Aller au contenu

Rechercher dans la communauté

Affichage des résultats pour les étiquettes 'judge'.

  • Rechercher par étiquettes

    Saisir les étiquettes en les séparant par une virgule.
  • Rechercher par auteur

Type du contenu


Forums

  • Projets immobiliers
    • Propositions
    • En Construction
    • Complétés
    • Transports en commun
    • Infrastructures
    • Lieux de culture, sport et divertissement
  • Discussions générales
    • Urbanisme, architecture et technologies urbaines
    • Photographie urbaine
    • Discussions générales
    • Divertissement, Bouffe et Culture
    • L'actualité
    • Hors Sujet
  • Aviation MTLYUL
    • YUL Discussions générales
    • Spotting à YUL
  • Ici et ailleurs
    • Ville de Québec et le reste du Québec
    • Toronto et le reste du Canada
    • États-Unis d'Amérique
    • Projets ailleurs dans le monde.

Calendriers

  • Évènements à Montréal
  • Canadiens de Montréal
  • CF de Montréal

Blogs

  • Blog MTLURB

Rechercher les résultats dans…

Rechercher les résultats qui…


Date de création

  • Début

    Fin


Dernière mise à jour

  • Début

    Fin


Filtrer par nombre de…

Inscription

  • Début

    Fin


Groupe


Location


Intérêts


Occupation


Type d’habitation

7 résultats trouvés

  1. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/19/yvon-gingras-quebec-drunk-driving_n_1020885.html When will the idiots in Quebec change the law? Are they waiting for one of them or one of their family members to be run over
  2. Bonjour a tous, Taking a quick Super Bowl break to post something I've wanted to share with you for a few days. Henry Aubin wrote in The Gazette what was presented as an article on the construction of "tall" new rental buildings downtown and questioning the wisdom of allowing this. I personally believe he's a little all over the place in his article and doesn't quite make a coherent argument. I think in the end what annoys me is that the how tall should we build question seems, for some reason, to often be present in this city. Anyhow here's the link you guys judge for yourselves. http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/high+high/4189941/story.html
  3. Looking for pictures of the Manhattan skyline on Google, one photo within the results page kind of well, stood out... I clicked on it, and followed on to see what website this particular image had came from. The rest of what I saw sort of made me smile. You be the judge. The Heart of New York City Oh, what a pretty town ...
  4. Judge nixes bid to halt Montreal renovation LES PERREAUX From Tuesday's Globe and Mail December 16, 2008 at 3:48 AM EST MONTREAL — The owners of a Westmount house with a million-dollar view will have to give up a slice of their panorama. A judge has refused an attempt by the couple in the affluent Montreal enclave to stop a neighbour from adding a fourth storey and cutting into their spectacular view of the city below. Mr. Justice Robert Mongeon of Quebec Superior Court ruled Steven Goldberg is entitled to raise the roof on his house at 27 Bellevue Ave., even if it cuts into the sight line of his neighbours up the hill. Mireille Raymond and her husband, John Keyserlingk, sought an injunction to block an addition they say will also block sunlight and decrease the value of their $1.7-million property on Sunnyside Avenue by about 30 per cent. Those are exaggerations, Judge Mongeon ruled, after taking the unusual step of holding court on the hillside to check out the view. The judge, who was assisted by a wooden frame and yellow police tape set up on the roof of Mr. Goldberg's house to mimic the new addition, found only a small sliver of the view to the east will be blocked. "The loss must be considered in a much more realistic fashion than was initially presented," he ruled in a judgment handed down late Friday. Mr. Goldberg's lawyers pointed out that he had submitted his plans to the City of Westmount in September of 2007 and his permit was granted after an in-depth study over six months. The city argued nothing guaranteed Ms. Raymond and her husband that they would enjoy their view in perpetuity. Ms. Raymond was upset by the verdict, saying the judge, like the city, seemed to discount the importance of the unencumbered view. Ms. Raymond and Dr. Keyserlingk were ordered to
  5. Canadian Commercial Paper Plan Likely to Be Approved By Joe Schneider June 3 (Bloomberg) -- A Canadian judge will probably approve a plan to convert C$32 billion ($31.8 billion) of frozen commercial paper to new notes by the end of the week, though court appeals may keep investors waiting months to get their money back. ``I will have a decision with reasons by Friday,'' Ontario Superior Court Judge Colin Campbell said at the end of a hearing in Toronto today. ``I'll approve,'' unless there's something in his notes that convinces him to change his mind, the judge said. Lawyers representing some of the noteholders have already indicated they plan to appeal Campbell's ruling once it comes out. Some investors object to the plan's limitations on lawsuits targeted at the banks and brokers that sold the paper, which hasn't traded since August. James Woods, who represents 18 companies that want to sue including pharmacy chain Jean Coutu Group Inc., said if the judge rules as he indicated, his group will likely file to the Court of Appeal. ``If we find fraud against banks that are not ABCP dealers, there is no recourse,'' Woods said, urging the judge to reject the proposal at today's hearing. ``It's inconceivable.'' New notes may be issued as early as the end of June if there are no appeals, said Purdy Crawford, a lawyer who led a group of foreign and Canadian banks and pension funds that drafted the proposal. All appeals must be exhausted before the notes are issued, he said. Quick Appeal ``We can't close until we get the sanction,'' Crawford told reporters. ``I am assured by our lawyers that the Court of Appeal will agree to an expedited hearing.'' The insolvent asset-backed paper hasn't traded since August, when investors shunned the debt on concerns about links to high-risk mortgage loans in the U.S. A group of foreign banks as well as Canadian lenders and pension funds led by Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec negotiated the so-called Montreal Proposal in August. The plan would convert the insolvent 30- to 90-day debt into new notes maturing within nine years. Banks agreed to provide funding to back the new notes on the condition that they be given immunity from any lawsuits stemming from the sale of the notes. Campbell said in a May 16 ruling he wasn't satisfied protection from lawsuits over potentially criminal conduct such as fraud was fair, and he delayed approval. The banks agreed to change the plan to allow limited suits under certain conditions within nine weeks following the plan's approval. Possible Fraud Campbell criticized the lawyers opposing the plan for failing to provide examples of potential outstanding fraud. ``So we defeat the plan on the off chance that there is something out there?'' Campbell asked. Once the new notes are issued, investors can hold them to maturity or try to trade them in the secondary market. Some clients of Canaccord Capital Inc. will be paid in full for their debt, under an agreement announced by the Vancouver-based brokerage in April. The case is Between the Investors Represented on the Pan- Canadian Investors Committee for Third-Party Structured Asset- Backed Commercial Paper and Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., 08-CL-7740, Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto). To contact the reporters on this story: Joe Schneider in Toronto at jschneider5@bloomberg.net. http://www.bloomberg.com/index.html?Intro=intro3
  6. Not quite sure what to think. I guess its a good thing that the people going more than 50 km/h above the speed limit get stiffer penalties. The danger is not necessarily speed though, but the difference between speeds of each vehicle. If grandma is cruising at 65 km/h, and a Schumacher wannabe is going 130 km/h, then we are going to have ourselves a little problem. http://www.wheels.ca/article/31982
×
×
  • Créer...