Sentences with phrase «decision under review»

But those who choose keeping this debt in retirement might want to keep their decision under review.

[5] During the first stage of the analysis, reviewing courts were charged with examining four factors: whether there was a privative, or conversely an appeal, clause in the decision maker's home statute; [6] whether the decision maker was relatively more expert than the reviewing court in respect of the decision under review; what the purpose of the statutory scheme and of the particular provision or provisions at issue was; and what the nature of the question in dispute was.

The first stage was said to require an overly lengthy analysis of the statutory scheme, which distracted from the merits of the challenge to the decision under review.

In the Supreme Court, Abella J. made only fleeting reference to the decision under review.

He determined that the decision under review did not fall into any of the correctness categories.

[7] The goal was to capture legislative intent and, particularly, the degree of deference the legislature intended that reviewing courts should accord in respect of the decision under review.

(For health professions, this issue has been highlighted in recent months by the question of what the Health Professions Review Board can do with respect to information released to a complainant as part of the «record» of a decision under review.

As Paul Daly so aptly observed: «Ideally, in my view, an unreasonableness analysis should start with the administrative decision, rather than the statutory text, and demonstrate why it is unreasonable; it should not begin with and end with the statutory text with only a cursory reference to the decision under review.»

Also, when a decision under review concerns an issue that was not raised before the decision - maker, the reviewing court can consider reasons which could have been offered in support of the decision (para 53).

Less well understood is the possible role of a tribunal in expanding the reasons for decision by making explicit what was (arguably) implicit in the reasons for the decision under review.

The general rule is that a tribunal can not defend its decision on a ground that it did not rely on in the decision under review.

(32) Further, if a review is raised on factual grounds, the reviewing court may consider evidence not available to the registrar, (33) and must consider relevant events that occur subsequent to the decision under review.