Footnote 3 (1) When the Commissioner in Council of a Territory has enacted a land titles ordinance to replace the Land Titles Act, the Governor in Council may, by order, repeal the Land Titles Act in respect of that Territory on a day fixed in the order to coincide with the day on which the ordinance comes into force.

(3) A judge who hears an application for a restraint order made under subsection (1) may — if the judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there exists, within the province in which the judge has jurisdiction or any other province, any property in respect of which an order of forfeiture may be made under subsection 462.37(1) or (2.01) or 462.38(2), in respect of a designated offence alleged to have been committed within the province in which the judge has jurisdiction — make an order prohibiting any person from disposing of, or otherwise dealing with any interest in, the property specified in the order otherwi ...[+++]se than in the manner that may be specified in the order.

(d) any restriction on the use of land that might be assumed by covenant or other agreement, whether or not that restriction, if assumed by the owner of the land, could be asserted against a subsequent owner thereof; and

In the context of respect for the right to effective judicial protection, it is none the less important to specify that, in a situation where the complainant becomes aware of the statement of reasons for the act adversely affecting him by way of the response to his complaint or in a situation where that statement of reasons modifies or supplements substantially the statement of reasons contained in that act, any plea put forward for the first time at the application stage which aims to dispute the merits of the reasons set out in the response to the complaint must be deemed to be admissible. In such situations, the person concerned has n ...[+++]ot been put in a position to know, precisely and definitively, the reasons underlying the act adversely affecting that person.

After examining the documents supplied by the Commission, the Tribunal decided, by order of 18 April 2013, to place the general guide on the file and to send the detailed guide back to the Commission, on the ground that, having read the guide the Tribunal did not consider that this was necessary for it to rule on the merits of the pleas put forward by the applicant in the present case; to agree to the Commission’s request for confidentiality regarding the marking profile, and to make communication to the applicant of the general guide and the non-confidential version of the marking profile subject to confidential treatment and to certai ...[+++]n conditions.

Taking account of the results of previous projects, funding could be given to projects which aim to adapt rating systems and quality labels to take account of the convergence of telecommunications, audio-visual media and information technology and to self-regulatory initiatives to back up the reliability of self-labelling and services for assessing the accuracy of self-rating labels.