Each citizen complaint is assessed
against fairness principles.
Not exact matches
They include the «chilling effects» of libel suits, the perennial conflicts between property and access, the three out of four publishers who intervene in news decisions affecting their local markets, the advertisers» freedom to move their money to where their interests are, industry self - regulation in broadcasting and advertising, the backlash
against conveying under duress (as in a hostage crisis) points of view that are never aired as directly without duress, the flareups of book banning and censorship of textbooks, the rout of the civil rights movement, the retreat from
principles of
fairness and equality (even where never implemented), the attack on scientific and humane teaching, the threat of self - appointed media watchdogs to also spy on teachers in the classroom, and the general vigor of ancient orthodoxies masquarading as neo-this and neo-that.
A fundamental
principle of natural justice / procedural
fairness is that an applicant should have knowledge of the case
against them, especially in the context of receiving reasons for refusal.
... (1) to promote accuracy and certainty in the adjudication of claims; (2) to provide
fairness to persons who might be required to defend
against claims based on stale evidence; and (3) to prompt persons who might wish to commence claims to be diligent in pursuing them in a timely fashion Having regard to these
principles, and on the basis of the facts before him, Justice Perell decided that the limitation period for the insured in Nasr began to run from the date upon which Intact formally denied the claim in July 2013.
Stadlen J was unequivocal at para 84 of his judgment: «[I] n the absence of a problem in the witness giving evidence in person or by video link, or some other exceptional circumstance,
fairness requires that in disciplinary proceedings a person facing serious charges, especially if they amount to criminal offences which if proved are likely to have grave adverse effects on his or her reputation and career, should in
principle be entitled by cross-examination to test the evidence of his accuser (s) where that evidence is the sole or decisive evidence relied on
against him.»
But, while the mediation of courts is based upon the
principle of judicial impartiality, disinterestedness, and
fairness pervading the whole system of judicature, so that courts may as near as possible be above suspicion, there is, on the other side, an important issue at stake: that is, that causes may not be unfairly prejudiced, unduly delayed, or discontent created through unfounded charges of prejudice or unfairness made
against the judge in the trial of a cause...