Mostafa Altalibi Professional Corporation v Lorne S. Kamelchuk Professional Corporation,
| Judge | J.R. Farrington |
| Neutral Citation | 2020 ABQB 673 |
| Citation | 2020 ABQB 673 |
| Docket Number | 1701 03478 |
| Date | 03 November 2020 |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
2 practice notes
-
Ontario's Pandemic Procedure.
...para 11, citing Arconti v Smith, 2020 ONSC 2782; Mostafa Altalibi Professional Corporation v Lome S Kamelchuk Professional Corporation, 2020 ABQB 673 at para 4, citing Arconti v Smith, supra note 20; Belanger et Gagnon, 2020 CanLII 96545 (CJAQ), citing Arconti v Smith, supra note 20; Arcont......
-
Court Orders Videoconference Questioning For Discovery And Provides Guidance For The Use Of Technology In Litigation Proceedings
...the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench confirmed in Mostafa Altalibi Professional Corporation v Lorne S. Kamelchuk Professional Corporation, 2020 ABQB 673 [Altalibi v Kamelchuk]. This recent decision of November 3, 2020, reflects the courts' continuing embrace of technology to facilitate litiga......
1 firm's commentaries
-
Court Orders Videoconference Questioning For Discovery And Provides Guidance For The Use Of Technology In Litigation Proceedings
...the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench confirmed in Mostafa Altalibi Professional Corporation v Lorne S. Kamelchuk Professional Corporation, 2020 ABQB 673 [Altalibi v Kamelchuk]. This recent decision of November 3, 2020, reflects the courts' continuing embrace of technology to facilitate litiga......
1 books & journal articles
-
Ontario's Pandemic Procedure.
...para 11, citing Arconti v Smith, 2020 ONSC 2782; Mostafa Altalibi Professional Corporation v Lome S Kamelchuk Professional Corporation, 2020 ABQB 673 at para 4, citing Arconti v Smith, supra note 20; Belanger et Gagnon, 2020 CanLII 96545 (CJAQ), citing Arconti v Smith, supra note 20; Arcont......