4 Jul 2023, 11:48 am by susan
The extent and sincerity of the collaboration offered by the organization to state authorities. [read post]
15 Aug 2023, 1:56 pm by susan
© McMillan LLP 2023 The post A “Thumbs-Up” to Emojis in Contract Interpretation: Applicability of the <i>South West</i> Decision to British Columbia appeared first on McMillan LLP. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
Echoes of R v McMillan Last year, in a very different context, Menzies J. of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench noted in R v McMillan 2013 MBQB 229 that the effects of bullying, both online and in person, must be acknowledged by the courts when fashioning an appropriate sentence. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 4:20 am
Pressley, 82 F.3d 126, 130 (6th Cir.1996); see also McMillan v. [read post]
15 Nov 2009, 9:49 pm by Venkat
Vonage).The Ninth Circuit has dealt with this issue once in an unpublished decision (Stollenwerk v. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 11:17 am by admin
The PWGSC commentary states that the effect of the new policy is that “contractors are now required to apply the integrity provisions to subcontractors”. [read post]