Sentences with phrase «charter rights case»

By: Joshua Sealy - Harrington and Marita Zouravlioff PDF Version: Trinity Western Decision Fails to Clarify Approach to Balancing Conflicting Charter Rights Case Commented On: Trinity Western University v The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONCA 518 (CanLII) Two days before Canada... Continue reading →

Not exact matches

[2] He noted that while the Charter protected the privacy rights of the challengers he did not see similar rights for those searching for information saying»... this is not a case where we have competing Charter - protected rights.

IPOB position is LEGALLY BACKED BY the landmark Nigerian Supreme Court judgement on the case of Abacha Vs. Fawehinmi, United Nations charter on the rights of indigenous people, and African charter which was ratified and signed by Nigeria and overrides the Nigerian Constitution on the rights for the indigenous people to the self determination.

Benjamin Riley, founder of Deans for Impact, makes the case for an abundance of caution, while Alex Hernandez, a partner at Charter School Growth Fund, supports continued efforts to get personalization right.

«Charter schools are straddling the fence, on both sides, to make sure they have an advantageous legal position where it is harder to get them,» sad Evan Lange, a Dallas workers» rights attorney who recently lost a case to an area charter Charter schools are straddling the fence, on both sides, to make sure they have an advantageous legal position where it is harder to get them,» sad Evan Lange, a Dallas workers» rights attorney who recently lost a case to an area charter charter school.

Right now, more than 20,000 children are on waiting lists for the state's charter schools, which feature longer school days, better schedules, and, in many cases, higher MCAS scores.

All charter school networks in these cases are obsessed with hiring the right principals.

In Public Impact's latest Opportunity Culture case study, Touchstone Education: New Charter With Experienced Leader Learns From Extending Teachers» Reach, we look at how this teacher, Tiffany McAfee (at right), led the school's teachers in their focus on literacy, and how the school combined her leadership with online instruction.

For example, in a highly publicized case involving the co-location of Girls Preparatory Charter School with a public school serving students with autism, we established the right of parents in schools for students with disabilities to participate fully in the public process required for proposed co-locations or other significant changes in school utilization that may affect their schools.

On November 26th, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights published a negotiated agreement (Agreement: Harmony Public Schools, Texas: OCR Case # 06-11-5004 — November 26, 2014 (PDF)- harmony-public-schools-agreement.pdf) with Harmony Public Schools (Harmony), a network of charter schools operated by the Cosmos Foundation.

This week also brought a startling story about another key part of the Right's education agenda, the rapid and still too unaccountable expansion of charter schools, which in many cases have developed into profit centers for shady operators instead of the «laboratories of education innovation» that we were promised.

A small group of teachers picketed a screening at Oakland's Piedmont Theater, distributing fliers defending unions and tenure rights and making the case against charter schools and standardized tests.

In deciding these cases, courts have exposed the claims of charter schools as being at odds with the nature and purpose of the constitutional right to an adequate education.

As for whether the school has a contingency plan in case the state Supreme Court rules that charter schools are unconstitutional, Chen said he's not too concerned right now.

A new report by the UCLA Civil Rights Project, co-written with researchers at the University of North Carolina (UNC), makes the case that charter schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County are «directly and indirectly undermining» district efforts to redesign student assignment boundaries to break up high concentrations of racial segregation.

Grey says the case «raises the most fundamental questions,» pitting fundamental Charter rights against aboriginal autonomy — but he's quick to point out that this is not the first time a group has said mixed marriage jeopardizes the survival of a culture.

The case will consider whether the law against polygamy is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also look at what are the necessary elements of an offence — that is, whether Section 293 requires that polygamy involve a minor or some other element of abuse or exploitation.

The Court held that the data processing in the present case was capable of being covered by Article 7 (f)[73] which requires a balancing of the opposing rights and interests of the data subject and the data controller, while taking into account the Charter rights to data protection and privacy [74].

Criminal law: Case relates to the Canadian charter (Criminal)-- Constitutional law, Right to counsel (s. 10 (b)-RRB-, and Remedy.

In its judgment of 26 February 2013, the CJEU responded to the first two questions in the affirmative, and clarified that Article 53 of the Charter only allows national authorities to apply higher standards of protection of fundamental rights where an EU legal act calls for national implementing measures, but not where, as in this case, the EU legal act harmonises the law between the Member States.

In the Google case, other rights might include Google's freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 EU Charter) and other interests might include the interests of internet users to receive high - quality, user - friendly free services.

Where Charter rights conflict, however, higher courts may be called upon — and Grey says he's prepared to take this case to the highest one in the land.

The order contained three questions: (i) whether Article 4a (1) FD must be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from making the execution of an EAW subject to the possibility of retrial in cases where a conviction has been rendered in absentia; (ii) whether Article 4a (1) FD is valid in light of Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; and (iii) whether, under Article 53 of the Charter, it can grant a higher level of protection than that provided for under EU law.

On 7 March 2017, the CJEU announced its judgement in case C - 638 / 16 PPU (X and X / Belgium) and dashed all hopes for an extensive interpretation of the EU Visa Code in the light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

58 It is apparent, furthermore, from the case - law of the European Court of Human Rights that the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, which corresponds to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, does not preclude «summons by public notice», provided that the rights of those concerned are properly protected (see Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Nunes Dias v Portugal [2003], Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003 Rights that the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, which corresponds to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, does not preclude «summons by public notice», provided that the rights of those concerned are properly protected (see Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Nunes Dias v Portugal [2003], Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003 Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, which corresponds to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, does not preclude «summons by public notice», provided that the rights of those concerned are properly protected (see Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Nunes Dias v Portugal [2003], Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003 rights of those concerned are properly protected (see Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Nunes Dias v Portugal [2003], Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003 Rights in Nunes Dias v Portugal [2003], Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2003 - VI).

The CJEU dealt with the issue head on stating that article 51 (1) of the Charter «confirms the Court's case - law relating to the extent to which actions of the Member States must comply with the requirements flowing from the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union» (para. 18).

A contentious issue is whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights alters the scope of the EU fundamental rights standard laid down in previous case - law of the Rights alters the scope of the EU fundamental rights standard laid down in previous case - law of the rights standard laid down in previous case - law of the Court.

Furthermore, it offers an interesting perspective from which we can observe the development of an area of freedom, security and justice in Europe, and how the relationships between the two main European human rights instruments — the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU («CFREU») and the European Convention of Human Rights («ECHR») and the related case law emanating from the courts of Luxembourg and Strasbourg — are evorights instruments — the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU («CFREU») and the European Convention of Human Rights («ECHR») and the related case law emanating from the courts of Luxembourg and Strasbourg — are evoRights of the EU («CFREU») and the European Convention of Human Rights («ECHR») and the related case law emanating from the courts of Luxembourg and Strasbourg — are evoRights («ECHR») and the related case law emanating from the courts of Luxembourg and Strasbourg — are evolving.

One justice preferred to decide the case under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the three remaining justices upheld the provision under the Canadian Charter.

To condone or excuse the behaviour in this case would send a message to the public that despite their Charter rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, the police can't ignore these and detain and arrest any driver.

The case was brought by five Unions2 under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.3 While the Charter contains no express reference to collective bargaining, over the past ten years, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the right to freedom of association, which is protected by section 2 (d), encompasses the rights of employees to join together to make collective representations to the employer, and to have those representations considered in good Rights and Freedoms.3 While the Charter contains no express reference to collective bargaining, over the past ten years, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the right to freedom of association, which is protected by section 2 (d), encompasses the rights of employees to join together to make collective representations to the employer, and to have those representations considered in good rights of employees to join together to make collective representations to the employer, and to have those representations considered in good faith.

What about when that self - represented person doesn't know that their case has anything to do with their Charter rights?

The case alleges that the law violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

To this end, CCD engages in law reform and policy development work, and undertakes test case litigation in support of persons with disabilities under human rights legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Frerights legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and FreRights and Freedoms.

Generally speaking there are 5 basic constitutional issues that are commonly engaged in a successful defence of drinking and driving cases: «arbitrary detention» (s. 9 of the Charter), «unreasonable search and seizure» (s. 8 of the Charter), «right to counsel» (s. 10 (b) of the Charter), the «right to be informed promptly of the reasons for your detention» (s. 10 (a) of the Charter) and the «right to be tried within a reasonable time» (s. 11 (b) of the Charter).

Certainly, had the judge in Re W (a Child)[2016] EWCA Civ 1051 (referred to in Pt 1) looked at the case in terms of W's Charter rights — which in 2016 she should have done — it is difficult to see how the decision not to join the child in her return order proceedings could have been made.

On December 8, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada released the 5 - 2 ruling in R v Marakah, 2017 SCC 59, that text messages sent and received can, in some cases, attract a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore can be protected against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter of Rights.

CCD's mandate includes a wide range of advocacy to improve the status of persons with disabilities, providing a democratic structure for them to voice their concerns, law reform and policy development, and undertaking test case litigation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation in support of persons with disabilRights and Freedoms and human rights legislation in support of persons with disabilrights legislation in support of persons with disabilities.

The case concerned a preliminary reference on the compatibility of an Italian decree with the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter and proportionality as a general principle of EU law.

The casus belli, which has prompted the current debate about the EU's judicial architecture, is the increase in the number of new cases brought before the GC (from 398 in 2000 to 912 in 2014); the stock of cases currently awaiting to be decided (1,423 in 2014 and expected to rise to 1,600 in 2015); and finally, the increasing number of actions for damages brought against the EU due to the excessive length of proceedings before the GC on the basis of Article 47 of the EU Charter, which guarantees a right to have cases heard within a reasonable time.

20 That definition of the field of application of the fundamental rights of the European Union is borne out by the explanations relating to Article 51 of the Charter, which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6 (1) TEU and Article 52 (7) of the Charter, have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of interpreting it (see, to this effect, Case C - 279 / 09 DEB [2010] ECR I ‑ 13849, paragraph 32).

The CJEU rightfully avoids a lacuna in the system of fundamental rights protection, and also avoids legal difficulties as to how a different scope of the Charter would be reconciled with older case law on fundamental rights protection.

First, the CJEU firmly took sides in the debate on whether the Charter has a different scope of application than the case law based fundamental rights regime.

29 That said, where a court of a Member State is called upon to review whether fundamental rights are complied with by a national provision or measure which, in a situation where action of the Member States is not entirely determined by European Union law, implements the latter for the purposes of Article 51 (1) of the Charter, national authorities and courts remain free to apply national standards of protection of fundamental rights, provided that the level of protection provided for by the Charter, as interpreted by the Court, and the primacy, unity and effectiveness of European Union law are not thereby compromised (see, in relation to the latter aspect, Case C - 399 / 11 Melloni [2013] ECR I - 0000, paragraph 60).

I must admit that I am a bit more in two minds here about his rather positive assessment (pp. 104 - 105) of the role of Article 51 (1) of the Charter, as in particular after the Åkerberg Fransson case we still have to see to what extent there will remain effectively two clearly separate spheres of Member State and EU fundamental rights protection.

Meanwhile, the access right's constitutional overtones were suggested by three developments: the incorporation of a right of access in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (article 42) in 2000, the EU's accession to the Aarhus Treaty and subsequent adoption of the Aarhus Regulation on Access to Information (Regulation 1367/06) in 2006, and increasingly explicit references to transparency's auxiliary role in facilitating the democratic life of the Union, most notably in the Access Info Europe and In «t Veld v Council case law.

This also means that, even though their application does not come within the ambit of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU according to the CJEU's ruling in their case, Belgium is still bound by the ECHR in the application of its national laws.

Unfortunately, since the Court decided against the applicability of the Visa Code in the case of X and X, it was not required to look further into the question of whether Member States» authorities should assess applications made under Article 25 of the Visa Code in the light of Articles 4 and / or 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights or any other international obligation by which they are bound.

The case is thus about whether Article 1111 - 3 Code du travail is compatible with the right of workers» to information and consultation under Article 27 Charter of Fundamental Rights as implemented by Directive 2002/14: Should Mr Laboubi and the union be able to rely on EU law in legal proceedings between private parties to exclude the application of the French norm and enforce the right to information and consultation?

This is a follow - up post to a previously published Slaw post on a case in which two members of the Church of the Universe claim that the Ontario's marijuana prohibition violates the freedom of religion protections in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.