Sentences with phrase «review standard approaches»

Not exact matches

Although subsequent administrations have continued reviewing vertical mergers, the Chicago School's view that these deals generally do not pose threats to competition has remained dominant.139 Rejection of vertical tie - ups — standard through the 1960s and 1970s — is extremely rare today; 140 in instances where agencies spot potential harm, they tend to impose conduct remedies or require divestitures rather than block the deal outright.141 The Obama Administration took this approach with two of the largest vertical deals of the last decade: Comcast / NBC and Ticketmaster / LiveNation.

The only other comment I'd have is that whilst he meets a much higher standard of scientific approach than the snake oil dressed as financial advice elsewhere, the core testing methods used are opaque and (as far as I can tell) not peer reviewed or made available for scrutiny.

During this process, I learned that the scientific standards for peer review (on the one hand) and patenting (on the other) were different, and that the two writing tasks — a scientific paper and a patent application — required different approaches.

This approach was supplemented by a review of eLearning modules external to the firm to identify techniques and standards we would need to include in the guidelines.

Reviewing approaches to psychosocial support work in international humanitarian assistance, Zaveri (2011) found that a lack of consensus on what should be included delayed the insertion of standards on mental health and psycho - social support in the earliest Sphere Handbooks published in 1998 and 2000.

To address this challenge, we are planning an innovative approach to standard - setting that will take advantage of our online testing platform to allow the participation of as many constituents as interested to review exemplar test items and weigh in on where they think the «cut scores» should be set.

In a different approach to examining standards, McGill - Franzen and Ward (1997) first reviewed documents to determine the fit between New York State Language Arts and Social Studies frameworks with national standards.

Common Core and Literacy Strategies: English Language Arts, 2nd Edition — In this course, educators explore the CCSS approach to literacy, with a new emphasis on critical thinking skills in science supplemented by video examples and in - depth readings, and review downloadable applications that will help them develop methods for putting the standards to work in the classroom.

Most teacher evaluation systems have been designed to assess individuals, but the collaborative culture envisioned by the new core teaching standards (and by the administration's reauthorization blueprint, for that matter) will require us to explore a next - generation, team - based approach to performance review.

35/24 Highway / City MPG ** http://www.kbbreport.com/wttcu Reviews: * Generous number of standard features; balanced approach to ride quality and handling ability.

I developed this approach after buying a number of very popular books at high prices from the big publishing houses and feeling it was like The Emperor's New Clothes — the books were horrible by standards of literature, but had impossibly great reviews.

I think you're really right about the fact that there are two approaches to reviewing something: how a game made you feel personally versus how the game stacks up against «standard criteria.»

The corruption in the peer reviewing process is simple to see through, especially if you don't dogmatically adhere to it, but this is the key: The Peer Review Process is institutionalised in the education system and becomes a standard method of approaching the gathering of data and the formation of subsequent hypotheses.

That is why I address them directly as we are looking for relief from those standards the same way any exception to the standards is approached, which, by the way, is something that happens across the code in every code review cycle.

If EPA wants to pursue the regulation of GHGs despite the weak scientific basis for it, there is an evident need for a whole new approach based on truly independent and careful review of the problem using the highest standards of scientific intergrity which does not rely on what appears to be biased research and sloppy data from CRU et al..

Moreover, the standard of review is not so intense that courts must explore whether governments could choose or have chosen different approaches to high political issues such as centralisation, redistribution and liberty.

Indeed, in Ontario, one of the recommendations made by the government panel that reviewed the provincial health and safety system in 2010, after the accident involving Metron Construction, was for there to be a consistent approach of tough enforcement for serious and wilful violations of health and safety standards.

Binnie J. calls for a collapse of the two step approach (select the standard of review and then apply it) such that the 4 pragmatic and functional factors (privative clause / statutory right of appeal; relative expertise; purpose of the statutory scheme; nature of the question) are applied to assess the level of deference within a reasonableness review.

The Court's rhetoric suggests the categorical approach, but a more close analysis suggests that the standard of review analysis factors, or some variant thereon, are the real motor.

This session will take a practical approach to contracts and drafting, including a review of the common elements of a written contract, typical clauses you are likely to encounter, the pros and cons of boilerplate and standard forms, jurisdictional issues, and other situations where your drafting skills may be put to good use.

Litigants and litigators are likely to become more confused in the future than they ever were by the standard of review analysis: at least the categorical approach's predecessor comprised four fixed factors.

If one were — perhaps mischievously — to judge the Supreme Court's recent decisions on standard of review by reference to the virtues of justification, intelligibility, and transparency, one would have to conclude that the flaws in the Dunsmuir approach cause the Court to come up short.

In other words, while Justices LeBel and Cromwell purported to apply the categorical approach, [60] the real drivers of the choice of standard of review were the much - maligned standard of review analysis factors.

This case again exposes the categorical approach's inability to identify the appropriate standard of review where there is conflict between categories.

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.

These important concerns about clarity and balkanization notwithstanding, the central point is that, in determining the standard of review, the work was not done by the categorical approach, but by factors external to it.

Such a review would entail: (1) the gathering of feedback pertaining to TD issues from selected law firm leaders and representatives at all levels; (2) commissioning a report on TD performance based on the feedback collected; and (3) analyzing that feedback to identify areas of success and areas for growth, followed by implementation of cutting - edge approaches meant to meet or exceed industry standards.

Our proven process, metric - driven approach, and specific standards result in document review accuracy, predictable results, and cost containment.

Despite Bastarache and LeBel JJ's description of the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors (and the courts approach to determining which category a given error fell into) as «formalistic» and «artificial» (at [43]-RRB-, the way this distinction has developed in Australian law in recent decades in fact shares much in common with the standard of review analysis described in Dunsmuir.

In Edmonton (City) v Edmonton East (Capilano) Shopping Centres Ltd., [5] the majority (5/4) affirmed its allegiance to the categorical approach while summarily snubbing contextualism for generating «uncertainty and endless litigation concerning the standard of review.»

Concern for the rule of law is leading some Supreme Court Justices to push back against the presumption of deference and return to more of a «functional and pragmatic» approach to standard of review.

They are careful to distance themselves from a full return to the pragmatic and functional approach by stating that a full contextual standard of review analysis need not be conducted in every single case, however there isn't much context left unturned in their analysis here regarding this question and this decision maker, and for the most part Justices Côté and Brown only pay lip service to the Dunsmuir approach.

Indeed, the dissenting opinion reads very much like the old «pragmatic and functional approach» to standard of review analysis — you know — the approach that Dunsmuir was supposed to sweep out the back door because it was too mechanical and repetitive.

Irritated because on standard of review the Court seems literally incapable of a consistent and practical approach, while on solicitor - client privilege the Court has been so consistent that it risks fetishizing the significance of solicitor - client confidentiality to the point of jeopardizing other important legal interests.

In the Alberta Court of Appeal (see my comment), Slatter J.A. had insisted that a «mechanical and formalistic» approach to judicial review was inappropriate, preferring to identify several contextual factors that justified the application of a correctness standard.

Stratas J.A. has pointed to a range of factors that may help provide the basis for a more «nuanced» approach to the choice of standard of review as well as strong arguments against an overall presumption of reasonableness: David Stratas, «The Canadian Law of Judicial Review: Some Doctrine and Cases» (October 2017), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=29review as well as strong arguments against an overall presumption of reasonableness: David Stratas, «The Canadian Law of Judicial Review: Some Doctrine and Cases» (October 2017), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=29Review: Some Doctrine and Cases» (October 2017), available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2924049.

[26] By 2003, the pragmatic and functional approach featured four factors (noted above) and three distinct standards of review: correctness, reasonableness simpliciter and patent unreasonableness.

Correctness was the appropriate standard based on a contextual approach: «An approach to the standard of review analysis that relies exclusively on categories and eschews any role for context risks introducing the vice of formalism into the law of judicial review...» (at para. 70).

Karakatsanis J. took a firm line on the primacy of the categorical approach that has emerged post Dunsmuir: «The contextual approach can generate uncertainty and endless litigation concerning the standard of review» (at para. 35).

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.

In recent years, the Supreme Court of Canada has refined its approach to appellate standards of review by... [more]

The Commissioner has made submissions on the «General Guidelines - Native Title Determinations and Agreements» proposed by the Review, advising that the «process approach» promoted by the Review takes place under the provisions of the Native Title Act 1993 which fails to meet minimum human rights standards.

Review the Infant Toddler Guidelines to strengthen the foundational skills relative to approaches to learning and aligned to the Pre-Kindergarten standards.

This simple approach allows the use of standard software (including Review Manager 2014), and prevents the inappropriate double - counting of individuals.