Optrics Inc. v Lloyd's Underwriters, 2022 ABCA 26
| Judge | Khullar,Kirker,Pentelechuk |
| Citation | 2022 ABCA 26 |
| Date | 27 January 2022 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
| Docket Number | 2003-0218AC |
-
- 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
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
3 practice notes
-
Petropoulos v Petropoulos,
...palpable error in the assessment of the facts, or an unreasonable exercise of discretion”: Optrics Inc v Lloyd's Underwriters, 2022 ABCA 26 at para IV. Discussion 14 Considering the evidentiary record before the chambers judge and his reasons, this is not an appropriate case to ......
-
Hudye Inc. v Rosowsky,
...165 at para 4. Because costs awards are discretionary, they are owed significant deference on appeal: Optrics Inc v Lloyd's Underwriters, 2022 ABCA 26 at para 8 The applicant does not dispute the applicability of Rule 10.41(2)(e) to the fees at issue. Rather, it submits the chambers judge f......
-
Goldstick v Monsma,
...error in the assessment of the facts, or an unreasonable exercise of discretion”: Optrics Inc. v Lloyd's Underwriters, 2022 ABCA 26 at para 38. Mr Goldstick's only argument below was that “the costs award punishes a beneficiary for trying to compel a personal represe......
3 cases
-
Petropoulos v Petropoulos,
...palpable error in the assessment of the facts, or an unreasonable exercise of discretion”: Optrics Inc v Lloyd's Underwriters, 2022 ABCA 26 at para IV. Discussion 14 Considering the evidentiary record before the chambers judge and his reasons, this is not an appropriate case to ......
-
Hudye Inc. v Rosowsky,
...165 at para 4. Because costs awards are discretionary, they are owed significant deference on appeal: Optrics Inc v Lloyd's Underwriters, 2022 ABCA 26 at para 8 The applicant does not dispute the applicability of Rule 10.41(2)(e) to the fees at issue. Rather, it submits the chambers judge f......
-
Goldstick v Monsma,
...error in the assessment of the facts, or an unreasonable exercise of discretion”: Optrics Inc. v Lloyd's Underwriters, 2022 ABCA 26 at para 38. Mr Goldstick's only argument below was that “the costs award punishes a beneficiary for trying to compel a personal represe......