Sentences with phrase «side opinion evidence»

At issue in the before the SCC in R. v. Bingley was whether the road - side opinion evidence of a DRE, essentially police officers trained to identify people under the influence of drugs, is admissible as evidence of guilt in a court case.

At issue in the before the SCC in R. v. Bingley was whether the road - side opinion evidence -LSB-...]

Not exact matches

if you can lie to yourself with immunity, you might be an atheist if you think the indifferent support your side, you might be an atheist if you don't think at all, you might be an atheist if you are drawn to religious discussions thinking someone wants to hear your opinion, you might be an atheist if you copy paste every piece of crap theory you find, you might be an atheist if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist if you can't write the word God, with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheist.

You're welcome to disagree with these opinions, but note that I have evidence on my side.

Make sure that any student who gives an opinion must not only back it up with fact - based evidence, but also must acknowledge the other side and be able to cite at least one fact - based resource that supports that opposing side.

You are arguing based on your opinion that the evidence is strongly on your side but you still have not answered a single question of mine to show your data to support your claims, nor have you posted any links to support your claims.

To sum up, in my opinion, chapter 2.2 seems to represent a slightly one - sided perspective on geological evidence for Eemian mega-storms.

In my opinion, this need to assess both the IPCC AR4 and the IPCC reports demonstrates the poverty of the IPCC process because science is best conducted by weighing all the evidence (on the one hand but on the other hand) and not as a consideration of two «sides».

Thirteen years later, there is no global climate deal, but also not much evidence that the failure of climate policies on either side of the Atlantic, or internationally had much to do with public opinion.

In a 52 - page opinion, he found five distinct evidentiary issues one side must cross to prove whether electronic data should be admitted into evidence at trial or accepted as an exhibit (see «Grimm's Issues of ESI»).

In 2010, Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was amended to outline what documents are to be disclosed to the other side regarding expert evidence, including the instructing letter, the report, and now a Form 53 signed by the expert stating that they will provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan.

If there is little evidence for you to produce an opinion, is there anything that could be done by the legal side?

[19] In Kroll v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. (1995), 5 B.C.L.R. (3d) 7, Sanders J., as she then was, noted that «true response evidence, does not permit fresh opinion evidence to masquerade as answer to the other side's reports».