Sentences with phrase «conduct prejudicial»

The General Assembly shall prescribe a procedure, in addition to impeachment and address set forth in this Section, for the removal of a Justice or Judge of the General Court of Justice for mental or physical incapacity interfering with the performance of his duties which is, or is likely to become, permanent, and for the censure and removal of a Justice or Judge of the General Court of Justice for wilful misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.

conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4 (a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (1990); and

But when applying that test to the facts, the Court observed that the national (Swedish) measure was connected (in part) to infringements of the VAT Directive, and therefore was designed to implement an obligation imposed on the Member States by EU law «to impose effective penalties for conduct prejudicial to the financial interests of the European Union».

The Board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed.

The Corresponding Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each member of the Board or present them at a Board meeting, and the Board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed.

The Recording Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each member of the Board or present them at a Board meeting, and the Board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club or the Breed.

As recorded in the AKC Gazette, February 2010 issue: «The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended the following individuals from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective January 11, 2010, and imposed a $ 2,000 fine for conduct prejudicial to purebred dogs, purebred dog events, or to the best interests of the American Kennel Club based on their violation of the AKC's Cruelty Conviction Policy: Ms. Kathy Jo Bauck A.K.A..

The Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each member of the board or present them at a board meeting, and the board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the club.

the board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the club.

The Recording Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each member of the Board or present them at a Board Meeting and the Board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the club or the breed.

The Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each member of the Board or present them at a Board Meeting, and the Board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club or the breed.

The Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each member of the Board or present them at a Board Meeting, and the Board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club.

The Board Secretary shall promptly send a copy of the charges to each member of the Board or present them at a Board Meeting, and the Board shall first consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed.

If a majority of the Board does not consider that the actions alleged in the charges, if proved, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed, a hearing shall not be ordered.

If a majority of the Board does not consider that the actions alleged in the charges, if proved, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club or the breed, a hearing shall not be ordered, and the deposit shall be returned.

The Board shall first (within 20 days) consider whether the actions alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club or the breed.

If a majority of the Board considers that the charges, if proved, might constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Club or the Breed, the Board shall order a hearing committee of not less than three and not more than nine members of the Club having no direct personal involvement in the issues to be heard, and shall fix a date and time for such hearing at a place within the region where the defendant resides.

Not exact matches

«In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.»

Simon Danczuk MP, for sustained attacks against the Leader of the Labour Party notably in his column in the Daily Mail, conduct which is clearly prejudicial to the party and consisting of acts which are grossly detrimental to the party in contravention of the rules Chapter 2 clause 1 8.

Research conducted for Marie Stopes International by market research company NOP World shows that 20 years into the HIV / AIDS epidemic, a significant minority of British people still display prejudicial and ignorant attitudes towards the disease.

Labour's Rule 2.1.8 says no member of the party should engage in conduct which «is prejudicial» or act in a way which is «grossly detrimental to the party», and specifically covers any incident «seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice» towards minority groups.

IF THE BOARD CONSIDERS THAT THE CHARGES DO NOT ALLEGE CONDUCT WHICH WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLUB OR OF THE BREED IT MAY REFUSE TO ENTERTAIN JURISDICTION.

If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which would be prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or the breed it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction.

If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which would be prejudicial to the best interests of the Society or of the breed, it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction.

If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct, which would be prejudicial to the best interests of the Club of the breed, it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction.

If the board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which would be prejudicial to the best interests of the club, it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction.

If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which would be prejudicial to the best interests of the Club or of the breed it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction.

If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which would be prejudicial to the best interests of the Club or the Breed, it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction.

If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which would be prejudicial to the best interests of the Club or the breed, it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction.

If the Board considers that the charges do not allege conduct which would be prejudicial to the best interest of the Club or of the breed, it may refuse to entertain jurisdiction.

«Examined in the context of the whole trial, and taken together with the improper cross-examination of the appellant, the Crown's conduct was sufficiently prejudicial that it deprived the appellant of a fair trial,» he said.

In a recent case, Seto v. PCC No. 492, several commercial condominium owners were unsuccessful in their application for an order that the condominium corporation had engaged in conduct that was oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to their interests.

The remedy is a powerful tool for correcting prejudicial, unfair and oppressive conduct.

substantially prejudicial to the employer's business such that the employee's conduct causes damage to the employer's business or reputation or causes harm to the employer's customers.

Forwarding emails within the workplace may carry drastic consequences for the sender, especially if unwelcome, lewd or sexually charged emails sent to co-workers and / or subordinates result in conduct that is prejudicial for the company.

This right to relief requires a certain level of conduct from the corporation, conduct that is: oppressive, unfairly prejudicial or unfairly disregards the interest of any security holder.

Second, the stakeholder must then show that those reasonable expectations were violated by conduct that was «oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly disregarded the interests of any security holder.»

The Ontario Court of Appeal described the circumstances when an employee may be terminated for just cause in its seminal decision Port Arthur Shipbuilding Co. 1 finding that an employee may be terminated for cause if he or she is «guilty of serious misconduct, habitual neglect of duty, incompetence, or conduct incompatible with his duties, or prejudicial to the employer's business, or if he has been guilty of wilful disobedience to the employer's orders in a matter of substance.»

The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that an employer many terminate an employee's employment for cause if the employee is «guilty of serious misconduct, habitual neglect of duty, incompetence, or conduct incompatible with his duties, or prejudicial to the employer's business, or if he has been guilty of wilful disobedience to the employer's orders in a matter of substance.»

It is sufficient if it is conduct which is prejudicial to or is likely to be prejudicial to the interests or reputation of the employer.

I am satisfied that Mr. Dewji's conduct, as the sole director and officer of the defendant corporations, was oppressive, high - handed, callous and unfairly prejudicial to the rights and interests of the plaintiffs.

To determine what is just and reasonable in the context of a particular factual matrix, the court must determine what the reasonable expectations of the claimant were and whether the conduct of the corporation (or the directors of the corporation) violated those reasonable expectations by conduct that was oppressive, or unfairly prejudicial, or which disregarded the interests of the complainant.

Of note with respect to the issue of damages is that the court declined to award punitive damages, notwithstanding Justice Boswell's finding, in paragraph 23 of his reasons for decision, that, «Mr. Dewji's conduct, as the sole director and officer of the defendant corporations, was oppressive, high - handed, callous and unfairly prejudicial to the rights and interests of the plaintiffs.»

She brought an application under Section 135 of the Condominium Act, which creates an oppression remedy where conduct of a condominium corporation is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial or unfairly disregards the interests of the applicant.

The harassment campaign against Ms. Dyke also added to the corporation's unfairly prejudicial conduct.

Section 248 the Ontario Business Corporations Act states that: «Where, upon an application under subsection (1), the court is satisfied that in respect of a corporation or any of its affiliates, (a) any act or omission of the corporation or any of its affiliates effects or threatens to effect a result; (b) the business or affairs of the corporation or any of its affiliates are, have been or are threatened to be carried on or conducted in a manner; or (c) the powers of the directors of the corporation or any of its affiliates are, have been or are threatened to be exercised in a manner, that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to or that unfairly disregards the interests of any security holder, creditor, director or officer of the corporation, the court may make an order to rectify the matters complained of.»

In Ontario, the Court of Appeal has recognized that serious misconduct, habitual neglect of duty, incompetence or conduct incompatible with duties or prejudicial to the employer's business, or willful disobedience to the employer's orders in a matter of substance may very well be «cause» for dismissal.

The conduct that has been held to be unfairly prejudicial is enumerated (though this is not an exhaustive list) and the remedies considered.

On the matter of oppression, the Court of Appeal noted that a petitioner must show it held a reasonable expectation with respect to the conduct of the affairs of the company, and that the reasonable expectation was disappointed by conduct that was oppressive or unfairly prejudicial.

The judge further held that the Appellant's conduct was oppressive or prejudicial to the Respondent, because the Appellant's efforts were directed at preventing the Respondent from putting forth a takeover bid.