Sentences with phrase «decided under the charter»

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has held that they do not have the power to order damages to an individual who was discriminated against by a government policy, because of cases decided under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the first religious freedom case to be decided under the Charter, Justice Dickson defined the right as follows:

Not exact matches

Louisiana has decided that all New Orleans charter schools now overseen by the state's Recovery School District will be placed under the control of the local school board.

With charter schools becoming more popular, federal officials must decide how to treat them under federal programs that were designed for traditional school districts, the General Accounting Office recommends in a new report.

Under Betsy DeVos's Uber Charters, the driver could promise a 2016 Camry but show up in a ’77 Vega, ask for the fare up front, start the journey, then decide suddenly to pull over mid-trip and tell the passenger to get out.

International High School attorney Brooke Duncan issued this statement: «We continue to maintain that IHSNO as a charter school is not subject to jurisdiction under the National Labor Relations Act, as the acting chair of the National Labor Relations Board made clear in his dissent, and we expect the courts will eventually decide the issue.»

That's what our kids are up against,» said Wilson, who decided to move Ascend away from the «no excuses» charter school model, in which students are punished for even minor infractions under strict discipline codes, in favor of a school culture that embraces social and emotional learning.

Public school advocates have charged Bennett gave preferential treatment to a favorite charter school in 2012 while denying the requests for leniency under the rating system when deciding which schools to take over in 2011.

The SCDE also decides which charter schools receive funds under the federally - funded charter school planning grant.

Going forward, he has the power under state law to authorize charter school requests within the boundaries of the Madison and Milwaukee school districts on his own — but he's decided to share some of that power, he said.

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.

On July 31, 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that proceedings under Canada's Income Tax Act (ITA) are administrative, not criminal, and a penalty imposed under it is not a «true penal consequence» — and the person on whom such a penalty is imposed doesn't get the protection of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms» (section 11 (d)-RRB- guarantees of the presumption of innocence, proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and right to a fair and public hearing.

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.

Therefore, the Belgian migration authorities were bound by the Charter when deciding on X and X's application for a visa with limited territorial application under Article 25 of the Visa Code, even if this Article grants a margin of discretion to the said authorities.

It is noteworthy in this regard that the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1) sets an obligation on the administration to justify its decisions and that this motivation is not only in general, the expression of the transparency of administrative action, but it must also allow the individual to decide, with full knowledge of the facts, if it is useful for her to apply to a court.

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the application judge and unanimously decided that the Regulation does limit Mr. Bracken's rights under s. 2 (b) of the Charter, but nevertheless held those limits were saved under s. 1.

In the March 29, 2012 decision Re Rowan, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided, among other issues, that individuals involved in proceedings at the Ontario Securities Commission (the «Commission») who are subject to monetary penalties imposed under the Ontario Securities Act (the «Act»), are not afforded the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Supreme Court of Canada confirms that administrative tribunals with the authority to decide questions of law are courts of competent jurisdiction under s. 24 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that administrative tribunals with the authority to decide questions of law are courts of competent jurisdiction under s. 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[1] In this appeal, we must decide whether excluding members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police («RCMP») from collective bargaining under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, enacted by the Public Service Modernization Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2 («PSLRA»), and imposing a non-unionized labour relations regime violates the guarantee of freedom of association in s. 2 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The question to be decided was whether the administrative decision of the CLP was consistent with the duty to accommodate a disability under the Charter and subject to the reasonableness standard: did the CLP's decision balance the right protected by the Charter and the objectives sought under the AIAOD?

The Ontario Divisional Court decided, however, that while the policy statements infringed freedom of religion under the Charter, the infringements were justifiable: Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2018 ONSC 579.