Tags: Advocacy, Advocacy in the Guise of Opinion, bc injury law, benchslap, Mr. Justice Wilson, qualifications of expert, Rule 11, Rule 11 - 2, Rule 11 - 2 (1), Rule 11 - 6, Rule 11 - 6 (1), Rule 11 - 6 (1)(a), Rule 11 - 6 (1)(b), Rule 11 - 6 (1)(f), Rule 11 - 6 (1)(f)(iii), Turpin v. Manufacturers Life Insurance,
ultimate issue rule Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 11, Uncategorized Direct Link 4 Comments» top ^
Air Canada's position is even more puzzling in light of its concession that
the ultimate issue rule is not applied in absolute terms in Canada.
Not exact matches
She cited a
ruling that says the privilege allows people in government agencies to offer «uninhibited opinions and recommendations without fear of later being subject to public ridicule or criticism,» and «to protect against confusing the
issues and misleading the public by dissemination of documents suggesting reasons and rationales for a course of action which were not in fact the
ultimate reasons for the agency's action.»
This question gets us right to the heart of a central
issue in moral cognition and philosophy: Are there immutable moral
rules — such as «thou shall not lie» — or does morality legitimately involve a trade - off between competing ethical imperatives that includes consideration of the
ultimate outcomes of one's actions?
Rather than
ruling on this
issue, the case was remanded back to the trial level for
ultimate resolution.
First, there is no longer a general
rule barring opinion evidence on the
ultimate issue.
''... the unwillingness to accept the fact of mothers» role in childrearing within the context of custody policy conforms to the popular gender neutral focus at the expense of reality... even if the
ultimate goal is gender neutrality, the imposition of
rules embodying such a view within the context of family law
issues is disingenuous since the effect is to the detriment of those who have constructed their lives around «genderized» roles.»