Sentences with phrase «hold oral hearings»

Osborn, and the co-joined appeals, concerned the circumstances in which the Parole Board is required to hold oral hearings.

It received more than 30,000 submissions and held oral hearings in January this year.

India's Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties (DGAD) will hold an oral hearing for its anti-dumping investigation into imports of textured, tempered glass from Malaysia, on 11 June in New Delhi.

In any event, he should have held an oral hearing in public, and given his decision in public, but had failed to do so.

Furthermore, it did so without holding an oral hearing and did not invite the parties to address the matter or consider any further evidence or expert opinion.

Here, the NEB held an oral hearing.

The Court held that, in the context of a duty of fair representation complaint, credibility issues do not require the Board to hold an oral hearing.

Courts are reluctant to second - guess a tribunal's decision not to hold an oral hearing and will generally only intervene to prevent manifest unfairness: Xwave Solutions Inc v. Canada (Public Works & Government Services), 2003 FCA 301.

The Consultant argued that the Ministry had an obligation to hold an oral hearing before rendering its decision and in failing to do so breached the duty of fairness owed to her.

The Court found that generally where the credibility of witnesses is considered relevant, its importance to the process often weighs in favour of holding an oral hearing.

Did the Ministry breach the duty of procedural fairness owed to Kaberwal by failing to hold an oral hearing before making its decision?

Other significant decisions were those in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, where the Court relied on common law procedural fairness (as well as on Art 5 (4) of the ECHR) when ruling that the Parole Board would often have to hold an oral hearing when prisoners apply for release on licence.

Not exact matches

At 10:15 a.m., leaders from New York's organized labor movement will hold a news conference as the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, the latest in a series of attacks by the wealthy and corporate interests against ordinary working people, outside the Senate lounge, 3rd Floor, state Capitol, Albany.

March 21, 1985 — Oral Statement by Emily S. Andrews on Coverage Under Employer Sponsored Plans Before House Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Labor - Management Relations Hearings on the Employee Benefits and the Need for a National Retirement Income Policy (T - 42a) Hearings held March 21; April 2; and April 3, 1985

A German court reached this decision where the provisions of the 1996 English Arbitration Act agreed to by the parties granted discretion to the tribunal to schedule an oral hearing.908 A United States court held that a tribunal's decision of an issue of contract interpretation based solely on documentary evidence was not fundamentally unfair where the parties had not agreed on the applicable procedure.

Courts have similarly held that a tribunal's adjudication of a case based on documentary evidence without an oral hearing does not justify a refusal under article V (1)(d).

Not holding an oral in - person hearing also can represent a significant reduction in the carbon footprint of a proceeding.

Eighteen months ago, this Court heard oral argument on the merits; six months ago, the Supreme Court held that the Detainee Treatment Act did not apply to pending actions; and four months ago, Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act.»

The Agency thoroughly investigated and considered all issues raised by the parties, including conducting extensive written pleadings and holding a 23 - day oral hearing.

The oral hearing was held for the express purpose of affording the carriers an opportunity to present and test evidence respecting the undueness of obstacles and proposed corrective measures.

In some cases, fairness may require that an oral hearing be held.

Where a complaint could fairly be determined on written evidence and without oral submissions, given the nature of the jurisdiction and the desirability of speedy decision at minimum cost and with minimum formality, it was normally not necessary for the ombudsman to hold a public hearing.

His lordship turned to whether the ombudsman was required to hold an oral and / or public hearing.

«In an unusual summary opinion, without hearing oral argument, the Court today sent back to the 11th Circuit for further review its holding that a jury verdict in favor of two employees was appropriately set aside.

22 The parties agree that the Commission may hold hearings, and may consider written and oral submissions from other interested persons and groups.

Sessions for hearing oral argument and for other needful purposes may be held by each section as determined by the presiding judge of the section.

As an aside, on granting permission to appeal (as an application for permission to appeal had to be issued as the Judge had rejected the oral application for permission to appeal at the original hearing), the Court of Appeal had recognised that it was unusual for an exercise of judicial discretion to be appealed but stated that the decision of His Honour Judge Purle QC was highly speculative as to «border on the Micawberism» (which those of you versed in classic literature will recognise as a reference to a character in the Charles Dickens novel, David Copperfield, who continually holds blind faith that «something will turn up»).

26 (1) The arbitral tribunal may conduct the arbitration on the basis of documents or may hold hearings for the presentation of evidence and for oral argument; however, the tribunal shall hold a hearing if a party requests it.

The effect of the amendment was to eliminate the mandatory oral hearing held by the Parole Board du Canada for reviews following the suspension, termination or revocation of parole or statutory release.

(4) The Tribunal shall hold a written hearing with respect to an appeal under subsection (1) unless a party satisfies the Tribunal that there is good reason to hear oral submissions.

Under subsection 5.2 (2) of the SPPA, a tribunal may hold an electronic hearing rather than an «oral hearing» (a face to face hearing, or a hearing in person).

In this case, the Court held that the allegation of fraud was a serious matter based on credibility, that it is generally considered difficult to prove, and that this favored an oral hearing.

The only restriction is a prohibition on electronic hearings where «a party satisfies the tribunal that holding an electronic rather than an oral hearing is likely to cause the party significant prejudice».

For example, the courts have routinely held that tribunals do not need to conduct oral hearings.

In our efforts to gain approval for our amendment, we held weekly strategy meetings with our lobbyist and AAMFT, made our presence known at hearings (even when we could not testify), wrote testimony, gave oral testimony, created fact - sheets comparing the profession to allied professions, and started utilizing grassroots outreach.

In early May, oral arguments were held in a court hearing regarding the Labor Department rules.

When separate hearings with respect to the issues of penalty and enforcement expenses are held, the Discipline Committee may invite written or oral submissions on penalty and enforcement expenses.