établir le préjudice – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot      23 Results   6 Domains
  9 Hits scc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
27 Dans le contexte d’une demande de suspension fondée sur l’existence d’une clause d’élection de for, il serait difficile d’établir le préjudice si l’on appliquait le critère préconisé par la Cour d’appel.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
27 The test propounded by the Court of Appeal would make it difficult to establish harm in the context of a stay application based on a forum selection clause.  Indeed, I can think of no instance where a defendant would suffer irreparable harm by being required to defend a lawsuit in a Canadian court.  I am not satisfied that litigation costs disproportionate to the amount of the claim would constitute irreparable harm, as the respondents have argued.  The “strong cause” test reflects the desirability that parties honour their contractual commitments and is consistent with the principles of order and fairness at the heart of private international law, as well as those of certainty and security of transaction at the heart of international commercial transactions.  I see no reason to depart from the traditional approach for a stay of proceedings when the applicability of a forum selection clause is at issue.  The Court of Appeal in effect read the choice of jurisdiction clause out of the contract.  This approach is, in my view, untenable.
  www.scc-csc.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
? Le CIPVP a t il eu tort d'imposer un fardeau et une norme de preuve déraisonnables pour établir le préjudice éventuel pour la sécurité publique en statuant sur la question de savoir si les exceptions relatives à l’exécution de la loi prévues par la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée s'appliquaient?
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc-csc.gc.ca as primary domain
Access to information ? Access to records ? Exemptions ? Minister refusing to disclose records relating to location and number of sexual offenders in community ? Information and Privacy Commissioner (“IPC”) ordering release of requested information ? Whether the IPC exercised the statutory authority to grant a right of access for purposes that are not consistent with Christopher’s Law ? Whether the IPC erred by applying an unreasonable burden and standard of proof to establish a future harm to public safety when deciding whether the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act law enforcement exemptions applied ? Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, ss. 14 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(l) ? Christopher’s Law (Sex Offender Registry), 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 1.
  9 Hits csc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
27 Dans le contexte d’une demande de suspension fondée sur l’existence d’une clause d’élection de for, il serait difficile d’établir le préjudice si l’on appliquait le critère préconisé par la Cour d’appel.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
27 The test propounded by the Court of Appeal would make it difficult to establish harm in the context of a stay application based on a forum selection clause.  Indeed, I can think of no instance where a defendant would suffer irreparable harm by being required to defend a lawsuit in a Canadian court.  I am not satisfied that litigation costs disproportionate to the amount of the claim would constitute irreparable harm, as the respondents have argued.  The “strong cause” test reflects the desirability that parties honour their contractual commitments and is consistent with the principles of order and fairness at the heart of private international law, as well as those of certainty and security of transaction at the heart of international commercial transactions.  I see no reason to depart from the traditional approach for a stay of proceedings when the applicability of a forum selection clause is at issue.  The Court of Appeal in effect read the choice of jurisdiction clause out of the contract.  This approach is, in my view, untenable.