R. v. Hok (A.)
| Jurisdiction | Alberta |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Judge | Verville, J. |
| Citation | 2016 ABQB 335 |
| Date | 17 June 2016 |
| Subject Matter | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,PRACTICE,CIVIL RIGHTS,CRIMINAL LAW |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock 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
34 practice notes
-
Potvin (Re)
...and 2. if so, what form those court access restrictions should take. [143] This process will be conducted in writing only: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105; and Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62. [144] In the interim, I order that Mr. Potvin is prohibited fr......
-
Scotia Mortgage Corporation v. Landry
...Landry should be subject to court access restrictions on a document only basis, which is this Court’s standard practice: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105; Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62, appeal deemed abandoned (3 March 2018), Edmonton 1703-0195AC (Alta C......
-
d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen
...procedural fairness to the potential target of court access restrictions: Lymer v Jonsson, 2016 ABCA 32, 612 AR 122; Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at paras [101] I therefore under this Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and on my own motion, direct that d’Abadie provide submissions: 1. as to whe......
-
IntelliView Technologies Inc v Badawy
...standard practice for the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench when evaluating the potential need for court access restrictions: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105; Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque, 2018 ABQB 311 at ......
Get Started for Free
34 cases
-
Potvin (Re)
...and 2. if so, what form those court access restrictions should take. [143] This process will be conducted in writing only: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105; and Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62. [144] In the interim, I order that Mr. Potvin is prohibited fr......
-
Scotia Mortgage Corporation v. Landry
...Landry should be subject to court access restrictions on a document only basis, which is this Court’s standard practice: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105; Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62, appeal deemed abandoned (3 March 2018), Edmonton 1703-0195AC (Alta C......
-
d’Abadie v Her Majesty the Queen
...procedural fairness to the potential target of court access restrictions: Lymer v Jonsson, 2016 ABCA 32, 612 AR 122; Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at paras [101] I therefore under this Court’s inherent jurisdiction, and on my own motion, direct that d’Abadie provide submissions: 1. as to whe......
-
IntelliView Technologies Inc v Badawy
...standard practice for the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench when evaluating the potential need for court access restrictions: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105; Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABQB 436 at paras 60-62; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque, 2018 ABQB 311 at ......
Get Started for Free
