Sentences with phrase «reviewing judge»

The appellate court reviewed the judge's decision on this issue under an abuse of discretion standard.

Such a problem could be corrected by reviewing judges, provided they are willing to scrutinize the basis for the degree of deference claimed by the Crown; however, few lawyers or judges are sufficiently familiar with this area to even realize there is a problem.

In reviewing the judge's interventions, the C.A. provided transcript excerpts and noted that the judge «asked questions which were helpful to the Crown, other questions which directly challenged the credibility of the appellant, and still others regarding an offence (another robbery) committed by Anderson while the appellant watched» (para. 22).

If a justice... makes an order under subsection 515 (2), (5), (6), (7), (8) or (12) or makes or vacates any order under paragraph 523 (2)(b), the accused may, at any time before the trial of the charge, apply to a judge for a review

The Manhattan Housing Court's advisory council, which reviews its judges after each four - year term, recently ruled that jurist Susan Avery should get the boot — as it catalogued years of complaints against her, sources said.

Blocher observes that football mirrors the legal world in that standards of review «insulate factfinders» decisions from being overturned on appeal, even when reviewing judges disagree with them.»

A Notice of Appeal puts the judge and the Arizona Court of Appeals on notice that a party intends to have the Arizona Court of Appeals review the judges orders and decisions in hopes some decisions can be set aside by the Arizona Court of Appeals.

«We are currently reviewing the judge's decision and considering our options,» Malliotakis and Savino said in a statement provided to the Staten Island Advance.

The Advisory Board will review the judge applications and select the judges we feel best understand the vision of the INSPYs.

The Bull Terrier Club Committee reviews the Judges list in November every year.

Today, I'm reviewing Judge Dredd for the Sega Genesis and Demolition Man for Genesis and Sega CD.»

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.

In Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v. Kevin Antic, the Supreme Court allowed the Crown's appeal and affirmed s. 515 (2) of the code, which a bail review judge of the Superior Court of Justice had struck down as unconstitutional.

[94] In his concurring reasons in Alberta Teachers» Association, [95] Justice Binnie suggested that varying standards of reasonableness are appropriate, based on his observation that ««[r] easonableness» is a deceptively simple omnibus term which gives reviewing judges a broad discretion to choose from a variety of levels of scrutiny from the relatively intense to the not so intense.»

The death sentence was upheld by Arizona state courts and a federal trial court, but when the case reached the U.S. Appellate Court for the Ninth Circuit, the judges sided with Hurles 2 to 1, remanding the case to a lower court to review Judge Hilliard's actions and determine if she presided over the case fairly.

Although H5 was not a party to that lawsuit, H5 has reviewed Judge Kaplan's extensive findings.

It strikes down the right of the Workers» Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT) to reconsider its own decisions on the basis of jurisdictional error, and it potentially broadens the scope of judicial review, to permit reviewing judges to re-weigh the evidence that was before the tribunal.

The Federal Reserve Board is «reviewing the judge's opinion,» according to spokeswoman Barbara Hagenbaugh.

The league said that it would review the judge's decision as it related to Peterson's reinstatement and later issued a statement that it would appeal the ruling (via Albert Breer of NFL Network):

UPDATE: Senate GOP spokesman Scott Reif said: «We will review the judge's decision, but regardless of the final outcome of this lawsuit Republicans will expand our majority in the Senate next year.»

A spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service said the agency was reviewing the judge's decision.

Jennifer Canada, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Roy Cooper, said his office would review the judge's written order before deciding whether to appeal.

In every review we judge credit cards against other available options.

In every review we judge credit cards against other available options.

The Judge addressed the specific issues that arise when dealing with a decision based in part on scientific assessments which involve a predictive element and held that the Reviewing Judge had been inappropriate in entering into his own analysis of the reliability of the scientific evidence before him.

if the reviewing judge chose the correct standard, the Court of Appeal's task is to determine whether or not he / she applied the standard properly (which, for the Court of Appeal, is a question of law, reviewable on the standard of correctness).

On February 1, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its opinion in R v Paryniuk, 2017 ONCA 87 affirming the residual discretion of a reviewing judge on an evidence exclusion motion to vitiate a warrant to protect the integrity...

At first instance, the Reviewing Judge held that the decision to impose catch limits by the Agency were irrational in based on established Public Law principals and that, in the absence of compensation, they unlawfully interfered with Mr Mott's right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights («A1P1»).

if the reviewing judge failed to select and apply the correct standard, the Court of Appeal must review the Chief Commissioner's decision in light of the correct standard; and

Citing Walsh v. Mobil, 2008 ABCA 268 (CanLII) at 43, the Court of Appeal noted its role involved determining whether the reviewing judge's decision (in this case the decision of Topolniski J.C.Q.B.A. with respect to the Chief Commissioner's decision) chose and applied the correct standard of review.

On February 1, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its opinion in R v Paryniuk, 2017 ONCA 87 affirming the residual discretion of a reviewing judge on an evidence exclusion motion to vitiate a warrant to protect the integrity of the prior authorization process.

The leading case is R v Morris, 1998 NSCA 229 where Justice Thomas Cromwell held, at paras. 34 - 5 and 43, that Garofoli does not foreclose a reviewing judge from considering whether the conduct of the police in seeking a warrant was so subversive of the process that the warrant must be set aside to «protect the process and the preventive function it serves».

Criticism was made of the limited extent to which the Reviewing Judge had been taken through some of the technical documentation relied upon by the Agency resulting in him having to make «an educated guess» on a number of matters.

LJ Beatson concluded that «in so doing he fell into error and strayed beyond what is proper for a reviewing judge dealing with complex scientific material.»

LJ Beatson found that this took no account of the concept of a de facto expropriation and agreed with the Reviewing Judge on this point.

The record does not indicate that the reviewing judge was provided any evidence on caches.

If consent is granted, the lawyers don't need to show up barring any concerns by the reviewing judge.

The ABCA agreed with the reviewing judge who noted that there was nothing «to suggest that alcohol and drug use within the bargaining unit differed in some meaningful way from that in the broader workforce» (para. 48).

The ABCA concurred with the reviewing judge that the Majority Panel's decision was unreasonable in this regard.

The reviewing judge quashed the decision and sent it back for review by the arbitration panel.

Not surprisingly it confirmed that the deferential reasonableness standard was appropriate: «The reviewing court will quash the order only if, having regard to the record before the issuing judge, as augmented by evidence before the reviewing judge, no judge acting reasonably could have concluded that the order should be made.»

A spokesman for one defendant, Reynolds American, stated that the company was «reviewing the judge's ruling and considering next steps,» but tobacco industry analysts are confident that the tobacco companies will «appeal absolutely everything.»

The reviewing judge set aside the Tribunal's decision, finding that there was no discrimination and it was not necessary to rule on the question of remedies.

In deciding which standard to apply, the reviewing judge will also consider whether the nature of the question before it is one of fact or law.