Not exact matches
The imposition of a severe reprimand is a matter of critical importance to the professional reputation of the Appellant, and the Appellant had a legitimate expectation that a specific
statutory procedure would be followed in her
appeal.
The
procedure for determining equivalency was determined by the Canadian Federal Court of
Appeal, which held that the essential elements must be determined by the precise
statutory words used.
· The Court of
Appeal decisions in Watson v Croft Promo Motor Sport and Coventry v Lawrence on noise nuisance abatement notices · The decisions in Barr v Biffa and Ethos Recycling on the relationship of other regulatory regimes to statutory nuisance · New Equality Act 2011 · The new civil procedure for abatement appeal as contained in the Magistrates» · Courts (Amendment) Rules 2009 and The Crown Court (Amendment) Rules 2009 · Criminal Procedure Rule
Appeal decisions in Watson v Croft Promo Motor Sport and Coventry v Lawrence on noise nuisance abatement notices · The decisions in Barr v Biffa and Ethos Recycling on the relationship of other regulatory regimes to
statutory nuisance · New Equality Act 2011 · The new civil
procedure for abatement
appeal as contained in the Magistrates» · Courts (Amendment) Rules 2009 and The Crown Court (Amendment) Rules 2009 · Criminal Procedure Rule
appeal as contained in the Magistrates» · Courts (Amendment) Rules 2009 and The Crown Court (Amendment) Rules 2009 · Criminal
Procedure Rules 2011
RECO countered by asking the court to reject Luzak's
appeal, on the grounds that the council had not exercised a «
statutory power of decision» as determined by the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and therefore was not subject to the court's judicia
statutory power of decision» as determined by the
Statutory Powers Procedures Act and therefore was not subject to the court's judicia
Statutory Powers
Procedures Act and therefore was not subject to the court's judicial review.