Sentences with phrase «question of the admissibility»

When the second panel was struck the same question of admissibility came up and the new panel made a unanimous decision of three to admit.

· The correct judicial response to the question of the admissibility of hearsay evidence in an expert opinion is not to withdraw the evidence from the trier of fact unless, of course, there are some other factors at play such that it will be prejudicial to one party, but rather to address the weight of the opinion and the reliability of the hearsay in an appropriate self - instruction or instruction to a jury.

There is nothing in these Rules touching directly on the question of the admissibility of hearsay evidence in expert reports.

Paonessa and Paquette, [1982] O.J. No. 3209 (C.A.): 1 JESSUP J.A.: — This appeal raises the question of the admissibility of evidence given by an accused at a show cause bail hearing...... 20 In my view, the same principle should govern here.

The question of the admissibility of such recordings is likely to be more [Read More]

Relevance and admissibility Frequently, Hearing Panels are asked to rule on questions of admissibility and relevancy.

Not exact matches

However, Y. C. Maikyau, SAN, counsel to Abubakar Aliyu, questioned the admissibility of the documents by the court.

[1] Beyond the topic of this post, the Court also rejected a challenge to the admissibility of the question.

Before answering the substantive competition law question in the Allianz case, the Court first addresses its jurisdiction as well as the admissibility of the preliminary reference.

The Court's reasoning leading to the admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling is more interesting, as it relates to the amount of information the Court needs to answer the preliminary questions.

As R. v. B. (K.G.)[1993 CarswellOnt 76 (S.C.C.)-RSB- holds, at para. 121, the test for admissibility does not apply to the question of whether cross-examination should be permitted on a prior inconsistent statement:

The second judgment of the ECJ in Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami thus raises several questions: to what extent is the economy of the procedure indeed a valid justification for skipping a (n explicit) review of the fulfilment of the admissibility requirements?

The court decided to review Issues 2, 3, 5 and 6 on a «deferential standard of reasonableness,» but applied correctness to Issues 1 and 4: «While I acknowledge that in the administrative law context a tribunal may develop its own procedures as to admissibility without the recognized strictures found in the judicial rules of evidence, whereas issues # 1 and # 4 principally involve specific questions of law and concurrent issues involving breaches of natural justice or procedural fairness, I will apply a standard of correctness.

[40] From these authorities, I would summarize the law on this question as to the admissibility of expert reports containing hearsay evidence as follows:

It appears that there are no reported cases involving challenges to the admissibility of such evidence, and this was the first time the question had come before the High Court.

In the judge's view, however, these were all matters that went to the question of what weight should be given to the contents of the report, not to admissibility.

Judge Weisberg then certified the following question of law to the Circuit Court: «whether the District of Columbia should adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (or a revised Frye standard) for the admissibility of expert evidence.»

In this video blog, I look at the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Khan, 2017 ONCA 114, and the division in the Court regarding how best to approach questions of evidentiary admissibility.

[119]... From the evidence on the record, the question of Galloway's admissibility was never an issue of national security.

I didn't check through the other instances of Kusk cites at the appellate level to see if any of them involve this sort of issue or at the trial level to see if they're reports of trial judge's ruling on the (in) admissibility of this type of question.

Responsibilities include questioning parties, issuing subpoenas for production of witnesses and documents, holding conferences, ruling on objections and evidence admissibility, receiving exhibits, assessing witness credibility, and maintaining an atmosphere of fairness, impartiality, and due process under the law.