Sentences with phrase «appeal officer»

In the interim, Adrian Peterson will be returned to the Commissioner Exempt List pending further proceedings by appeals officer Harold Henderson or a determination by the Eighth Circuit Court.»
NOTE, each independent office within Erie County Government (Board of Elections, Clerk, Comptroller, District Attorney, Legislature, and Sheriff), administers their own separate FOIL processes with both an internal FOIL Officer and FOIL Appeals Officer.
«Speaker Silver put my appeal in the hands of a lobbying firm, assuming they would also do his bidding because it was in their financial interest, but when they showed a shred of fairness Speaker Silver, making this up as he goes along, decided to ignore his hand picked appeals officer and ham handily invoke double jeopardy,» he said.
This statement is put before the Chief Appeals Officer.
Peterson reportedly submitted a transcript of the conversation as evidence to appeals officer Harold Henderson.
«The Ethic Committee is grasping at these new allegations and its secret star chamber report as weapons to prejudice the appeals officer against me while simultaneously trying to get me to drop the appeal,» Kellner said.
«The Ethic Committee is grasping at these new allegations and its secret star chamber report as weapons to prejudice the appeals officer against me while simultaneously trying to get me to drop the appeal.»
I have a small amount of experience with traffic appeals and the Victorian courts and found that appeals officers and magistrates can be quite unpredictable in applying the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
He and his team submitted a detailed 13 page submission to the appeals officer.
Simler J: «I do not accept that there is a legal requirement in every unfair dismissal case where reasons for dismissing an appeal are not given, for the appeal officer to give evidence at a tribunal hearing in order to enable the tribunal to find that the dismissal procedure as a whole is fair.
Whether or not an appeal officer is required to give evidence is a fact sensitive question that inevitably depends on the circumstances of that particular case.»
On that basis, it was reasonable for the Appeals Officer to come to the conclusion that the Employer did not exercise control over the workplace and, as such, could not effectively carry out an inspection and accomplish the underlying purpose of paragraph 125 (1)(z. 12) of the Code.
In the Appeals Officer's view, the inspection obligation only arises where the employer controls the workplace as the purpose of the inspection is the identification and opportunity to fix hazards.
The Appeals Officer ruled that the obligation to inspect under paragraph 125 (1)(z. 12) of the Code does not apply to any place where a letter carrier is engaged in work outside the physical building, given that the Employer does not exercise control over these workplaces.
In conclusion, the Court held that the Appeals Officer's ruling «demonstrated sensitivity to preserving the broad nature of the employer's obligation to ensure health and safety of its employees without placing obligations upon the employer that the latter would be unable to fulfill.»
The Federal Court found reasonable the finding of the Appeals Officer that subsection 125 (1) of the Code draws a clear distinction between control over the «workplace» and control over the «work activity».
The Appeals Officer held that the HSO erred in adopting a broad interpretation of «workplace» to include the routes and each point of call for letter carriers.
The Federal Court dismissed the Union's application for judicial review and ruled that the Appeals Officer's determination was reasonable.
The Court ruled that the Appeals Officer's determination that the Employer can only satisfy certain obligations imposed by subsection 125 (1) when in control of the workplace was «not driven by an impracticality assessment but rather a determination that the underlying purpose of paragraph 125 (1)(z. 12) can only be achieved where the employer is in a position to both identify and fix hazards.»
Conversely, even if the employer did not control the work place, the Appeals Officer recognized that an employer could ensure the safety of the equipment being used by its employees, as required under paragraph (t), so long as it controlled the employees» activity.
[17] In my view, the Appeals Officer reasonably found that some obligations listed in subsection 125 (1) can not apply where the employer has no control over the work place.
For example, the Appeals Officer recognized that if the employer does not own the buildings nor has a right to alter them, an employer can not ensure that those buildings meet prescribed standards, as required under paragraph (a).
The mandate of the Appeals Officers is to receive, hear and decide on appeals of decisions of absence of danger and directions regarding occupational health and safety issued pursuant to the Canada Labour Code.
Appeals Officers in occupational health and safety, designated by the Minister of Labour and grouped under an administrative structure known as the Occupational Health and Safety Tribunal Canada (Tribunal), exercise the functions of an administrative tribunal.The mission of the Appeals Officers is to ensure expert, independent, unbiased quality service to all parties by treating them equally, fairly and with understanding, respect and dignity.
uncovering misunderstandings (that may have snowballed through the memos and medical reports), clarifying circumstances and correcting mistakes, in a setting where both the injured worker and appeals officer can look at the file together
Justice Near, who wrote dissent reasons, would have dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Appeals Officer's decision.
In our bulletin of March 31, 2016, we discussed a Federal Court judgment issued in February 2016, in which the Court endorsed an Appeals Officer's decision who limited the definition of «workplace» for the purposes of inspection under Part II of the Canada Labour Code (the «Code») to workplaces where the employer exercises control: Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada Post Corporation, 2016 FC 252.
After a health and safety officer issued a direction pursuant to the Canada Labour Code indicating that the Employer had failed to appoint a «competent person» as required by the Regulations, the Employer filed an appeal to the Appeals Officer.
However, where a person can prove to the satisfaction of a Deciding or Appeals Officer that entitlement existed and that there was good cause for the delay in making a claim to One - Parent Family Payment, payment may be made for a period up to 6 months before the date of claim.
However the payment may be backdated for up to six months where «good cause» is shown for the delay in making the claim, provided the claimant can prove to the satisfaction of a Deciding or Appeals Officer that s / he satisfied the qualifying conditions for receipt of payment during that period.
An Appeals Officer may decide the matter summarily or may deal with the case by way of an oral hearing.
Audited taxpayers can send the IRS an appeal letter within 30 days of the audit proceedings; an appeals officer unaffiliated with your audit will be assigned as the person you can plead your case to.
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z