tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253662469109557251.post2180779661322026630..comments2024-03-13T13:47:58.737-04:00Comments on À bon droit: L'importance de la preuve pour établir l'impossibilité d'agirKarim Rennohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10103964289365176023noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253662469109557251.post-29557769528465959362012-07-23T15:59:39.240-04:002012-07-23T15:59:39.240-04:00I don't think the Court can presume anything. ...I don't think the Court can presume anything. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate impossibility to act, and it's taking quite a leap of faith to hope that the Court will draw that inference. Moreover, it's so easy to just allege what you wrote and supply a short affidavit. Why not do it?Karim Rennohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10103964289365176023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3253662469109557251.post-18987877777505523992012-07-23T15:25:30.095-04:002012-07-23T15:25:30.095-04:00Wouldnt it stand to reason, that a client, by defi...Wouldnt it stand to reason, that a client, by definition, would be in a sitaution where he could not act because his attorney, who was manadted by him to act did not? Must it really be alleged that the client, who does not necessarly know what an inscription is to begin with, is placed in an impossible to act situation if said inscription is not produced?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com