Sentences with phrase «wrote hearing panel»
There is no reason to find that the general practice is against our rules,» wrote hearing panel chairman William Simpson in a 47 - page ruling.
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/ Not exact matches
I can't count the number of times I've sat in panels on writing or other creator guide sessions and heard panelists dictate that anyone wanting to be taken seriously or promote their work must be on Facebook.
The Panel is required to engage with stakeholders, including publishing an issues paper, holding public hearings and receiving written submissions.
«I don't know about you but I was outraged yesterday when the House held a hearing on birth control, without including a single woman on the opening panel,» she wrote.
And that author — in the person of Penn (whose self - published books are written under the name J.F. Penn)-- was with us on the panel to respond to what she was hearing from these industry - leading agents.
- hear comments from GLaDOS as you play - sounds from the Portal series - «cake is a lie» graffiti makes an appearance, with «the cake is in the kitchen on floor 2» written below it - the three light - up sections of the toy pad must be colored by positioning a character on a colored pad - then you move the actual minifig to the correspondingly colored panel on the toy pad itself - find hidden items in the world using the toy pad as a guide - toy pad flashes red when you go in the wrong direction and then gradually shifts to green when you're going the right way - use an environmental «keystone» to scale Batman to about ten times his normal size - use Gandalf's gift for magic to propel a levitated Companion Cube through a series of tubes and onto a button
Lomborg was quoted in an a web - piece entitled, «Earth Daze,» written by news correspondent John Stossel in Real Clear Politics, «The amazing number that most people haven't heard is, if you take all the solar panels and all the wind turbines in the world, they have (eliminated) less CO2 than what U.S. fracking (cracking rocks below ground to extract oil and natural gas) managed to do.»
British Columbia will be presenting oral final arguments to the Joint Review Panel when hearings recommence in Terrace on 17 June, based on BC's final written submission.
A Hearing Panel released its written decision on Monday, July 17 in the matter between the Nova Scotia Barristers» Society and Halifax lawyer Lyle Howe.Read More >
«While the hearing division took the law society's delay into account, the panel did not give proper consideration to the multi-faceted impact of this delay on the public interest,» wrote Raj Anand on behalf of the majority.
In the July 2011 issue of Canadian Lawyer, we wrote about «hot tubbing» — the term was coined in Australia to describe the procedure of organizing all experts in a case into a panel and hearing their evidence concurrently.
«We see no error in law in the hearing panel's consideration of the issue of delay,» wrote Christopher Bredt on behalf of himself and Marion Boyd.
We are hopeful that another hearing panel will do so in an appropriate circumstance as we think sexual harassment should only rarely, if ever, result in a reprimand rather than a period of suspension,» Mercer wrote, adding that Sinukoff could expect disbarment in the case of a repeat offence.
The appeal tribunal, chaired by Christopher Bredt with Robert Armstrong, Janet Leiper, Barbara Murchie, and John Spekkens wrote: «the hearing panel erred in dismissing the motion for disclosure of the files of the lawyers who acted for the other parties.
They are seeking lawyers with experience in housing issues and administrative law to oversee hearings as the chair of a 3 person panel (with 2 community members) and to draft decisions based on the written and oral evidence presented.
While the hearing panel can of course receive evidence on penalty, the hearing panel must make the penalty determination,» she wrote.
As reported in the written decision of the Law Society Hearing Panel (which decision is under appeal by the applicant), the applicant threatened to sue the other board members for defamation after he was removed as President of the condo corporation and a notice of his removal was posted; circulated a letter (under a false name) on some floors within the building that falsely stated that some of the board members had previously gone bankrupt, had criminal convictions and were accepting bribes and free meals from the developer of the condominium to settle deficiencies with the developer; made a derogatory remark about some of the residents based on their ethnicity; threatened to report some of the directors to US / Canada border officials, falsely alleging that they were drug smugglers; threatened both the corporation's property manager and security services firm that their contracts with the condo corporation would be in jeopardy if they did not provide a character letter to the applicant.
Evidence presented at Peirovy's penalty hearing showed that «he is sincerely embarrassed at and ashamed of his actions, and that he never wants this to happen again,» the panel wrote in its 16 - page decision.
This decision was appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, where, in a well written and reasoned decision, Justice Doherty, speaking for the panel, upheld Justice Morrocco's decision and remitted the matter to the preliminary hearing Judge to make the final determination on whether or not N. S. could testify behind the veil.
None of these propositions is correct,» wrote appeal panel chairman David Wright in the Feb. 18 decision dismissing the LSUC's appeal of a 2013 hearing panel's ruling on the issue.
The Appeal Panel can conduct a hearing orally, or through written submissions and it may revoke, decrease, or confirm an administrative penalty.
«That approach could include a more broadly representative and inclusive judicial advisory selection panel, where no political party has a majority (as the government now gives itself), parliamentarians as a whole are in the minority, and the provincial attorney general and provincial bar are represented, along with the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Judicial Conference; a protocol of consultation published by the minister of justice, setting out whom the minister intends to consult and with whom the advisory panel will meet; a public announcement by the minister of the criteria by which each candidate will be evaluated; and a final hearing at which the minister of justice — and not only the nominee — answers questions from parliamentarians, notably regarding how the nominee meets the established criteria,» he wrote then.
As it turned out, the law society never called any reply evidence disputing the evidence for the lawyers,» wrote LSUC hearing panel chairman William Simpson.
Due to concerns about further delays in the appeal, it was directed that the appellant's review motion be heard by a panel of the court in writing.
The Tribunal panel may only admit the late written evidence after considering any representations from the other party and only if the evidence is unlikely to impede the efficient conduct of the hearing.
If the conditions are not met, the Tribunal panel may still give permission to a party to submit late written evidence at the hearing if it can be shown that unless the evidence is admitted there is a serious risk of prejudice to the party seeking to rely on it.
The findings and recommendation for discipline, if any, shall be reduced to writing by the Hearing Panel and submitted to the Board of Directors in accordance with the procedure of Part Four, Section 23 of the Code of Ethics and Arbitration Manual.
* The Hearing Panel's decision shall be considered final only when it is in writing and signed by members of the panel following their personal review and any review by legal counsel which may be requPanel's decision shall be considered final only when it is in writing and signed by members of the panel following their personal review and any review by legal counsel which may be requpanel following their personal review and any review by legal counsel which may be required.
(b) The Professional Standards Administrator shall transmit a copy of the decision to the complainant and respondent within five (5) days after the Professional Standards Administrator has received the Hearing Panel's decision in writing, except that reasonable delay shall not invalidate the Board's procedures nor the decision (e.g., when it is necessary to obtain association counsel's review).
(a) The decision of the Hearing Panel shall be by a simple majority vote and in writing (Form # E-11, Decision [Ethics], Part Six and the Professional Standards Training Guide) and shall contain findings of fact and a statement of the disciplinary action recommended, if any.
While this might be beneficial, at least in the sense that the non-prevailing party might understand, if not appreciate, the basis on which the award was based, there has been an on - going concern that, given the task of comprehensively and accurately articulating all of the acts and factors that are taken into account by an arbitration panel in rendering its award, there might be an understandable (and possibly unavoidable) tendency to oversimplify or generalize the basis on which an award was made, with the resulting explanation or rationale or «findings», whether written or oral, being relied on by the non-prevailing party (and likely by others) as «precedent» to be introduced and relied on at future arbitration hearings.
(f) Any party may file with the Secretary a written request for disqualification of a member of a tribunal (Hearing Panel or Board of Directors), stating the grounds alleged as basis for disqualification (i.e., factors which would prevent a tribunal member from rendering an impartial, unbiased, and knowledgeable decision).
Part Four of the Code of Ethics and Arbitration Manual provides that the decision of the Hearing Panel will be made by a majority vote and will be in writing, containing findings of fact, conclusions, and any discipline proposed.
Any member of the Hearing Panel not voting with the majority may dissent from all or any portion of the findings or decision and may file a dissent in writing with the Professional Standards Administrator for consideration by the Directors at the same time the decision is considered.
The decision of the Hearing Panel shall be by a simple majority vote and in writing (Form # E-11, Decision [Ethics], Part Six and the Professional Standards Training Guide) and shall contain findings of fact and a statement of the disciplinary action recommended, if any.
Any member of the Hearing Panel may file a written dissent with the Professional Standards Administrator to be provided initially to the parties and ultimately to the Board of Directors with the decision and recommendation of the Hearing Panel.
The materials presented to the Hearing Panel when the Hearing Panel made its decision to dismiss together with any party's written rationale challenging the panel's reasons for dismissal and the dismissal itself will be presented to the appeal panel comprised of a minimum of five (5) members (who did not previously sit in review of the arbitration request) from the parties» Boards to be appointed by the Boards» PresidPanel when the Hearing Panel made its decision to dismiss together with any party's written rationale challenging the panel's reasons for dismissal and the dismissal itself will be presented to the appeal panel comprised of a minimum of five (5) members (who did not previously sit in review of the arbitration request) from the parties» Boards to be appointed by the Boards» PresidPanel made its decision to dismiss together with any party's written rationale challenging the panel's reasons for dismissal and the dismissal itself will be presented to the appeal panel comprised of a minimum of five (5) members (who did not previously sit in review of the arbitration request) from the parties» Boards to be appointed by the Boards» Presidpanel's reasons for dismissal and the dismissal itself will be presented to the appeal panel comprised of a minimum of five (5) members (who did not previously sit in review of the arbitration request) from the parties» Boards to be appointed by the Boards» Presidpanel comprised of a minimum of five (5) members (who did not previously sit in review of the arbitration request) from the parties» Boards to be appointed by the Boards» Presidents.
(d) If either party to an arbitration request believes that the Grievance Committee has incorrectly classified the issue presented by the request («mandatory» or «voluntary» arbitration situation), the party has twenty (20) days from transmittal of the Grievance Committee's decision to file a written appeal of the Grievance Committee's determination using Form # A-20, Appeal of Grievance Committee (or Hearing Panel) Dismissal or Classification of Arbitration Request.
Justice Simpson wrote, «While I have no doubt that CREA will behave responsibly and abide by the terms on which its intervention has been allowed, I do not want to fetter the discretion of the panel hearing this matter to make an adverse cost award should unforeseen circumstances develop.»
Analysis: The Hearing Panel will consider Broker S's initial introduction of the buyer to the property, the period of time between Broker S's last contact with the buyer and the time that Broker B wrote the offer, and the reason Buyer # 1 did not ask Broker S to write the offer.
Among the reasons for this are the fact that arbitration awards are not appealable on the merits but generally only on the limited procedural bases established in the governing state arbitration statute; that the issues considered by Hearing Panels are often myriad and complex, and the reasoning for an award may be equally complex and difficult to reduce to writing; and that the inclusion of written findings of fact or rationale (or both) would conceivably result in attempts to use such detail as «precedent» in subsequent hearings which might or might not involve similar facts.