Sentences with phrase «whether substantial justice»

Not exact matches

The justices will also have to determine whether the contraception and fertility requirements of the Affordable Care Act pose a substantial burden to businesses, and whether the government has a compelling interest in imposing these provisions.

Because the birth control cases all focus on a 1993 federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not the Constitution, the Justices will face questions about whether the mandate to provide free access to 20 forms of birth control drugs or devices, sterilization, screenings, and counseling imposes a «substantial burden» on religious freedom of nonprofit employers with religious objections to some or all contraceptives, whether the mandate in fact serves a «compelling interest» of the government, and whether an attempt to provide an exemption from the mandate satisfies the requirement that such an accommodation is «the least restrictive means» of achieving the government's policy interest.

USA Today reports federal appeals courts are split on whether schools must provide a substantial education or something less than that, and the Obama administration has encouraged the justices to step in with a final decision.

«The question for this Court is whether it was reasonable for the Minister, in the circumstances, to conclude that, on the basis of the assurances he received from the Indian government, there was no substantial risk of torture or mistreatment which would offend the principles of fundamental justice.»

«Central to this appeal is whether Mr. Badesha and Ms. Sidhu face a substantial risk of torture or mistreatment in India that would render their surrenders unjust or oppressive under s. 44 (1)(a)» of the Extradition Act, wrote Justice Moldaver in a unanimous 9 - 0 decision at the Supreme Court.

His Lordship held that it would be wrong to focus simply upon a comparison between what Mrs Agbaje was awarded in Nigeria and what she would have been awarded had she been able to proceed with her ancillary relief claims in England: The focus should rather be on whether, objectively speaking, substantial justice or injustice was done overseas (my emphasis).

In considering whether the hotel operator was properly served, Justice Healey considered the three - part test to determine whether a corporation is carrying on business in Ontario: (i) has the corporation carried on business in the jurisdiction for a sufficiently substantial period of time; (ii)... Read More

In Reasons issued on behalf of a unanimous court, Justice LeBel reiterated that jurisdiction must be based upon a «real and substantial connection» between a particular forum and the subject matter of the litigation and that the determination of whether there is such a connection must not be a matter of pure judicial discretion but, rather, be based upon a clear set of presumptive factors that will be applied to whether the courts of a particular province can take jurisdiction.

In R v Duke (1985), 22 CCC (2d) 217 (Alta CA) Justice John W. McClung, writing for a unanimous court at para. 21, held that, ``... the determination of whether «a miscarriage of justice» has occurred rests on broader considerations than those attaching to the demonstration of a «substantial wrong.Justice John W. McClung, writing for a unanimous court at para. 21, held that, ``... the determination of whether «a miscarriage of justice» has occurred rests on broader considerations than those attaching to the demonstration of a «substantial wrong.justice» has occurred rests on broader considerations than those attaching to the demonstration of a «substantial wrong.»

In spite of the lack of a comprehensive study in Canada to determine: (1) the full range of apps available; (2) what they purport to do; and, (3) whether they can actually improve access to justice, there is a substantial population of law society, commercial, academic, and independent, keen advocates of apps as being the way to the solution to the problem, including displacing some lawyers.

Justice Mandamin in the lower court said that the test was «whether the employment rule interferes with an employee's ability to fulfill her substantial parental obligations in any realistic way» see paragraphs 125 to 128.

, agree that the evidence was inadmissible, the differences come in the application of s. 686 (1)(b)(iii) and whether the appeal should be dismissed as there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.