A general introduction to the key environmental protection laws and regulations in Portugal, including with regard to air and water quality, chemicals and waste.
--> Become A CE Member:
The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!
To make a long story short, the retainer fee I had submitted was eventually returned to me, as the legal counsel wanted to focus on only a few of the most egregious cases. In my particular case, I had obtained a mask exemption based on conscience for my 6-year old son, and after the complete runaround I experienced up and down the school board, where no individual from the principal to the director of education was actually willing to take responsibility in the event of any infringements of the exemption, I decided that I had lost all trust in the system and pulled my son out of school altogether.
Preservation of property during litigation is dealt with under rule 45 of the Ontario
Rules of Civil Procedure. The traditional test under rule 45 was designed for situations where the thing being preserved was the subject of the litigation, such as an asset over which ownership was disputed. This test was not appropriate for all of the situations when rule 45 motions might arise. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently determined that a single test for rule 45 motions does not exist. The governing test will vary depending on the purpose of the motion. Accordingly, the test on a rule 45 motion for preservation of an asset at issue in the claim will not apply to a rule 45 motion seeking to preserve evidence for trial and inspection. Moreover, the Court also confirmed, without providing detail, that litigants have an obligation to preserve evidence pending trial.
knowingly making the misrepresentations.
Under the
Limitations Act, 2002, a "claim" is
discovered when the person with the claim first knew or ought to
have known "that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or
contributed to by an
act or omission" (among certain
other criteria). As a claim necessarily involves a legal remedy,
the act or omission that must be discovered is one that will give
rise to a legal remedy,
i.e., a cause of action.
Therefore, the Court reasoned, in the case of a fraudulent
misrepresentation the act or omission that must have been
discovered is a misrepresentation "
On January 1, 2021, the
Ontario Rules of Civil
Procedure were amended. Many of the changes memorialized
the temporary measures the Ontario Court put in place to meet the
challenges of COVID-19. The Court's implementation of these
amendments and additions creates an ecological step forward to a
paperless system, whether intentional or not. Although
digitalization has not been completely embraced by the Court, the
new
Rules offer a glimpse of how the legal
community can operate with less paper and an increased use of
technology. While new issues with respect to management and
security of technology will no doubt arise, the amendments to