Sentences with phrase «review of administrative decisions»

In Benslimane v. Gonzales, Posner writes, «This tension between judicial and administrative adjudicators is not due to judicial hostility to the nation's immigration policies or to a misconception of the proper standard of judicial review of administrative decisions.

A Legal - Empirical Analysis of Substantive Review of Administrative Decisions after Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick: Findings from the Courts of Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta» (2017) 30 Can.

Our litigation lawyers focus on assisting with applications for judicial review of administrative decisions and actions.

But with respect, I don't think this is a sufficient reason or justification for the courts to abdicate their responsibility for upholding the rule of law in the judicial review of administrative decisions entirely.

Koep & Partners specialises in general commercial and private law litigation and certain aspects of public law litigation, especially the review of administrative decisions.

HB 2239 amended Arizona Revised Statutes § 12 - 910, regarding the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions.

Late last year, the Supreme Court of Canada derided «fashionable» claims by applicants for judicial review that a correctness standard should apply in the review of administrative decisions.

The courts have always been zealous in preserving their supervisory jurisdiction by way of judicial review of administrative decision - making.

In the end, the court was ruling on a judicial review of an administrative decision, and did not see it as «appropriate in such a case to issue declarations that [religious] rights have been breached,» says Tucker.

Smith v. Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland2006 SLT 347 Outer House; Judicial Review of administrative decision re failure to fix a tribunal hearing within a mandatory time limit.

However, because Ktunaxa Nation is a judicial review of an administrative decision, the justificatory analysis occurs under an administrative law approach under the Doré framework where the standard of review is reasonableness.

Not exact matches

Administrative law — Application to Australian Competition Tribunal («Tribunal») under s 44K for review of Minister's decision to declare pursuant to s 44F — Review by Tribunal is re-consideration of the matter — Nature of review to be undertaken by Tribunal — Whether Tribunal could consider any material parties considered relreview of Minister's decision to declare pursuant to s 44F — Review by Tribunal is re-consideration of the matter — Nature of review to be undertaken by Tribunal — Whether Tribunal could consider any material parties considered relReview by Tribunal is re-consideration of the matter — Nature of review to be undertaken by Tribunal — Whether Tribunal could consider any material parties considered relreview to be undertaken by Tribunal — Whether Tribunal could consider any material parties considered relevant.

• School Expansion, Growth & Strategic Planning • State and Federal Employment Law • School Board and Nonprofit Governance • Administrative Law & Appeals of State and Federal Agency Decisions and Actions • Special Investigations & Legal / Compliance Audits • Policy Guidance and Development • Constitutional Challenges and Claims • School Employee and School Board Training • Litigation in Federal and State Courts • Administrative Hearings and Appeals Before State and Federal Agencies • Public Entity Purchasing and Procurement; Business Transactions; & Contract Negotiation, Review and Drafting • Construction Law, AIA Construction Contracts, Review and Drafting • Real Estate Transactions and Condemnation • Special Education under IDEA and Section 504 • Student Rights & Discipline Issues and Hearings • State and Federal Claims of Discrimination • State and Federal Civil Rights • Administrative Grievances and Hearings • False Claims Act / Qui Tam Defense for Local Government Entities

The General Attorney occupation covers professional legal positions involved in preparing cases for trial and / or the trial of cases before a court or an administrative body or persons having quasi-judicial power; rendering legal advice and services with respect to questions, regulations, practices, or other matters falling within the purview of a Federal Government agency (this may include conducting investigations to obtain evidentiary data); preparing interpretative and administrative orders, rules, or regulations to give effect to the provisions of governing statutes or other requirements of law; drafting, negotiating, or examining contracts or other legal documents required by the agency's activities; drafting, preparing formal comments, or otherwise making substantive recommendations with respect to proposed legislation; editing and preparing for publication statutes enacted by Congress, opinions or discussions of a court, commission, or board; drafting and reviewing decisions for consideration and adoption by agency officials.

Section 8 states: «Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.»

I have tried going back to school to finish my degree, but I may not be awarded the remainder of my federal loan allowance for the next semester depending on what the decision is from the Administrative Review.

In addition to these administrative mechanisms, a patient may turn to the courts for judicial review of either the substantive decision (i.e. the decision to cover (or not) a particular medical service) or the process used to make that decision.

Administrative appeals ask a court or other reviewing body to overturn, alter, or delay the legal effect of an underlying administrative decision, such as the decision of a local zoning or planning authority, the decision of a state environmental agency on a permit application, or an administrative agency's enforcement order alleging a regulatAdministrative appeals ask a court or other reviewing body to overturn, alter, or delay the legal effect of an underlying administrative decision, such as the decision of a local zoning or planning authority, the decision of a state environmental agency on a permit application, or an administrative agency's enforcement order alleging a regulatadministrative decision, such as the decision of a local zoning or planning authority, the decision of a state environmental agency on a permit application, or an administrative agency's enforcement order alleging a regulatadministrative agency's enforcement order alleging a regulatory violation.

For example, if Law A says that courts may review all administrative tribunal decisions on questions of fact and law, and Law B says that in the context of Tribunal X, a court may only review a decision on questions of law, Law B will clearly prevail as the more specific statute.

We also represent employers before all levels of courts in wrongful dismissal actions, occupational health and safety matters, judicial reviews of decisions made by administrative tribunals and to obtain injunctive relief.

As a refresher, Dunsmuir held that certain presumptions will point to the applicable standard of review; the level of deference afforded to statutory administrative decision - makers.

Specifically, the deferential review of reasonableness will follow where an administrative decision - maker interprets its own home statute.

I am satisfied that the statutory review of the decision to segregate is procedurally unfair and contrary to the principles of fundamental justice because the procedure chosen provides that the Institutional Head is the final decision maker for admission, maintenance and release from administrative segregation and is the final institutional decision - maker of required reviews and hearings which occur immediately after an inmate is segregated.

The Supreme Court of Canada has been feverishly productive in the field of administrative law since the Fall of 2011, rendering decisions on standard of review (questions of law, jurisdictional error and labour arbitrators), the right to reasons, issue estoppel, attempts to pre-empt the administrative decision - making process, and review of municipal by - laws.

This point goes to a tension in Doré between the duty of administrative decision - makers to consider Charter values and the role of a reviewing court which has to assess the reasonableness of the resulting decision and whether a proportionate balance was reached.

The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference, confounding tests and new words for old problems, but no solutions that provide real guidance for litigants, counsel, administrative decision makers or judicial review judges.

The appeal concerned two social welfare cases for which the Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity had applied for a review of decisions rendered by the Administrative Tribunal of Québec, and presented motions for review that had been prepared, drawn up, signed and filed by someone who was not a member of the bar.

Administrative law as a practice area sometimes gets a bad rap for being comprised of Byzantine rules of procedure (often completely unique to the specific tribunal in question), frustrating decision makers, and shifting standards of review.

The Court decided that (a) the process of surcharging by administrative bodies engaged the criminal part of Article 6 and (b) the Austrian courts hearing appeals against the surcharges did not have the jurisdiction to carry out a «full review» of the decision to surcharge; only that way could one turn the combination of administrative decision and court decision into a decision by a «tribunal» complying with Article 6.

Our lawyers have acted for architects, engineers, lawyers, dentists, and accountants in professional errors and omissions claims, advised clients before professional regulatory bodies, acted for professional administrative bodies, provided advice regarding investigations conducted by administrative authorities, and have acted in judicial reviews of decisions made by professional regulatory bodies.

The primary issue in substantive judicial review should always be what is the nature of the question decided by the administrative decision - maker and who as between the judiciary and the executive or its delegates is best - suited to have the final say in answering it.

Again, Anisminic is sometimes taken as authority for the proposition that unlawful administrative decisions are nullities, that they never existed in the eyes of the law, with the corollary that judges should not have any discretion to refuse judicial review remedies.

My comments start from three propositions which are rooted in constitutional theory: (1) absent constitutional objection, legislation binds; (2) administrative decision - makers enabled by statute can only go so far as their home statute allows (3) it is a court's job, on any standard of review, to enforce those boundaries; in American terminology, to «say what the law is» (Marbury v Madison; Edmonton East, at para 21).

Their reformulated reasonableness standard retains key features of its predecessors: (i) applicability to questions that lend themselves to more than one answer; and (ii) judicial review limited to an assessment of the administrative decision - maker's reasons on the basis of its justification, transparency, and legitimacy.

First, the demise of the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional error of law, along with the eradication in Ridge v Baldwin of the distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative decisions, paved the way for the development of a unified set of principles — of legality, rationality and procedural propriety — of judicial review of administrative action.

In his dissenting opinion joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed doubt that «Congress intended administrative preclusion to apply to TTAB findings of fact in a subsequent trademark infringement suit,» based on the history of administrative preclusion and both the express language and «several features» of the Lanham Act, including that the Act confers limited authority on the TTAB and provides for judicial review of the Board's decisions.

Sometimes there are provisions in statutes which try to prevent a court from reviewing the decision of an administrative body.

These findings on standard of review are not only consistent with the overall trend in existing jurisprudence concerning the judicial review of FOIP decisions, but are also consistent with the trend towards reasonableness as the standard of review generally in substantive judicial review of statutory interpretation by administrative decision - makers.

The first step in substantive judicial review under Canadian administrative law is to identify the standard of review applicable to the question or questions in the impugned statutory decision.

Such is life for judges reviewing the substance of administrative decisions.

Runchey v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. 2013 FCA 16 Administrative Law — Judicial review — General — Scope or standard of review A Review Tribunal upheld a decision by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to allow the application of Runchey's ex-spouse for a division of pension credits under the Canada Pension Plan (the review — General — Scope or standard of review A Review Tribunal upheld a decision by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to allow the application of Runchey's ex-spouse for a division of pension credits under the Canada Pension Plan (the review A Review Tribunal upheld a decision by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to allow the application of Runchey's ex-spouse for a division of pension credits under the Canada Pension Plan (the Review Tribunal upheld a decision by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to allow the application of Runchey's ex-spouse for a division of pension credits under the Canada Pension Plan (the Plan).

The Court of Appeal also addressed the issue of whether a privative clause that on its face purports to insulate all aspects of an administrative decision from judicial review does, in fact, oust the jurisdiction of the court.

Looking beyond that headline, however, the decision signals a balance between the federal courts» traditional role in patent litigation, including ruling on the validity and unenforceability of issued patents, and the PTAB's administrative role in reviewing challenged patents.

There are interesting and useful things in there about the standard of review on procedural fairness where an administrative tribunal is reconsidering a decision, and about the interaction between decisions of the Provincial Court and administrative tribunals.

Pearl reviews funding decisions, as an Independent Financial Adjudicator and Cost Assessor, in immigration and family appeals to the Tribunal, Administrative Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

In administration law, has argued cases involving judicial review and declarations of nullity of administrative decisions and executive orders - in - council.

TOMEE SOJOURNER v. CONSEIL DE LA JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE et al Judicial Bias based on Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nature: Hearing on a Rental Board Judge's application to quash a Superior Court decision rendered in favor of an English - speaking Black lesbian, who had applied for judicial review of an earlier Administrative Judicial Council decision regarding her complaint agaiADMINISTRATIVE et al Judicial Bias based on Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nature: Hearing on a Rental Board Judge's application to quash a Superior Court decision rendered in favor of an English - speaking Black lesbian, who had applied for judicial review of an earlier Administrative Judicial Council decision regarding her complaint agaiAdministrative Judicial Council decision regarding her complaint against the Judge.

The job of the court is to review the administrative proceedings to ensure that the agency proceeded in accordance with the law, that the employee received a fair trial with the agency, and that the agency's decision is supported by the evidence and findings.

It is telling that, despite the emphasis on the categorical approach, the Court apparently has regard to the nature of the question that was before the administrative decision maker when determining how intrusive the standard of review ought to be.

65 ILCS 5 / 11-13-25 Any special use, variance, rezoning, or other amendment to a zoning ordinance adopted by the corporate authorities of any municipality, home rule or non-home rule, shall be subject to de novo judicial review as a legislative decision, regardless of whether the process of its adoption is considered administrative for other purposes.