Sentences with phrase «procedural fairness at»

[19] Professor Mullan went on to observe that the notion of allowing a councillor to participate in a debate about proposed sanctions against himself or herself should not be viewed as a conflict of interest and that Council should not be absolved of the obligation to extend procedural fairness simply because the Integrity Commissioner might have given procedural fairness at the reporting stage.

This despite the fact that the right to procedural fairness at common law in Canada is said to be «autonomous» of any particular statutory provision.

Procedural fairness At first instance the claimants had won a small victory in that NICE was sent away to modify its appraisal protocols to comply with anti-discrimination legislation.

Not exact matches

Not only has OCR thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title IX, but schools that have instituted new disciplinary procedures under pressure from OCR have been repeatedly castigated by lower - court judges for disregarding procedural fairness.

... A fair trial is one that satisfies the public interest in getting at the truth, while preserving basic procedural fairness...»

Marion Boyd's argument is reflected in Omar's comments: if one does not hold out the possibility of enforcing a family arbitral award made under Islamic law, at least on some grounds (and she set out a number of conditions about procedural and substantive fairness), then those who go to arbitration under that law anyway have no protection in civil law, and the arbitrator has no incentive to conform to our general notions of fairness.

While a tribunal's substantive decision - making under its home statute may survive a judicial review merely by being reasonable, a tribunal must still be correct about questions of general law, and must still reach decisions on a foundation of procedural fairness; legislatures do not authorize tribunals to decide matters through unjust processes (Dunsmuir at 128 - 129).

As Annis J. put it in David v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 358, where the question was «whether the acknowledged requirement of thoroughness of an investigation by the Commission is to be considered as part of the reasonableness analysis or whether it is a matter of procedural fairness subject to a correctness standard of review» (at para. 53),

The Court confirmed that the applicant «was entitled to a relatively high standard of procedural fairness given the issues at stake,» but rejected each of the applicant's arguments.

Some courts also refer to complainants having limited rights of procedural fairness, e.g., King v. Yukon Medical Council, 2003 YKSC 74 at 33 - 43 (fairness met where complainant met twice) and M.H. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, 2006 ABQB 395 at 29 - 45 (fairness met by allowing complainant to make submissions); also see Berg v. British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner), 2006 BCCA 225 (concerning extent of complainant's right to participate at a hearing).

On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal (2013 FCA 75) the court confirmed the procedural fairness ruling of the Federal Court (at paragraphs 24 - 26):

The Alberta Court of Appeal has confirmed that the procedural fairness a college must provide during an investigation is at the low end of the spectrum, and if an investigation has proceeded unfairly, a subsequent discipline hearing may cure the unfairness.

But beyond this legal realist premise, it dawns on me that all judicial sentencing decisions plainly are, at some level, policy judgments informed by views on just punishment, crime control, procedural fairness, and other express and implicit considerations.

2012 was, however, a year when courts emphasized in various contexts the need for regulators to be increasingly sophisticated, by dealing with less obvious but nonetheless binding external requirements, such as Charter rights and human rights, as well as with «internal» procedural fairness rights, and a possible need for health regulators in BC, at least, to deal with single - instances of «negligent» conduct as an aspect of competence.

Decision Makers and Decision Recipients: Understanding Disparities in the Meaning of Fairness Diane Sivasubramaniam and Larry Heuer, Court Review 44 (2007) This article reviews the results of several quantitative studies that look at whether decision makers such as judges are impacted by procedural fairness in the same way that decision recipients are.

In addition, we look at policing, currently the focus of the majority of criminal justice research on procedural fairness, but we retain an emphasis on the courts.

Anecdotally, the author has heard judges from several different court levels talking about incorporating aspects of procedural fairness into sessions at the Washington State Judicial College.

The need for procedural fairness begins at the courthouse door (or on the courthouse web page) and permeates many aspects of the administration of the courts, as well as what occurs in the courtroom.

«The bar for procedural fairness must be even higher when deportation to face torture is at stake».

The decisions in Brar and in Abetew make it very clear that in Manitoba, at least, where an individual's livelihood is at stake on the basis of a tribunal's licensing decision, the principles of procedural fairness require that written reasons be provided.

We emphasize that this does not deprive the judge of a remedy where procedural or fairness issues arise in an inquiry, just that the sui generis judicial conduct process under the Judges Act has built into it a mechanism (by way of appeal from the Committee to the Council at the end of the inquiry process) to address those issues through the Council which is itself a superior court.

At (or at least towards) the other end of the spectrum are the principles of procedural fairnesAt (or at least towards) the other end of the spectrum are the principles of procedural fairnesat least towards) the other end of the spectrum are the principles of procedural fairness.

In 2014, however, a Nova Scotia court confirmed that procedural fairness requirements are less at the screening stage than at the disciplinary stage, and that inquiry committees are entitled to deference when they decide to send a matter to a hearing, in Levesque v. Nova Scotia College of Optometrists, 2014 NSSC 22.

While the public focuses on fairness of the process, judges and lawyers tend to focus on fair outcomes, often at the expense of meeting the criteria of procedural fairness that are critical to public perceptions of the courts.

What factors favour some degree of disclosure at the investigation stage above the minimum level of disclosure required by statute or procedural fairness?

The graphic to the left, provided in the report of California's separate 2005 surveys of attorneys and the general public, aptly demonstrates the different ways in which these two groups look at the importance of procedural fairness and outcome fairness.

By looking at two surveys of New Yorkers, the study determines that procedural fairness is key to both white and minority group residents in creating legitimacy and that legitimacy has a strong influence on the public's perceptions of the police.

He also had the same right at the August 2010 meeting, and since he was not then given an opportunity to speak, Mr. Ford's right to procedural fairness was arguably violated at that meeting.

[99] As Mr. Justice Finch (as he then was) explained in Halfway River at para. 58, the fettering of discretion is an issue of procedural fairness, which is an area where the court owes an administrative decision - maker no deference: