Title Filter     Display # 
# Article Title
1 VERDICT STANDS - R. v. Reyat, Inderjit Singh Reyat appeals from his conviction on 19 September 2010 on one count of perjury, COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
2 MUST PAY - R. v. Malik, Mr. Malik, applies for an order that the Crown reimburse his legal costs of over $9,200,000 incurred in defending himself in the “Air India” terrorist bombing trial.
3 DISMISSED - British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, BC was awarded judgment against Ripudaman Singh Malik for $5,200,132.51 plus pre-judgment interest; Malik applies to have dismissal set aside COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
4 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, 2011 SCC 18, [2011) Province seeks reimbursement of more than $5.2 million it paid to fund Mr. Malik’s defence in the Air India bombing trial SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
5 British Columbia (The Attorney General) v. Malik, Province petitions for foreclosure of Ripudaman Singh Malik’s half interest in what is referred to as the “Hamilton Street” property and the other as against Khalsa Developments
6 British Columbia (The Attorney General) v. Malik, action against the defendant Ripudaman Singh Malik (“R.S. Malik”) in debt for $5,200,131.31 plus prejudgment interest, for advances made to fund R.S. Malik’s defence
7 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Province seeks reimbursement of more than $5.2 million it paid to fund Mr. Malik’s defence in the Air India bombing trial i
8 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, Supplementary reasons as to costs in appeals in foreclosure matter
9 Supplementary reasons as to costs and form of order in appeals from the granting of a Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order
10 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA appellants appeal from an order nisi with a three-month redemption period in respect of two mortgages taken by the Crown as security for advances to fund defence
11 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Malik, Court of Appea action l by the defendants from an order substantially dismissing their application to vary or set aside a Mareva injunction and an Anton Piller order obtained by the Crown
12 NINE YEARS - R. v. Reyat, Inderjit Singh Reyat is before the court for sentencing on one count of perjury, having been found guilty of that offence by a jury on September 19, 2010.
13 R. v. Malik and Bagri, application by the Crown, for an extension of the 30 day period to file a notice of appeal COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
14 R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment
15 R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment (2)
16 R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment (3)
17 R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment (4)
18 R. v. Malik and Bagri, Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Reasons for Judgment (5)
19 R. v. Reyat, 200302, On this sentencing hearing, counsel representing Mr. Malik and Mr. Bagri apply to have certain of the agreed facts made subject to a ban
20 R. v. Malik and Bagri, Application for a Permanent Publication Ban With Respect to A Witness’s Identity
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
Page 1 of 3