Torts: Medmal; Judges» Reasons Cojocaru v. B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre (B.C.C.A., Apr. 14, 2011)(34304) May 24, 2013 While desirable that judges express their conclusions in their own words, incorporating substantial amounts of material from submissions or other legal sources
into reasons for judgment by itself is OK.
I'm always very interested to see how different media, such as blogs or Wikipedia articles, find their way as authorities
into reasons for judgment.
Procedural fairness requires an impartial decision - maker, but that partiality may come into question where a decision - maker heavily incorporates one party's submissions
into reasons for judgment.
For the reasons that follow, I conclude that while it is desirable that judges express their conclusions in their own words, incorporating substantial amounts of material from submissions or other legal sources
into reasons for judgment does not without more permit the decision to be set aside.
Not exact matches
President Carter's announcement at Notre Dame in 1977 that Americans had gotten over their «inordinate fear of communism»» together with Secretary of State Cyrus Vance's statement that Carter and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev shared «similar dreams and aspirations about the most fundamental issues»» demonstrated that the degradation of moral
judgment into moral posturing could coexist with breathtaking strategic myopia (and indeed moral blindness) in minds
for which the evocation of the specter of Vietnam marked an end to moral
reasoning, or indeed any other form of
reasoning.
The highest task
for health education in a society devoted to excellence is to discover and introduce
into the cultural stream modes of living that will fully employ bodily energies in ways that are at the same time consonant with the ideals of
reason, qualitative
judgment, and ethical concern.
The court will take
into account how quickly you made the application and may want to know the
reason for any delay, e.g. you only just found out about the
judgment.
To determine the sustainability of dividends by means of fundamental analysis, each individual investor must use his or her own interpretive skills and personal
judgment —
for this
reason, we won't get
into what defines a «good company».
However, the General Court accepted Gifi's argument that the Board failed to examine all the evidence it had produced, and the Board's
judgment did not mention several of the designs cited: «In the present case, it is clear that, in the light of the Board of Appeal's assertion that it was required to re-examine the application
for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety, followed by a one - by - one examination of the contested design in relation only to Designs D 1 to D 17, it is impossible to infer from the wording of the contested decision, or the context in which it appears, what is the implied
reasoning justifying the failure to take
into account Designs D 18 to D 22.»
It was not appropriate to take
into account the course the litigation took thereafter, and the
reasons for judgment on the summary dismissal action given one year later, in deciding whether H met the standard of care at the time.
[35] Before the practice developed of posting all
judgments of the court below on the internet and thereby saving them
for posterity, I would not have considered it necessary to express such a caveat, as the
reasons for judgment below would have disappeared
into obscurity.»
In the Alberta Court of Appeal ruling reported as R v Wagar, 2015 ABCA 327 Justice Brian K. O'Ferrall, speaking
for a unanimous court, made short shrift of Justice Camp's
judgment, at p. 1: ``... [W] e are satisfied that the trial judge's comments throughout the proceedings and in his
reasons gave rise to doubts about the trial judge's understanding of the law governing sexual assaults and in particular, the meaning of consent and restrictions on evidence of the complainant's sexual activity... We are also persuaded that sexual stereotypes and stereotypical myths, which have long since been discredited, may have found their way
into the trial judge's
judgment.»
We are at a loss to understand upon what principle of law, applicable to appellate jurisdiction, it can be supposed that this court has not judicial authority to correct the last - mentioned error because they had before corrected the former, or by what process of
reasoning it can be made out that the error of an inferior court in actually pronouncing
judgment for one of the parties in a case in which it had no jurisdiction can not be looked
into or corrected by this court because we have decided a similar question presented in the pleadings.
The Appeals Court reversed and remanded,
reasoning that the trial court incorrectly converted the 12 (b)(6) motion to dismiss
into a motion
for summary
judgment and failed to follow caselaw related to other similar statutes.
(c) the court has taken
into account in issuing its
judgment the
reasons for and evidence underlying the order issued pursuant to Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention.
The
judgment entails the return of the children and the court has taken
into account in issuing its
judgment the
reasons for and evidence underlying the decision issued pursuant to Article 13 of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
These important statements have now been transposed
into the civil context, and the proposition that inadequate
reasons for judgment can amount to an independent ground of appeal has recently been applied in Sagl v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, 2009 ONCA 388 (C.A.), a case involving a claim on an insurance policy.
I can not find the phrase which was translated
into «infernal ma - chine» in the
reasons for judgment, though... [more]
I expect that you don't actually know what any judge is is fed up about, beyond whatever you want to read
into whatever you read in published
reasons for judgment.