Amelie Kemogne Summary

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

Legal citation of the case: Regina v Bilal Skaf; Regina v Mohammed Skaf [2006] NSWSC 394, 28 July 2006 AND amendment to this decision with the appeal: R v Skaf & Skaf [2008] NSWCCA 303, 17 December 2008

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

Issues: Throughout the trail process on behalf of the court the inquiry for exceptions to the charge inaccuracy developed regarding instructions. The appellant was seeking a claim based of the defense of his

In the case R v Davis, there are two different parties involved. The first party is Davis who is the appellant. And the second party is the Queen who is the respondent. The appellant’s role in this case to bring forth the appeal based on the trial court’s decision as they find there was error made in the decision of the trial judge. In this case, the appellant made three grounds of appeal with only two being heard; one being the judge made error in the law via Davis’s Charter rights being breached through excessive force, and two being the judge gave insufficient reasons for the accused being guilty. [28]

Reviewing the dispositions, the court denies plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both its first and second causes of action….

The second part of the brief is the facts of the case. This is the summary or background that led to this particular dispute. It resembles a journalist’s report offering only the basic “who, what, where, when, how and why” of the trial and case record leading up to the present appeal. Included

In R. v. Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the issue of proper interpretation of s. 718.2(3) for the first time. The accused was an Aboriginal women charged with second-degree murder for the killing her common-law husband. Gladue’s defence counsel did not raise that she was an Aboriginal offender in his submissions on sentence at trial and she was sentenced to three years imprisonment and a ten-month weapon prohibition. Gladue appealed her sentence to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, and again to the Supreme Court of Canada in December 1998. Although her appeal was dismissed again, the Court went to provide a framework for interpreting s. 718.2(e). In this case, it was determined that the Court was required to consider all reasonable alternatives to imprisonment for all offenders with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders generally and not only to those living on the reserves. In particular, there needs to be more emphasis on restorative justice, where community members and the victim will also be involved in the process. The Court is allowed to take into account prior findings of guilt when determining the appropriate sentences and in some offences prior guilt will create a higher minimum sentence, which the Court

Whether the circuit court erred in denying Loftin’s motion for judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence. the evidence legally insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction?

A case filed between Brayden Volkenant, TWU, MacPherson, Cronk and Pardu JJ.A. as the Appellants and the Law Society of Upper Canada being the Respondent. There also existed interveners. The date of the case verdict was on June Sixth and on June Seventh of the year 2016.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

To start off, one of the major observations done in this critical analysis of the Canadian criminal courts is the pre-trial process that is established behind the scenes of a criminal trail. That is to say, before all

It is of great importance to discuss the challenges faced by indeterminate sentence prisoners maintaining factual innocence as it forms many questions revolving around the criminal appeals process and the adequacy of procedures as it pertains to the prison system, the Parole Board and the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC). I will discuss these issues in light of Stefan Kiszko and a comparison of both Canada 's and Australia 's appeal system.

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

The best way to describe the feeling I left the Tribunal with is that of disappointment. Disappointment that despite all the well-meaning rhetoric, guidance and procedural practice documents in existence on the subject of creating a fair and just environment, all I had witnessed had been depressingly one-sided and mechanical. Moments of genuine human interaction and care had existed, but were lost in a sea of legal jargon, aggressive questioning and “tick-box exercise” courtroom procedure. There was no heart to this hearing, no consideration of Mr. R as an equal human being. He was the subject of the day’s discussion, not it’s beneficiary. It angered me to some extent that Mr. R was afforded to opportunity to simply speak freely. To give a few words of context, or council to the stranger who would be deciding