Sentences with phrase «proof in civil proceedings»

The Committee, having taken note of the explanations provided by the delegation, invites the State party to envisage regulating the burden of proof in civil proceedings involving racial discrimination so that once an alleged victim has established a prima facie case that he or she has been a victim of such discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to provide evidence of an objective and reasonable justification for differential treatment.

While the Court of Appeal acknowledged the Supreme Court of Canada's pronouncement in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 that there is only one standard of proof in civil proceedings, it confirmed that the civil standard could be modified by statute and that the Police Services Act had, in fact, modified the applicable standard in that case.

Not exact matches

(ii) Practice Direction on committal in civil procedings applies in family proceedings: including that the burden of proof, which rests on the applicant, must be «beyond reasonable doubt».

[17] In particular, the lower standard of proof that applies in civil (as opposed to criminal) proceedings is appropriate, Professor Brown argues, because of its relation to risk managemenIn particular, the lower standard of proof that applies in civil (as opposed to criminal) proceedings is appropriate, Professor Brown argues, because of its relation to risk managemenin civil (as opposed to criminal) proceedings is appropriate, Professor Brown argues, because of its relation to risk management.

The civil standard of proof applied in administrative proceedings is more appropriate because it treats corporate treasuries as no more worthy of protection than the health and safety of employees.

These were that ASBO proceedings are civil and hearsay evidence is admissible; and that despite this magistrates should nevertheless apply the criminal standard of proof to the requirements in CDA 1998, s 1 (1)(a).

Ok, so first of all, a person can be found to have committed the tort of sexual assault in a civil proceeding based on a different burden of proof than that in criminal proceedings: a balance of probabilities.

It is interesting to note that there was little differentiation between the standard of proof in criminal and civil proceedings until the 19th century.

As a consequence, the question at WCAT proceedings should have been whether the Board and the Hearing Officer erred in making the determination — the burden of proof lies with Maritime Paper to prove, on the civil standard, that «it was more likely than not that Mr. LeBlanc was not entitled to a PMI of 14 %» [see para. 26].

In regard to «best evidence rule» issues, admissibility of an electronically - produced record requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the ERMS in which the electronic record was recorded or stored, as stated in s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), or a provincial or territorial Evidence Act in civil proceedingIn regard to «best evidence rule» issues, admissibility of an electronically - produced record requires proof of the «systems integrity» of the ERMS in which the electronic record was recorded or stored, as stated in s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), or a provincial or territorial Evidence Act in civil proceedingin which the electronic record was recorded or stored, as stated in s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), or a provincial or territorial Evidence Act in civil proceedingin s. 31.2 (1)(a) of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), or a provincial or territorial Evidence Act in civil proceedingin civil proceedings.

The evolving jurisprudence on the standard of proof in the civil context indicates that an allegation of criminal conduct in civil proceedings is not sufficient in itself to require the criminal standard of proof.

Supporters of the SDT applying the civil standard would say these developments undermine the reasoning of the Divisional Court in Re A Solicitor and that there is no reason why the common law should grant solicitors facing disciplinary proceedings a more generous standard of proof than police officers or school children.

(i) A judge, acting under Article 45.0511, Code of Criminal Procedure, who elects to defer further proceedings and to place a defendant accused of a violation of Subsection (b) on probation under that article, in lieu of requiring the defendant to complete a driving safety course approved by the Texas Education Agency, shall require the defendant to attend and present proof that the defendant has successfully completed a specialized driving safety course approved by the Texas Education Agency under the Texas Driver and Traffic Safety Education Act (Article 4413 (29c), Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes) that includes four hours of instruction that encourages the use of child passenger safety seat systems and the wearing of seat belts and emphasizes:

301 («In all civil actions and proceedings... a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of risk of nonpersuasion.»In all civil actions and proceedings... a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of risk of nonpersuasion.»in the sense of risk of nonpersuasion.»)