However, evidence revealed errors in the NYPD response to the incident and
errors in judgment following the incident by the headof the Governor's State Police protection detail, by Johnson and by another close aide to the Governor, and indeed by the Governor himself.
Not exact matches
The Court held that the revelation of character cases can be roughly divided into three categories: i) where misconduct is extremely serious, sometimes bordering on criminal acts (e.g. theft or fraud), just cause for termination will usually exist; ii) where conduct reveals deceit, misrepresentation or misleading of employers, cause will likely be found; and iii) where there are
errors in judgment or a failure to
follow rules, it can not automatically be said that the employee was dishonest for the purposes of justifying summary dismissal.
He or she is not to be judged by the result, nor is he or she to be held liable for
errors of
judgment.2 For instance,
in Crits v. Sylvester, 3 the Ontario Court of Appeal noted, and the Supreme Court of Canada re-affirmed, the
following: