Sentences with phrase «reasonable standard of conduct»

«Chopra's behaviour fell below any reasonable standard of conduct.

That said, an employer is entitled to expect a reasonable standard of conduct of its employees and if those who are in a relationship demonstrate conduct that falls below such acceptable standards, then disciplinary action ought to follow.

Not exact matches

There were no clear explanations for why they could not sign a fiduciary contract and agree to standards of impartial conduct or agree to charge reasonable fees.

Abby Eagle School of Meditation will take reasonable steps to ensure that the personal information it collects, uses or discloses is accurate, complete and up to date in order to effectively conduct its standard business activities.

At trial the judge ruled that although the inspector had conducted the inspection in a professional, thorough and conscientious manner, he had still fallen short of meeting the standard of care that was expected of him — that of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent home inspector in the same circumstances.

The standard of care expected of employers in discharge of their duty is well established and in Stokes v GKN [1968] Mr Justice Swanwick set out the «overall test» for «the conduct of the reasonable and prudent employer.»

The criminal defendant could also sue the defense attorney for malpractice, but would only prevail if the criminal defendant could show the economic harm that resulted from the conviction and that the defense attorneys» conduct fell below the standard of care for a reasonable defense attorney.

[39] It would seem, therefore, that amounts disbursed for Quicklaw services, courier services, stationary and postage may be recoverable under Tariff item 35 if the service or expense is «reasonably necessary for the conduct of the proceeding», the amount is reasonable and has been charged to the client, and the disbursement does not fall within standard office overhead.

In the case of R. v. Roy, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the trial judge erred in law by inferring from the fact that Roy had committed a dangerous act while driving that his conduct displayed a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances.

AIDWYC argues that the requirement that the applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Minster that there «may be a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred» puts the applicant in a catch 22 situation, in that «it is almost inconceivable that an unrepresented applicant, from his prison cell, could meet any such standard prior to some form of investigation (however modest) being conducted.»

That is, defendant acted in a way that fell below the standard of reasonable conduct.

While accepting that the standard for an employer's investigation of a harassment complaint is not perfection, the Tribunal found that the company did not satisfy the second part of the Marineland test, in that the company did not take the complaint seriously, did not deal with the complaint promptly, did not take care of its employees, did not demonstrate sensitivity to the concerns of the applicant, and generally did not conduct a reasonable investigation.

Further, «conduct meriting punitive damages awards must be «harsh, vindictive, reprehensible and malicious», as well as «extreme in its nature and such that by any reasonable standard it is deserving of full condemnation and punishment»: Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39 at para. 68.

Applicants would submit applications and claims meeting particular standards that were reasonable and not onerous and Examiner's who were experts in their technical specialty would conduct a reasonably thorough seach in a reasonable amount of time.

Although factually, the Stephan case seems to «fit» the kind of conduct prosecuted under section 215, the emphasis must not be on the tragic outcome but on whether the conduct was a «marked departure» from the reasonable parent standard.

``... before there can be a finding of dishonesty it must be established that the defendant's conduct was dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people and that he himself realised that by those standards his conduct was dishonest.»

breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person),

This happens when a standard of care ceases to represent a standard of conduct that reasonable people should meet and becomes instead a means of fixing liability on an individual.

The test of dishonesty for a jury was the well - established test articulated by Lord Lane in R v Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689, namely whether a jury would consider the conduct in question as dishonest «according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people»; and, if so, whether the proposed defendant «must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest».

Under the general principles of common law, if you hire an appraiser, and there is no contractual or statutory waiver of a right to sue, you would have to show that (1) there is the standard of professional conduct applicable to the appraisal profession in preparing the appraisal that requires the use of the best available comparables (probably with an expert witness certified as an appraiser), (2) the appraiser in this case engaged in conduct that breached the standard of professional conduct applicable to appraisers, (3) this breach caused you harm that was reasonable foreseeable at the time the appraisal was prepared, and (4) that you suffered quantifiable damages that were foreseeably caused by this breach of duty.

(i) Whether in its judgment the conduct complained of was dishonest by the lay objective standards of ordinary reasonable and honest people; (if the answer to that was no, the defendant would be acquitted)

It sets the same standard — a court may shift fees if it's found that the non-prevailing party's position or conduct was not objectively reasonable — but it shifts the burden of proof to the winner.

By comparison, negligent conduct results from a deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person is expect to exercise.

Negligent conduct results from a deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person is expected to exercise.

At trial the judge ruled that although the inspector had conducted the inspection in a professional, thorough and conscientious manner, he had still fallen short of meeting the standard of care that was expected of him — that of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent home inspector in the same circumstances.