Sentences with phrase «rules of evidence when»

It considers both common law and statutory provisions relating to the rules of evidence, and provides practical suggestions for applying the rules of evidence when appearing before administrative tribunals.

So there's different rules of evidence when it comes to producing social media evidence in BC versus in say, Saskatchewan or Ontario or Quebec.

Not exact matches

As evidenced by recent events, there appear to be plenty of job openings for mayors who ignore the rules and then refuse to admit any wrongdoing when caught.

It is best understood when scholars apply to it the same rules of analysis, evidence and logic used in philosophy, history and literature.

Plenty of evidence is in on this point: when a ruling elite decides to destroy a group of people in a society, most of the people who are not targeted will not resist, whatever their religious affiliation.

Examples are 9/11 hijackings, The holding back of stem cell research that could save countless human lives, Aids being spread due to religious opposition to the use of condoms, Christians legally fighting this year to teach over 1 million young girls in America that they must always be obedient to men, the eroding of child protection laws in America by Christians, for so called faith based healing alternatives that place children's health and safety at risk, burning of witches, the crusades, The Nazi belief that the Aryans were god's chosen to rule the world, etc... But who cares about evidence in the real world when we have our imaginations and delusions about gods with no evidence of them existing.

You have yet to produce a shred of evidence that an HOA can't enforce its rules when the residents who live there had to agree to those rules before they bought the property.

... and this is why this country is so backwards and falling behind the rest of the post-industrial countries... and why is it that these... nuts... will use rules of evidence and «science» to back claims of biblical proof... but reject the same critria when it is used against them?

Atheists keep trying to apply scientifc rules of evidence where they don't belong — to matters of human affairs — yet are perfectly content to throw away the same rules when it suits their purposes (e.g., evolution).

Earlier this week a judge ruled that a veil - wearing woman could be forced to remove the veil in front of himself and the jury when giving evidence, but that she could remain covered for the rest of the trial.

Former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver took a beating in court Friday when a Manhattan judge ruled that piles of potentially incriminating evidence could be shown to the jury at his...

School disciplinary boards can consider evidence of prior misconduct when they determine the appropriate punishment for serious student offenses, a federal appeals court ruled late last month.

New Orleans provides evidence that charter schools can maintain superior performance even when they are subject to many of the same rules as district schools.

Thanks to «the slayer rule», when you're «south of heaven» and your life insurance beneficiary is the one who put you there, most states show no mercy if there's a preponderance of evidence against the person trying to claim the death benefit.

Where the FTC missed the target was when they said the new rules did not apply to secured debt because they felt «There is no evidence in the record of deceptive or abusive practices in the promotion of services for the relief of non-mortgage secured debt» but they appear to have missed the recent influx of auto loan modification companies that are springing up.

Until the 1st of July 1997, when it reverted to Chinese rule, Hong Kong was a colony of Britain, so there is plenty of evidence of westernisation in Hong Kong.

When cases involving self - represented litigants do reach trial, they tend to require more adjournments and take longer to resolve as a result of self - represented litigants» unfamiliarity with the rules of court, the rules of evidence and the law that applies to their cases, and the results self - represented litigants achieve tend to be worse than the results they would have achieved had they had counsel.

It is difficult to imagine how public confidence can be maintained in the rule of law when police officers present false evidence against accused person... [o] ur justice system can not function unless courts can rely on the willingness of witnesses to... tell the truth.

The Court went on to find that, despite the lack of a proper objection, the Court retains «an overriding discretion to admit opinion evidence when the rules have not been followed, or refuse to admit it when there has been compliance.»

(3) In the case where an immediate appeal against a ruling has been lodged, and only when there is prima facie evidence showing that there are circumstances that will cause the revocation of the protection order, an appellate court may order, upon a petition, the suspension of the validity of the protection order until the judgment on the immediate appeal against a ruling has come into effect.

When there are multiple defendants in a case, the rules of civil procedure require a process that is governed by rules of evidence and the rules of civil procedure.

Therefore, the best evidence rule does not typically come up when photocopies of a document are used in court, unless one of the parties suspects that the copies have been altered through fraud or by mistake.

The judge is super-lenient when it comes to the rules of evidence and objections.

It provides the necessary means of determining when an e-records management system has the necessary «system integrity» required by the admissibility rule that your ULCC working group wrote into the electronic records provisions of the Evidence Acts.

Experts who are novices at testifying will feel much more comfortable after an overview of how trials proceed, some basics of the rules of evidence, and what to expect when they are called to testify.

I don't see in this story any concern about the hearsay nature of the evidence — like that of any website, pretty well, surely — though that might depend on the use being made of it (i.e. the usual rules about what hearsay is and when it might be used anyway would apply.)

When the decision in the CIBC and the companion cases was issued several months later, the rulings of Justice Suzanne Côté and Justice Andromache Karakatsanis both agreed that Theratechnologies explained the threshold for what plaintiffs must show — a plausible analysis of the applicable legislative provisions and some credible evidence in support of the claim.

In another case earlier this month, a man was found not guilty of having care or control of a vehicle while impaired by a drug when Justice Scott Latimer threw out the evidence after ruling that police had violated his Charter rights.

It most often comes up when one of the parties challenges the admission of the evidence under the best evidence rule.

On September 16, 2016, after an eight year legal harangue, he was finally acquitted of drug and firearm charges when Justice M.G.J. Quigley of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted an evidence exclusion motion in a ruling reported as R v Ohenhen, 2016 ONSC 5782.

Having regard to Mr. Watterson's obvious lack of knowledge of his procedural rights [emphasis mine], it was incumbent on the trial judge to ensure that the procedural rules were followed or, when they were not, to advise Mr. Watterson of his right to object and request an adjournment for the purpose of meeting the evidence that was to be called against the defendants.

When they do proceed to trial, their lack of knowledge of the governing legislation, the rules of evidence, the rules of court and court processes frequently causes additional problems and increases the length of trials and the number of adjournments.

Since in references for a preliminary ruling the determinations of national courts will generally be accepted by the CJEU, and a request to intervene in a preliminary ruling procedure to submit observations on third country law is not possible, there is a risk that a judgment in such a case could be based on an insufficient evaluation of third country law, such as when the evidence concerning such law is uncontested and is presented only by a single party.

Federal Rule of Evidence 502 provides that when the inadvertent disclosure occurs in a federal setting, the disclosure does not waive the privilege if: «the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and... the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (b)(5)(B).»

For example, when talking about if — then statements in conditional logic he asks you to think of it in terms of the rules of evidence:

(Order, p. 2) As the court notes in its summary of the order, an acquittal can issue either when a jury returns a not - guilty verdict, or «when a trial court grants a defendant's new trial motion for evidentiary insufficiency... or dismisses a case... for evidentiary insufficiency» (Id., pp. 2 — 3) The essence of the court's decision is in two parts: (1) The new trial motion should not have been granted because there was sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Stern on counts of conspiracy; and (2) Because the trial court did not rule on the majority of the issues raised in Stern's motion for a new trial, those issues have yet to be decided, and should be addressed on remand by the court of appeals.

After a 6 - day trial, Judge Patrick F. Brady agreed and ruled that the Department of Corrections and its medical contractor had failed to provide Mr. Sullivan with the community standard of care, ruling that the evidence reflected that Mr. Sullivan received only one cleaning and scaling during 12 years of incarceration, and when later examined, was found to have untreated periodontal disease and cavities.

[15] In this regard, I consider this kind of factual evidence to be analogous to those matters described by Madam Justice Garson as being «more in the nature of observations» as opposed to inferences having complex interpretive or diagnostic components when she described how their inclusion in records sought to be admitted as business records did not offend Rule 40A in Egli v. Egli, 2003 BCSC 1716 at para. 25 which was relied on by the defendant in submissions.

Pro se litigants complain that lawyers know the rules but don't always follow them, use rules of evidence to take unfair advantages, bully pro se litigants, resort to trickery when desperate, play buddy buddy with judges to get more favorable decisions, and have access to resources that self - represented parties do not.

Courtroom dramas are so godawful in their utter disdain for (among many things) the rules of evidence that I can't even be in the same room when one is on.

In February of 2013 Megan Winfrey was acquitted when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the dog scent evidence was insufficient.

The plaintiff in a wrongful death case that had been filed after the death of her husband received some good news last month when an appellate court affirmed a district court's ruling not to bar the plaintiff from introducing certain evidence at trial.

While there is no clear rule of law that a qualified identification standing alone will never amount to sufficient evidence of identification to support a committal to stand trial, in my view, when I consider the relevant case law, the qualified identification given by Mr. Crane, without some other evidence, is not sufficient evidence to amount to some evidence of identification that a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could convict on.

An Orlando auto accident lawyer's primary job is to collect evidence, which requires knowing the rules, which types of evidence usually work best, being thorough when gathering evidence, then telling your story to the insurance company adjuster or defense lawyer, mediator, or jury.

Under the rules of evidence, when a party introduces part of a document at trial, the opposing party can introduce the entire document into evidence.

Those factors include: her squandering of the time when she was paid support while also being intentionally unemployed; her unilateral move to Mexico accompanied by her express decision to not work or be underemployed; her failure to produce relevant evidence about her past and present financial circumstances in a timely fashion; her active misrepresentations to Mr. Street concerning her income; her filing of false evidence before this Court and the Provincial Court about her employment activities in Mexico; her delay in seeking spousal support; the hardship that would be borne by Mr. Street, A.S.S. and his new family members arising from her past (in) actions and in seeking support at this late date; and, her failure to comply with the Rules.

I am presently in the middle of a lengthy criminal jury trial, and when an issue of evidence comes up about what a witness has said three or four days ago, I am quickly able to access the exact evidence and make my rulings accordingly.

The supporting rationale for this rule is that since the contracting parties have reduced their agreement to a single and final writing, extrinsic evidence of past agreements or terms should not be considered when interpreting that writing, as the parties had decided to ultimately leave them out of the contract.

The appeals court held that the lower court erred when it excluded evidence at the second trial of a prior summary judgment ruling that the driver lacked insurance and that the insurance company paid a sum of money to settle the third party's claim.

He says if Hryniak accomplishes anything on the West Coast, it will serve to push counsel and judges out of their comfort zone of conducting summary trials strictly on the basis of large volumes of affidavit evidence, when in fact the rules allow for far more creativity.