état de la déclaration – Englisch-Übersetzung – Keybot-Wörterbuch

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Français English Spacer Help
Ausgangssprachen Zielsprachen
Keybot      11 Ergebnisse   5 Domänen
  5 Treffer www.cra-arc.gc.ca  
État de la déclaration
Return status
  2 Treffer csc.lexum.org  
Cette Cour ne dispose de rien qui lui indique l’état de la déclaration avant la modification de 1978 et, en conséquence, elle doit supposer que la formulation des conclusions est identique à celle plaidée à l’origine et que la date du début de l’action est effectivement la date de l’assignation qui se trouve dans les limites du délai de six ans à compter de la date où l’appelant a payé plus que sa part comme cofidéjusseur.
raised so late in the day, the record is inadequate for a full discussion and proper disposition of the argument. Apparently, the amendment occurred on February 22, 1978. The Fiat of the learned trial judge was March 9, 1978. No mention is made in the disposition of the action of the amendment and certainly no reference is made to any opposition by the respondents to the amendment being permitted by the Court. The Court of Appeal gave no reasons for their dismissal of the appeal from the trial judgment. The respondents make no reference in this submission to the Rules of Court in the Court of Queen’s Bench. This Court has nothing before it indicating the state of the statement of claim prior to the 1978 amendment and therefore it must be assumed that the prayer for relief remains as initially pleaded and that the date on which this action was commenced was indeed the date of the writ of summons which was within the six-year period when measured from the date of payment by the appellant of an excess of his obligation as a co-surety.
  2 Treffer scc.lexum.org  
Cette Cour ne dispose de rien qui lui indique l’état de la déclaration avant la modification de 1978 et, en conséquence, elle doit supposer que la formulation des conclusions est identique à celle plaidée à l’origine et que la date du début de l’action est effectivement la date de l’assignation qui se trouve dans les limites du délai de six ans à compter de la date où l’appelant a payé plus que sa part comme cofidéjusseur.
raised so late in the day, the record is inadequate for a full discussion and proper disposition of the argument. Apparently, the amendment occurred on February 22, 1978. The Fiat of the learned trial judge was March 9, 1978. No mention is made in the disposition of the action of the amendment and certainly no reference is made to any opposition by the respondents to the amendment being permitted by the Court. The Court of Appeal gave no reasons for their dismissal of the appeal from the trial judgment. The respondents make no reference in this submission to the Rules of Court in the Court of Queen’s Bench. This Court has nothing before it indicating the state of the statement of claim prior to the 1978 amendment and therefore it must be assumed that the prayer for relief remains as initially pleaded and that the date on which this action was commenced was indeed the date of the writ of summons which was within the six-year period when measured from the date of payment by the appellant of an excess of his obligation as a co-surety.
  androidatc.com  
Le Dr Swayze a déclaré qu'il avait beaucoup de difficulté à obtenir l'opinion du professeur Starson concernant son état. Il a en bout de ligne inféré que le patient n'était pas conscient de son état de la déclaration suivante de ce dernier : [TRADUCTION] "[v]ous êtes les seuls à dire que je souffre d'une maladie".
94 It is true that Dr. Swayze expressed the view that the respondent was in denial of his disorder. The Board failed, however, to scrutinize the reasons for that view. Dr. Swayze stated that he had great difficulty eliciting Professor Starson's opinion regarding his condition. He ultimately inferred that he had no awareness of the condition based upon the patient's statement that "[o]nly you people say I have an illness". This statement demonstrates only that Professor Starson did not accept the characterization of his unique mental functioning as an illness. The basis for the attending physician's conclusion, therefore, was premised on a misapprehension of the relevant legal test. In fact, Dr. Swayze later appeared to accept that Professor Starson is aware that his mental functioning is not normal: