Rhiker V Fire Case Summary

As you are aware, the decision by the Court of the Barton v. Rona case (2012 ONSC 3809) recognized that although Mr. Barton’s misconduct was serious, his specific acts of misconduct were not severe enough to warrant his dismissal. The Court felt that in this situation, a stern warning to him never again to permit a safety violation by an employee would have been sufficient (p.13, para. 55). This was particularly the case, based on your investigation you have performed on April 24, 2009, given that nothing in his excellent work record and no prior infractions suggested that he would not be amenable to such discipline (p.10, para. 40) or that he would repeat such misconduct in the future (p.9, para. 38). Given that the Court could not find that his misconduct met the threshold of striking at the heart of the employment relationship (p.14, para. 55), it concluded that Rona had breached Mr. Barton’s employment contract, and Mr. Barton was entitled to damages as a result (p.14, para. 56).

Extreme sumarization of r v brown( key point of arguments used by the five judges)

CW went to 1261 Everton Dr, Apt 9 Akron, OH 44307 because they were called out by Akron Police Department (APD) for allegations of abuse towards 2 children. CW Jonathon Henry and CW Sonya Cole pulled up to the apartment complex and observed that there were over 15 people sitting outside. Both CW could tell that this was the correct address because there were 3 police cars that were sitting outside. As the CW's were walking towards the apartment complex an APD officer asked if the two workers were from CSB. CW Cold responded that they were. The officer then told CW's that there were not 2 children, however, there was 3. The officer stated that there was one child in the bedroom sleeping that they did not know was in the home. CW's were also told by the officer that Mr. Brian Burrell (AP) was in the home and that he was very agitated. The officer told the CW that they had called him down, however, suspected that he would get upset after entering the home. The officer also said that he already knew that the kids were in the custody of CSB and that he would most likely not be happy that the two CW's were at the home. The officer the led both the CW upstairs to apartment 9.

Burns v. Gagnon, is a Virginia Supreme Court case merging from Gloucester High School bullying incident that took place in 2006. Participants of the case include all justices present within the circuit court, Avery Waterman Jr., of Newport News for Gregory J. Gagnon (student victimized of bullying) appellee and James Newsome (student bullying Gagnon) appellant (No. 110767), and John A. Conrad of Richmond for appellant (No. 110754) and Travis Burns (GHS Assistant Principal) appellee. Former student Gregory J. Gagnon of Gloucester High School, filed a revised complaint asserting claims for simple and gross negligence against Assistant Principal Travis Burns, and assault and battery

Canada has become a country where laws such as: assisted suicide, prostitution, and abortion are becoming easily altered by higher powers; the power of the judges. Canadian judges are changing certain laws that affect the quality of living. The question comes down to who is truly in charge of law making in Canada? The government may make the laws, but judges may reject and change the entirety laws through the use of the entrenchment of the Charter. Additionally, judicial supremacy retains their power through a paradoxical parliamentary supremacy. Furthermore appointing government officials and electing government officials plays a tremendous part in correlations to Canadian democracy. To summarize, judiciary are too powerful through the entrenchment

The Woburn case is an example of a complex tort case. A tort case involves any personal injury someone sustains due to the negligence of someone else. The plaintiff is taxed to prove three features: the defendant must have a duty of care for the plaintiff, the defendant breached this duty of care, and general causation. Without general causation, the defendant could have a duty of care and breached this duty of care, but there would not be a tort case only with the association between the defendant’s behavior and the personal injury sustained by the plaintiff.

the case of R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, 2001 SCC 2 is regarded as one of the most controversial cases in the supreme court and got a lot of media attention and has led to Canadians all across the country to take into account the seriousness of child pornography and its harms. In this case, analysis I shall review the case R v. Sharpe, [2001] and consider the legal facts, the judicial reasoning and analysis as well as talk about the legal history of this case along with its socio and political implications it has had. In the beginning of a case commentary, it is important to state all the facts and terms, John Robin Sharpe is a British Columbia resident who admitted that he enjoyed child pornography and felt that he was entitled

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

The primary viewpoint of the Charter was the dominance of the rights and the fairness of the judicial system. Two related Charter rights complimented this case: the right to counsel under s. 10(b) and the right against self-incrimination under s. 11(c). In addition, as mentioned earlier, the right remain silent was an issue. Majority found that these rights granted Hebert right to be free of coercion by the police, but also the right to choose whether or not to give a statement.

R/s Mr. Larry Cook weighs about 70lbs and he has prostate cancer. R/s Mr. Cook can’t get up and walk and lives alone. R/s Mr. Cook is home dying and it is alleged he will be dead in 30 days. R/s Mr. Cook doesn’t want to go anywhere. R/s Mr. Cook hadn’t been to the VA clinic since 2004. R/s it is alleged that Mr. Cook stated that he will shoot EMS if comes to his home but source stated that Mr. Cook doesn’t have a gun. R/s Mr. Cook is asking for in-home service. R/s it is alleged Mr. Cook has mental problems, but the report feels Mr. Cook is alert and oriented.

Style of Cause and Citation: - R. V. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 130 Court: - Supreme Court of Canada Facts of the Case: - Appellant is a addicted to drugs - Was a dealer as well - Has a prior coniction in relation to drugs - Has served time for his prior conviction - Was then convicted on three accounts of possession with the purpose of trafficking Issues/ Questions before the court: - Is the mandatory minimum sentence in s. 5(3) of the CDSA unconstitutional? - Dose this violate section 12,7, and 9 of the charter? - Do the provincial courts have the power to rule that something is unconstitutional? Procedural History: - Provincial court sentenced the appellant to twelve months under s. 5(3) of the CDSA - Appellant stated that

The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.

The website also features a fair amount of fine print, as is to be expected with any insurance company. Possession of a policy doesn’t guarantee that a claim will be fully paid by that policy, particularly if it’s still near the beginning of the contract. The costs you submit to your agent to determine the coverage amount are merely an estimate, and sometimes estimates are off. Also, since insurance differs widely from state to state, even within one company, potential buyers must ensure that the plan they want is available where they live. Any questions or concerns can be specifically addressed with an

“Manslaughter - Recklessness or gross negligence - Assumption of duty of care for infirm person - Breach of duty amounting to recklessness - Negligence - Assumption of duty to care.”

We are currently planning to implement GemFire SSL on production servers and found an issue with the SSL Protocol. The protocol which is used at Gemfire side is TLSv1.2 and is not supported by our Sistescope monitoring tool used in our company. So the question is, do we encounter any issues if we disable JMX-Manager-SSL and enable SSL for Gemfire client to server transactions.