The Evidence Sample Clauses

The Evidence. 8. The evidence before this Court is contained in the following affidavits:

The Evidence. At the trial the Court heard evidence from ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Claimant), ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (the Second Defendant) and ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (the Fourth Defendant).

The Evidence. The defendant’s witness statement having been struck out, the only evidence was that of the first claimant.

The Evidence. On Behalf of the Plaintiff

The Evidence. The Panel reviewed the following statements submitted by the parties: Applicants' Statement and Book of Documents; Statement of O.J. Pipelines Inc.; Statement of Respondents, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and G & S Tractor Service Ltd.; Statement of Pepsi-Cola Canada Limited/Hostess Food Products Limited operating as The Hostess Frito-Lay Company; Statement of the Respondent, Progressive Insurance Company and Book of Authorities; Supplementary Statement of the Respondents, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ and G & S Tractor Services Ltd. The Panel also received a copy of the October 20, 1992, correspondence from ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ to the parties, with attachments. We also reviewed the following correspondence: June 8, 1992, letter from ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal; July 17, 1992, letter from ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ to the Workers' Compensation Board; July 17, 1992, letter from ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ to the parties; August 17, 1992, letter from the WCB to ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇; September 17, 1992, letter from ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to the Appeals Tribunal; September 28, 1992, letter from ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ to the parties. At the hearing, the following documents were received as exhibits: Exhibit #1: operating agreement between Hostess Frito-Lay and G & S Tractor Service Ltd. for the period January 1, 1992, to June 30, 1993; Exhibit #2: application for employment completed by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ dated June 25, 1990; Exhibit #3: Operating Engineers Mainline Pipeline Agreement for Canada, May 1, 1989; Exhibit #4: summary of hours worked by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, January 1, 1985, to December 31, 1990; Exhibit #5: registration for employment, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, submitted by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on December 5, 1990. At the hearing, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ also submitted the unsworn affidavit of ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, signed October 26, 1992. The Panel heard testimony under oath from ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, president of G & S Tractor, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, director of safety and environment, O.J. Pipelines, and from ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, president, Local 793, International Union of Operating Engineers. Submissions were made by ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.

The Evidence. To restate the obvious; the burden lies with the Claimant on a balance of probabilities in Civil matters. The Claimant in its written submissions to this court sets out what it perceives as the evidence upon which this case turns in favour of the Claimant.

The Evidence. The claimant called two witnesses and relied on quotations from several local distributors and tool rental agencies (produced in evidence via hearsay notice) to assist with determining the replacement value of the equipment in the current market. In producing the evidence, the claimant pointed out that given the customized nature of the equipment, it was a challenge to provide accurate replacement values. He provided invoices with current purchase prices for a limited number of similar pieces of equipment. He also provided a spreadsheet for rental of similar equipment on the local market from September 2016 to January 2017.

The Evidence. During the trial for the matter, the Court heard evidence from the Claimant and ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.

The Evidence. The Claimant called one witness, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ whose witness statement was filed on the 8th July 2011. Both Defendants relied on one witness, the Second Defendant, ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. Her evidence in chief was contained in her witness statement which was filed on the 8th July 2011.