COLLEGE OF CHIROPODISTS OF ONTARIO v. OMAR QURESHI
|
|
- Josephine Reynolds
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 COLLEGE OF CHIROPODISTS OF ONTARIO v. OMAR QURESHI RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE James F. Maczko, Panel Chair: This is the Panel s ruling on the admissibility of the expert opinion evidence of Anna Georgiou, B.Sc., B. Ch. Ms. Georgiou s curriculum vitae was entered as Exhibit #3. It details substantial education and experience in the field of chiropody. It also outlines Ms. Georgiou s very substantial involvement in both the Ontario Society of Chiropodists (member, 1993 present, Director, and President, ), and with the College of Chiropodists of Ontario ( College ). Ms. Georgiou was a member of the College s Council from October 2003 to October 2010, and served as the College s Vice-President from October 2008 to October 2009 and as its President from October 2009 to October In our capacity as members of the College s Council, each of us is acquainted with Ms. Georgiou, and she with us. In her testimony during what was described as a hearing within a hearing to determine the admissibility of her expert opinion, Ms. Georgiou testified that she sits on the College s Quality Assurance Committee ( QAC ). A Panel member, Ms. Gonzales is also on the QAC, which met last in approximately November, 2011, by teleconference. Ms. Georgiou testified that she has never discussed this case with Ms. Gonzales. Ms. Georgiou is also the chair of the College s Practice Working Group ( PWG ), which is tasked with reviewing various professional standards, such as the orthotics standard and the infection control standard. Ms. Georgiou indicated that she has never been associated with the complaints or discipline side of the College s work, except for an opinion for the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee ( ICRC ) earlier this year. She testified that she does not socialize with any members of the Panel.
2 - 2 - In their disclosures to the parties concerning their acquaintance with Ms. Georgiou, each of the Panel members disclosed some degree of acquaintance with her. Ms. Eissabigloo disclosed that she saw Ms. Georgiou at the Council meeting in June, Ms. Georgiou provided a brief outline to the Council concerning the work of the PWG at that time. Ms. Gonzales disclosed that she has been on the Council since 2005 and has known Ms. Georgiou since that time. Ms. Gonzales is a member of the QAC. Ms. Gonzales further disclosed that most Council members have friended on Facebook, and that she (Ms. Gonzales) either received or sent a friend message to Ms. Georgiou; however, there has been no interaction between Ms. Gonzales and Ms. Georgiou on Facebook. I disclosed that I have known Ms. Georgiou for approximately 20 years. We may possibly have had dinner in groups of 10 or 20, years ago. It is possible that I saw Ms. Georgiou at the first Council meeting I attended, in October As well, I saw Ms. Georgiou at the February and June, 2012 Council meetings. In his cross-examination of Ms. Georgiou, Mr. Siddiqui referred to the following excerpt from page 6 of her report (Exhibit A ): Furthermore, using the fact that his previous multiple bookings were not flagged as concerns by the Insurance Company is not a valid argument to excuse these actions. In fact, this also raises the additional concern that the company managers and school principals should have known better than to allow for these types of services on their premises. One has to wonder what additional incentives were provided to them to allow this. Mr. Siddiqui challenged the witness about her speculation concerning additional incentives, pointing out that she was willing to speculate that bribes or kickbacks were involved. In his submissions to us, Mr. Siddiqui referred to the fact that Ms. Georgiou was the College s immediate past president when she was retained as its expert, and that the complaint about Mr. Qureshi was received during her tenure as President. He contended that Ms. Georgiou was acting as an advocate, not as an independent expert witness.
3 - 3 - The parties submissions and the applicable law were summarized in the advice of our Independent Legal Counsel ( ILC ). Mr. LeBlanc agreed with ILC s advice. Mr. Siddiqui did not disagree with it, and in fact submitted that there is not only a collegial relationship between Ms. Georgiou and the Panel; there are also professional linkages. In response to ILC s advice, Mr. Siddiqui also submitted that the Deemar case, referred to later in this ruling, is the most important case to our consideration of the issue. A summary of what ILC advised us follows. In the Mohan case 1, the Supreme Court of Canada outlined the four criteria for admissibility of expert opinion evidence. Those criteria are as follows: 1. The evidence is relevant to some issue in the case; 2. The evidence is necessary to assist the trier of fact; 3. The evidence does not contravene an exclusionary rule; and 4. The witness is a properly qualified expert. A person may become an expert through education or experience, or a combination of both. In this case, there was no issue as to three of the four criteria for admissibility of Ms. Georgiou s evidence. More specifically, it was not in dispute that her evidence was relevant to some issue in the case (Criterion #1), that her evidence is necessary to assist the trier of fact (Criterion # 2), 2 or that Ms. Georgiou is a properly qualified expert (Criterion # 4). Instead, the argument against qualifying Ms. Georgiou as an expert witness related to the third criterion, whether the evidence contravened an exclusionary rule. The argument against qualification based on the third criterion has two prongs: 1. Ms. Georgiou s evidence should be excluded because if admitted, it would create an appearance of bias on the part of the Panel; 2. Ms. Georgiou s evidence should be excluded because she lacks the impartiality expected of an expert witness. These two prongs are elaborated on below. 1 R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 2 Expert evidence as to the profession s standards of practice is necessary because the findings of a panel shall be based exclusively on evidence admitted before it: Health Professions Procedural Code, s. 49
4 - 4 - Alleged Appearance of Bias on the Panel s Part if Ms. Georgiou s Evidence is Admitted ILC took us to two of the cases referred to by Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Siddiqui, Li v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario 3 and Drummond v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 4. In Li v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, our attention was directed in particular to paragraph 30, which in turn referred to an Alberta case where the witness had an ongoing relationship with a public utilities board. The Alberta Court of Appeal commented, No matter how much the member protests that the merits were never discussed, a well-informed person can reasonably fear that these private dealings might lead the trier to hesitate to cause himself and (the witness) the awkwardness of rejection of his testimony. In his advice to us, ILC stressed that if, because of our acquaintance with Ms. Georgiou, described earlier, we cannot objectively assess her evidence, the Panel must either rule her expert opinion inadmissible or disqualify itself. The Panel must ask itself whether, if the evidence called for rejection of Ms. Georgiou s expert opinion, the Panel could reject it without regard to the awkwardness that might result. The Panel was also referred to the following excerpt from the Drummond case (paragraph 9): In view of the collegial relationship between Mr. Sherman and the presiding member, representations of this nature could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Because of the overtone of bias, this is not a situation in which the (Immigration Appeal Division) could have admitted the affidavit and given it little or no weight. The affidavit had to be rejected initially in its entirety. We understand that the test for reasonable apprehension of bias is as follows: What would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through conclude? We understand that the grounds for the apprehension must be substantial, and that bias is a condition or state of mind rendering an adjudicator incapable of acting impartially. We also understand that in the event that we qualify Ms. Georgiou as an expert witness, we will still have to assess the weight to be given to her evidence, and that we would be entitled to accept some, 3 [2004] O.J. No [1996] F.C.J. No. 477
5 - 5 - none or all of her expert opinion. Moreover, one factor in assessing the weight to be assigned to her evidence is whether she has an interest in the outcome of the case, or any reason to give evidence that is more favourable to one side than to the other. Alleged Lack of Impartiality on Ms. Georgiou s Part We understand that expert witnesses occupy a special position in a courtroom or hearing room. Their evidence is required in some situations, such as by s. 49 of the Health Professions Code, which effectively requires the College to call expert opinion evidence to establish the standards of practice of the profession. The Panel can use its professional member s expertise to assess expert evidence, but not in the place of expert evidence. Because of the special position occupied by expert witnesses, there is a concern about biased experts, described in Independent Legal Counsel s advice as dressed up advocates. We were advised that the Rules of Civil Procedure were recently amended to require experts to acknowledge that their duty is to the court, and not to whichever side retained and called them to testify. 5 The point is that an expert witness should not be an advocate. The principals are well summarized in Perricone v. Baldassarra 6, Fellowes, McNeil v. Kansa General International Insurance Company 7 and R. v. INCO Ltd. 8. In the submissions of both Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Siddiqui and in the advice of ILC, special attention was paid to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Deemar v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario 9. In his advice to us, ILC referred in particular to paragraphs 21 through 25 of the Deemar case, which are excerpted below: 10 [21] It is up to the trier of fact to qualify a proposed expert witness. The party tendering the proposed expert witness must satisfy the trier that he or she possesses not only the necessary expertise, but the requisite independence as well. For example, the trier may refuse to qualify a person of unquestioned expertise who is closely related to the tendering party. [22] Here the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Leslie had strayed from the function of an expert and had taken on the role of advocate and possibly the role of the 5 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule (2.1) 6 [1994] O.J. No (1998), 40 O.R. (3d) (2006), 80 O.R. (3d) [2008] O.J. No Trier of fact is a reference to the Panel.
6 - 6 - trier of fact. The Discipline Committee noted that an expert must have a minimum requirement of independence and cited authority that if the person rendering the evidence assumes the role of advocate, he or she can no longer be viewed as an expert in the legally correct sense. Perricone v. Baldassara, [1994] O.J. No at para. 17. Dr. Leslie s demonstrated lack of the independence provided an ample basis for the Discipline Committee s to refuse to accept Dr. Leslie as an expert witness. [23] The Discipline Committee also determined that Dr. Leslie could not give any evidence at the discipline hearing because of her recent relationship with the College. Dr. Leslie had been the College s Registrar for most of the period during which the complaint against Dr.Deemar was under investigation. While Dr. Leslie had not personally dealt with the complaint, she was administratively responsible for it. The fact that all of the Discipline Committee s members were on the College Council when the College terminated Dr. Leslie s employment presented the Discipline Committee with a difficult dilemma. This combination of circumstances made it unseemly, at the very least, for Dr. Leslie to testify regarding the merits of the complaint. The Discipline Committee addressed the dilemma by ruling that Dr. Leslie could not appear as a witness. The Divisional Court, which also took the view that Dr. Leslie s appearance before the Committee s current members was untenable, sought to address the dilemma by halting the complaint proceedings until the composition of the Committee changed. [24] A resolution of the dilemma required the balancing of the interests of the member and the interests of the administration of justice generally. Dr. Deemar s interest was in controlling her defence to the complaint. At the same time there was a public interest in the prompt disposition of allegations of professional misconduct against a member of a regulated profession. [25] In my view, assuming the standard of review is correctness, the ruling of the Discipline Committee correctly balanced the interests of the member and the interests of the administration of justice generally. In ruling that Dr. Leslie could not appear as a witness, the Discipline Committee noted that Dr. Deemar had ample opportunity to obtain a separate expert opinion that was equally valid. Thus, the Discipline Committee s decision struck a reasonable balance between the individual and public interests at stake. In the Deemar case, a College was seeking to disqualify a defence expert who had previously been the College s Registrar and who had an acrimonious relationship with the College s Council. Her report was described as largely advocacy. 11 We were told that in connection with a second prong of the Mr. Siddiqui s argument against qualifying Ms. Georgiou as an expert witness, our task was to determine whether, in that balancing formulation that was described in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Deemar case, the scales tipped in favour of excluding Ms. Georgiou s expert opinion evidence. 11 Ibid., paragraph 19
7 - 7 - Our Analysis The principles of natural justice dictate that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. It must be swift, it must be clear, it must be executed on concrete and carefully resourced information with a global perspective, and most of all, it must be fair. We are sincerely grateful to all counsel involved in this case: Mr. LeBlanc, Mr. Siddiqui and Mr. Gover, as well as staff who perform numerous unseen, often unacknowledged background work in the administration of justice. Everyone can rest assured that we as Panel members have taken this task in the spirit of great privilege and opportunity to serve. Administrative law is a very complicated, very specialized field of endeavour. We found that it is filled with technical jargon and information and that the only way to understand concepts is to simplify the process as best we could to arrive at a determination. It has not been easy. Throughout, we have always been mindful of the concepts of natural justice, the need to apply common sense, and we were sensitive to the need not only to be fair but being seen to be fair. We referred to case law for assistance and checked with ILC when we needed legal clarification. This proceeding is conducted under sections 38 to 56 of the Health Professions Procedural Code ( Code ). Certain allegations as set out in the Notice of Hearing have been brought against Mr. Qureshi, a member of the profession. In order for the Panel to arrive at a conclusion that the member failed to meet a standard of practice of the profession, the College must lead expert evidence. That is the practical upshot of s. 49 of the Code. This expert witness opinion is there to guide the Panel in arriving at a conclusion. It is important, therefore, that the witness is properly qualified to assist the Panel. The Panel must rule in this regard. The question here is whether legal principles require that the expert opinion evidence of Ms. Georgiou should be excluded. This flows from the Mohan case, which I referred to earlier. Expert opinion evidence from the expert witness must meet certain criteria which includes: (a) relevance; (b) necessity in assisting the trier of fact; (c) the absence of any exclusionary rule; and (d) the information is from a properly qualified expert. In addition to setting out her status as a licensed chiropodist in the province of Ontario, Ms. Georgiou s curriculum vitae speaks volumes in terms of her educational qualifications, extensive
8 - 8 - experience in this specialized field, demonstrated high interest in promoting adherence to standards, acquiring skills, or continuing education, and a keen interest in getting members to engage and participate in mentoring others in the profession. Preliminary examination of this witness by both counsel elicited further information about her practice which, together with her professional demeanour, have compelled the Panel to conclude that she is indeed a properly qualified expert Criterion #4 from the Mohan case. However, Mr. Siddiqui raises what is, as far as the Panel is concerned, a very valid objection, and that is, that there is a lack of impartiality and the existence of bias, whether perceived or real, in the evidence that she will provide to the Panel. He also raised a concern about a reasonable apprehension of bias being created in that the Panel would be in an awkward position in assessing how much, if any, of her opinion should be accepted. In order to deal with this concern, the Panel embarked into a voir dire, a hearing within a hearing or a trial within a trial so to speak, to discover if indeed, there might be a lack of impartiality or the existence of bias, whether perceived or otherwise. At the risk of some repetition, the Panel notes that in his submissions, Mr. Siddiqui raised the following issues: (a) Ms. Georgiou and a Panel member, Ms. Gonzales, currently sit on the QAC and were both members of the College s Council between 2005 and (Ms. Gonzales remains on the Council.) They have therefore known each other for years, and Ms. Gonzales even declared that she has friended Ms. Georgiou on Facebook although lately no exchange of communication has taken place, either in person nor on the Internet. (N.B. During cross-examination of Ms. Georgiou, the Panel learned that the last QAC meeting was in December of last year. Ms. Gonzales also declared that she has linked with other Council members both in Facebook and Linkedin, two social networks. Ms. Georgiou and Ms. Gonzales have never discussed nor been aware of this case until lately Ms. Georgiou in December, 2010 when she received a letter from Ms. Cohen, and Ms. Gonzales, only when she sat in these proceedings.) (b) The comment made by Ms. Georgiou in her report (filed as Exhibit A to distinguish from the exhibits filed on the hearing proper), was egregious in that it connotes something close to bribery or some other unethical inducements in order to get the business. More generally, counsel submitted that the tone of the report was more of an advocate rather than that of an expert witness.
9 - 9 - (c) What was characterized as late notice provided concerning Ms. Georgiou s and Ms. Gonzales membership on the QAC and of Ms. Georgiou not referring to her membership in either the QAC or the PWG in her report (Exhibit A ). Mr. Siddiqui indicated that had proper notice been provided, he could have worked with College counsel to get a new expert, a joint expert, or no expert at all. (d) A concern about how much clout Ms. Georgiou could have as President or Vice President of the College, her collegial relationship and interaction with the Registrar, and her involvement in the conduct, investigation, or disposition of cases such as this. (e) The fact that as a member of the PWG, Ms. Georgiou did paper reviews of practice assessments. Mr. LeBlanc sought to rebut Mr. Siddiqui s submissions on the above issues. Mr. LeBlanc s submissions on behalf of the College included the following: (a) Because of her experience as the College s President and Vice President, Ms. Georgiou was in fact more suited to provide expert opinion evidence on the standard of practice of the profession, because she understands the College s by-laws and standards of practice policy. Mr. LeBlanc asked Ms. Georgiou if she would step down from the QAC if asked to do so, and she responded yes. Ms. Georgiou is not a College employee, she is a past President and Vice President with a depth of knowledge of the process and limited interaction with the College. (b) The courts do not make it a crime to know somebody. What is important is what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, conclude from the relationship? The law does not stop people from adjudicating due to socializing together. Ms. Georgiou has not been a part of ICRC nor the Discipline Committee at all, and has not socialized with the panel member nor will they be until the hearing is finished. (c) With regards to the egregious comment in Ms. Georgiou s report (Exhibit A ) referred to by Mr. Siddiqui, Mr. LeBlanc suggests that Ms. Georgiou was not even referring to Mr. Qureshi but rather to the company managers and school principals who should have known better than to allow for these types of services on their premises. (d) With regards to the late notice, Mr. LeBlanc assured us that he only found out about Ms. Georgiou s involvement in the QAC and the PWG a day or two before the hearing was scheduled to commence and he immediately contacted counsel for the member.
10
Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2007] O.J. No.
Page 1 Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants [2007] O.J. No. 1702 42 C.P.C. (6th) 315 2007 CarswellOnt 2729 Barrie Court File No.
More informationCase Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2007] O.J. No.
Page 1 Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants [2007] O.J. No. 1414 156 A.C.W.S. (3d) 844 49 C.P.C. (6th) 311 2007 CarswellOnt 2191
More informationDiscipline How does it work? February 15, 2017
Discipline How does it work? February 15, 2017 Regulatory Process Specialist Office of the Registrar James Howell Human Resources Professional Association 2 Rebecca Durcan HRPA s Regulatory Counsel Partner
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX
October 1, 1996 Last Update: February 23, 2018 Index Page 1 RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THECOLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO INDEX RULE 1 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION...
More informationOrder F09-24 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL. Jay Fedorak, Adjudicator. November 19, 2009
Order F09-24 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL Jay Fedorak, Adjudicator November 19, 2009 Quicklaw Cite: [2009] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 30 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2009/orderf09-24.pdf
More informationExpert Opinion Evidence
Expert Opinion Evidence 2016 Energy Regulation Course Donald Gordon Conference Centre, Kingston, ON 22 June 2016 M. Philip Tunley Stockwoods LLP Evidence that only an expert can give Opinion evidence is
More informationOrder COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Order 02-03 COLLEGE OF PHARMACISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner January 24, 2002 Quicklaw Cite: [2002] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 3 Document URL: http://www.oipcbc.org/orders/order02-03.pdf
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67. v. Christopher Longaphy. Section 11(B) Charter - Decision - Unreasonable Delay
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Longaphy, 2017 NSPC 67 Date: 2017-11-21 Docket: 2668787, 2668788, 2668789, 2668790 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Christopher Longaphy
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9. and a hearing concerning GEORGE COUTLEE RESPONDENT
2018 LSBC 33 Decision issued: November 16, 2018 Citation issued: July 13, 2017 THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9 and a hearing concerning GEORGE
More informationDISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSES OF ONTARIO This decision was followed by an appeal, the results of which can be found at the end of this document. PANEL: Sarah Corkey, RN Chairperson Susan
More informationA Snapshot of the Law and Trends on the Admissibility and Qualification of Expert Evidence
A Snapshot of the Law and Trends on the Admissibility and Qualification of Expert Evidence By Stacey Hsu and Daniel Reisler of Reisler Franklin LLP, Toronto In light of the recent media coverage surrounding
More informationPages , Looking Back
Pages 280 281, Looking Back 1. Choose the appropriate term from the vocabulary list above to complete the following statements: a) A(n) peremptory challenge is the exclusion of a prospective juror from
More informationCIVIL LITIGATION UPDATE
CIVIL LITIGATION UPDATE Groia v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONCA 471, provides guidance regarding counsel s duty of zealous advocacy in the context of counsel s corresponding duty to act with
More informationRULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS AND REGISTERED MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS OF ONTARIO INDEX
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF REGISTERED PSYCHOTHERAPISTS AND REGISTERED MENTAL HEALTH THERAPISTS OF ONTARIO INDEX RULE 1 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION... 3 1.01 Definitions...
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL
More informationTechniques in Crossing the Scientific Witness Jane Clark
Techniques in Crossing the Scientific Witness Jane Clark 2011 CBA Spring Advocacy Program, May 5, 2011 Advocacy for the Courts in Intellectual Property Matters: The Art of Cross-Examination, Ottawa, Techniques
More informationSINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC)
GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC) Written By S. Ravi Shankar Advocate on Record - Supreme Court of India National President of Arbitration Bar of India
More informationand THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND CLIFFS NATURAL RESOURCES INC ORDER
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20130315 Docket: T-1820-11 Ottawa, Ontario, March 15, 2013 PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Aronovitch BETWEEN: MARTEN FALLS FIRST NATION, WEBEQUIE FIRST NATION, NIBINAMIK
More informationEthical Guidelines for Doctors Acting as Medical Witnesses
Ethical Guidelines for Doctors Acting as Medical Witnesses 2011 1. Introduction 1.1 A medical practitioner may be called as a medical witness to give evidence in court, at a tribunal, or as part of an
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: British Columbia (Ministry of Justice) v. Maddock, 2015 BCSC 746 Date: 20150423 Docket: 14-3365 Registry: Victoria In the matter of the decisions of the
More informationProfessional Discipline Procedural Handbook
Professional Discipline Procedural Handbook Revised Edition March 2005 Table of Contents PREAMBLE... 6 DEFINITIONS... 6 1 ADMINISTRATION-DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE... 8 1.1 Officers of the Committee... 7 1.2
More informationCRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL. (2) Dealing with proceedings justly and efficiently includes
CRIMINAL RULES OF THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE RULE 1 GENERAL Fundamental objective 1.1 (1) The fundamental objective of these rules is to ensure that proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice are dealt
More informationOrder F11-23 BRITISH COLUMBIA LOTTERY CORPORATION. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. August 22, 2011
Order F11-23 BRITISH COLUMBIA LOTTERY CORPORATION Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator August 22, 2011 Quicklaw Cite: [2011] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 29 CanLII Cite: 2011 BCIPC No. 29 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2011/orderf11-23.pdf
More informationGuide to the Calgary Subdivision and Development Appeal Board. Jointly created by
Guide to the Calgary Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Jointly created by Contents Introduction... 3 What is the Calgary Subdivision and Development Appeal Board?... 3 SDAB Composition... 3 What
More informationWRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT (Alexion's Motion to Strike Evidence as Inadmissible) PART 1 - OVERVIEW
PATENTED MEDICINE PRICES REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the Patent Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Respondent") and the Medicine "Soliris" WRITTEN
More informationThe Arbitration Act, 1992
1 The Arbitration Act, 1992 being Chapter A-24.1* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1992 (effective April 1, 1993) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1993, c.17; 2010, c.e-9.22; 2015, c.21; and
More informationCHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE MADE UNDER SECTION 25.1 OF THE STATUTORY POWERS PROCEDURE ACT
CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE MADE UNDER SECTION 25.1 OF THE STATUTORY POWERS PROCEDURE ACT TABLE OF CONTENTS RULE 1 GENERAL RULES... 2 RULE 2 COMPLIANCE
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT R.S.O. 1990, C. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID CHARLES PHILLIPS and JOHN RUSSELL WILSON
Ontario Commission des 22 nd Floor 22e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES
More informationDate (yyyy-mm-dd) PART 2 TRIAL SCHEDULING ENDORSEMENT FORM
ONTARIO Superior Court of Justice Court File No Date (yyyy-mm-dd) Judge RE: V. 1) PRELIMINARY MATTERS PART 2 TRIAL SCHEDULING ENDORSEMENT FORM Disclosure Completed Assessments Completed Valuations Completed
More informationDiscipline Committee Guidelines
Discipline Committee Guidelines October 2015 Table Of Contents Introduction 2 Disclosure by the College 2 Pre-Hearing Conferences 3 Hearing Dates 5 Procedural and Interlocutory Motions 5 Motion Materials
More informationOrder F17-29 LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Celia Francis Adjudicator. May 11, 2017
Order F17-29 LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Celia Francis Adjudicator May 11, 2017 CanLII Cite: 2017 BCIPC 31 Quicklaw Cite: [2017] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 31 Summary: An applicant requested access to records
More informationForm 23 PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE REPORT FOR CROWN APPLICATIONS
Form 23 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Region Court File No. (if known) NOTE: 1. This form must be completed in full in all cases, and signed by the assigned counsel, or a counsel authorized to bind
More informationRules of Procedure and Evidence*
Rules of Procedure and Evidence* Adopted by the Assembly of States Parties First session New York, 3-10 September 2002 Official Records ICC-ASP/1/3 * Explanatory note: The Rules of Procedure and Evidence
More information2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 66 ELIZABETH II, Bill 87. (Chapter 11 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2017)
2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 66 ELIZABETH II, 2017 Bill 87 (Chapter 11 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2017) An Act to implement health measures and measures relating to seniors by enacting, amending
More informationOBJECTION YOUR HONOUR!
OBJECTION YOUR HONOUR! ROBERT S. HARRISON JENNIFER McALEER FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP THE BASICS What is an Objection? By definition an objection is an interruption. It should only be made when it is
More informationTaking Your Complaint to a Human Rights Tribunal. A handout for complainants with carriage
Taking Your Complaint to a Human Rights Tribunal A handout for complainants with carriage July 2013 Taking your complaint to a Human Rights Tribunal: A handout for complainants with carriage The Alberta
More informationThe Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008
The Canadian Institute ADVANCED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & PRACTICE May 1 and 2, 2008 MANAGING YOUR MULTIPLE ROLES AS TRIBUNAL COUNSEL By Gilbert Van Nes, General Counsel & Settlement Officer Alberta Environmental
More informationDRAFT REVISED NORTHERN CHEYENNE LAW & ORDER CODE TITLE 6 RULES OF EVIDENCE CODE. Title 6 Page 1
DRAFT REVISED NORTHERN CHEYENNE LAW & ORDER CODE TITLE 6 RULES OF EVIDENCE CODE Title 6 Page 1 TITLE 6 RULES OF EVIDENCE TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 GENERAL 6-1-1 Scope, Purpose and Construction 6-1-2
More informationThe criminal justice system cannot function without the participation of witnesses like you.
Your Role as a Witness in a Criminal Case The criminal justice system cannot function without the participation of witnesses like you. The information you provide is evidence that helps police solve crimes
More informationDecision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007
Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner June 22, 2007 Quicklaw Cite: [2007] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 14 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/other_decisions/decisionfo7-03.pdf
More informationEXPERT EVIDENCE. Direct Examination and Cross Examination of Expert Witnesses
EXPERT EVIDENCE Direct Examination and Cross Examination of Expert Witnesses Torkin Manes Continuing Professional Development Barbara MacFarlane and Loretta Merritt December 5, 2012 Need for Experts Despite
More information2:16-cv EIL # 106 Page 1 of 20
2:16-cv-02222-EIL # 106 Page 1 of 20 E-FILED Friday, 18 May, 2018 03:51:00 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD Members of the jury, you have seen and heard all the evidence and will hear the arguments
More informationADR CODE OF PROCEDURE
Last Revised 12/1/2006 ADR CODE OF PROCEDURE Rules & Procedures for Arbitration RULE 1: SCOPE OF RULES A. The arbitration Rules and Procedures ( Rules ) govern binding arbitration of disputes or claims
More informationWORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL
WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL PRACTICE MANUAL (revised July 2016) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.00 The Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal 1.10 Introduction 1.11 Definitions 1.20 Role of the Tribunal
More informationCHAPTER 16 FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CHAPTER 16 FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS I. INTRODUCTION Formal administrative hearings are one of the options provided to a person who has significant (or substantial) interests that will be affected
More informationSTUDENT LEGAL SERVICES TRAFFIC OFFENCES A GUIDE TO THE LAW IN ALBERTA REGARDING OF EDMONTON COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER
COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER A GUIDE TO THE LAW IN ALBERTA REGARDING TRAFFIC version: 2009 STUDENT LEGAL SERVICES OF EDMONTON GENERAL All information is provided for general knowledge purposes only and is
More informationTHE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9. and a hearing concerning PIR INDAR PAUL SINGH SAHOTA
2018 LSBC 06 Decision issued: February 15, 2018 Citation issued: November 10, 2016 THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9 and a hearing concerning
More informationDOMESTIC ENQUIRY NEED FOR DOMESTIC ENQUIRY
DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NEED FOR DOMESTIC ENQUIRY For the smooth functioning of an industry, the defined codes of discipline, contracts of service by awards, agreements and standing orders must be adhered to.
More informationOrder COLLEGE OF OPTICIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Order 02-35 COLLEGE OF OPTICIANS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner July 16, 2002 Quicklaw Cite: [2002] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 35 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/order02-35.pdf
More informationOrder F17-46 UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Celia Francis Adjudicator. October 19, 2017
Order F17-46 UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Celia Francis Adjudicator October 19, 2017 CanLII Cite: 2017 BCIPC 51 Quicklaw Cite: [2017] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 51 Summary: An applicant requested access to her
More informationYou've Been Subpoenaed: What to Expect
Session Code: TU09 Date: Tuesday, October 24 Time: 11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Total CE Credits: 1.5 Presenter(s): Kathleen Matzka, CPMSM, CPCS You ve Been Subpoenaed: What to Expect Kathy Matzka, CPMSM, CPCS,
More informationLAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT; AND
LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT; AND IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF DONNA HALLETT A MEMBER OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA Single Bencher Hearing Committee:
More information\~(i(.. ~-Stf... ; 2..\f... OS-lO (8'LDI- r,s)
\~(i(.. ~-Stf... ; 2..\f... OS-lO (8'LDI- r,s) International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Tribunal penal international pour le Rwanda TRIAL CHAMBER II OR: ENG Before: Registrar: Date: Judge William H.
More informationDSCC Uniform Administrative Procedures Policy
DSCC Uniform Administrative Procedures Policy 01: Mission, Purpose and System of Governance 01:07:00:00 Purpose: The purpose of these procedures is to provide a basis for uniform procedures to be used
More informationARTICLE 5.--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT GENERAL PROVISIONS. K.S.A through shall be known and may be cited as the Kansas
ARTICLE.--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT GENERAL PROVISIONS December, 00-0. Title. K.S.A. -0 through - - shall be known and may be cited as the Kansas administrative procedure act. History: L., ch., ; July,.
More informationPROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE MINING AND LANDS COMMISSIONER
PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE MINING AND LANDS COMMISSIONER Office of the Mining and Lands Commissioner Box 330, 24th Floor, 700 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 126 Table of Contents PROCEDURAL
More informationPRACTICE REVIEW OF TEACHERS REGULATION
Province of Alberta SCHOOL ACT PRACTICE REVIEW OF TEACHERS REGULATION Alberta Regulation 11/2010 Extract Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 7 th Floor, Park Plaza 10611-98 Avenue
More informationTEACHERS ACT [SBC 2011] Chapter 19. Contents PART 1 - DEFINITIONS
[SBC 2011] Chapter 19 Contents 1 Definitions PART 1 - DEFINITIONS PART 2 COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF CERTIFICATION 2 Appointment of commissioner 3 Commissioner s power to delegate 4 Recommendations about
More informationBETWEEN: The Complainant COMPLAINANT. AND: The College of Psychologists of British Columbia COLLEGE. AND: A Psychologists REGISTRANT
Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8W 3E9 Complainant v. The College of Psychologists of British Columbia DECISION NO. 2017-HPA-112(a) March 15, 2018 In the matter
More informationAMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING
IN THE MATTER of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, as amended, and the regulations thereunder, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER of the Pharmacy Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.36, as amended
More informationReasons for Decision File No.: DC201809
Reasons for Decision File No.: DC201809 DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Trades and Apprenticeship Act, 2009, and Ontario Regulation 97/13 (Professional
More informationCASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff(s), vs. Defendant(s). / IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: DIV 71 UNIFORM ORDER REGARDING SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL, PRE-TRIAL
More informationLitigation Privilege, and Whether There is a Duty to Disclose Adverse Expert Medical Reports at WSIAT Proceedings
Volume 17, No. 2 Sept 2012 Workers Compensation Law Section Litigation Privilege, and Whether There is a Duty to Disclose Adverse Expert Medical Reports at WSIAT Proceedings By Danielle Allen The question
More informationIntroduction 2. What is Self-representation? 2. Who Can Self-represent? 2. Help for Self-represented Litigants 3
Self-representation CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 What is Self-representation? 2 Who Can Self-represent? 2 Help for Self-represented Litigants 3 Practical Tips for Self-represented Litigants 4 Resources
More informationEXPERT WITNESS RULES, RULES AND MORE RULES. PHILIP LEVI, CFE, FCPA, FCA, CPA/CFF, CA-IFA Partner Levi & Sinclair, LLP Quebec, Quebec Canada
The role of the expert witness is to assist the court through the provision of an independent and objective opinion about matters coming within the expertise of the witness. This duty is paramount. The
More informationKANSAS HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF COMPETITION Adopted by the Young Lawyers Section of the Kansas Bar Association January, 2015 RULES
KANSAS HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF COMPETITION Adopted by the Young Lawyers Section of the Kansas Bar Association January, 2015 RULES Rule 1.1. Governing Rules The Kansas High School Mock Trial program
More informationThe Law Society of Saskatchewan
The Law Society of Saskatchewan DARBY BACHYNSKI HEARING DATE: May 7, 2018 DECISION DATE: May 29, 2018 Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Bachynski, 2018 SKLSS 5 IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 1990
More informationINFORMATION BULLETIN
INFORMATION BULLETIN #18 THE DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION I. INTRODUCTION When a union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent for a unit of employees, it normally negotiates a collective agreement with
More informationDeal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc.
Deal or no Deal The Antitrust Plea Agreement that Came and Went in R. v. Couche-Tard Inc. Huy Do Partner Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP & Antonio Di Domenico Partner Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 1 OVERVIEW
More informationYork Regional Police. Rules for Discipline Hearings under Part V the Police Services Act
York Regional Police Rules for Discipline Hearings under Part V the Police Services Act September 2014 Rules for Discipline Hearings under Part V the Police Services Act Application and General 1.0 These
More informationCollege of Chiropodists v. Peter Wilson Summary of the Decision of the Panel of the Discipline Committee
College of Chiropodists v. Peter Wilson Summary of the Decision of the Panel of the Discipline Committee Summary - This matter came on for hearing on April 24, 2003. The Discipline Panel considered the
More informationTECHNIQUES IN CROSSING THE SCIENTIFIC WITNESS
TECHNIQUES IN CROSSING THE SCIENTIFIC WITNESS by Jane Clark 2011 CBA Spring Advocacy Program Advocacy for the Courts in Intellectual Property Matters: The Art of Cross-Examination Ottawa, May 5, 2011 Jane
More informationBC MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW BOARD CODE OF CONDUCT
BC MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW BOARD CODE OF CONDUCT I. PURPOSE OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT 1. The purpose of the Code of Conduct is to promote the highest standards of conduct by members of the BC Mental Health Review
More informationIMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THOSE CONSIDERING JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THOSE CONSIDERING JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT Those seeking appointment as a Judge of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador should be aware of a number of considerations.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Black, 2006 BCSC 1357 Regina v. Date: Docket: Registry: Kelowna 2006 BCSC 1357
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Black, 2006 BCSC 1357 Regina v. Date: 20060901 Docket: 57596 Registry: Kelowna Ronda Petra Black Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Humphries
More informationTRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Citation:
More informationADMINISTRATIVE FAIRNESS GUIDEBOOK
ADMINISTRATIVE FAIRNESS GUIDEBOOK Introduction This guidebook has been created to help you learn how the Alberta Ombudsman investigates complaints of unfair treatment by Alberta government departments,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Halliday v. Cape Breton District Health Authority, 2017 NSSC 201. Cape Breton District Health Authority
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Halliday v. Cape Breton District Health Authority, 2017 NSSC 201 Between: Jennifer Halliday v. Date: 2017-07-25 Docket: Sydney, No. 307567 Registry: Sydney Plaintiff
More informationARTICLE IX DISCIPLINE
ARTICLE IX DISCIPLINE Sec. 901 Discipline of Members. It is the purpose of this Article to provide a procedure whereby a member may be appropriately disciplined while assuring that such member is given
More informationGUIDE TO DISCIPLINARY HEARING PROCEDURES
GUIDE TO DISCIPLINARY HEARING PROCEDURES All persons named as respondents in a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) have the right to a hearing. The purpose
More informationHealth Professions Review Board
Health Professions Review Board Suite 900, 747 Fort Street Victoria British Columbia Telephone: 250 953-4956 Toll Free: 1-888-953-4986 (within BC) Facsimile: 250 953-3195 Mailing Address: PO 9429 STN PROV
More informationDISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE PRACTITIONERS AND ACUPUNCTURISTS OF ONTARIO
- 1 - DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE PRACTITIONERS AND ACUPUNCTURISTS OF ONTARIO IN THE MATTER OF the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, and
More informationISSUE NO. 18 JULY 2008 FOR MORE INFORMATION TRIBUNALS HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE REASONS
FOR MORE INFORMATION This newsletter is published by Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, a law firm practising in the field of professional regulation. For more information, contact: Lisa S. Braverman Steinecke
More informationNorth Bay (City) v. Vaughan, [2018] O.J. No. 1809
Ontario Judgments Ontario Court of Appeal D.M. Brown J.A. Heard: March 19, 2018. Judgment: March 28, 2018. Docket: M48246 [2018] O.J. No. 1809 2018 ONCA 319 Between The Corporation of the City of North
More informationConstitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue
Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have
More informationLABOUR RELATIONS ACT NO. 66 OF 1995
LABOUR RELATIONS ACT NO. 66 OF 1995 [View Regulation] [ASSENTED TO 29 NOVEMBER, 1995] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 11 NOVEMBER, 1996] (Unless otherwise indicated) (English text signed by the President) This
More informationDISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES. Andrew J. Heal
DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE CASES Andrew J. Heal ANDREW J. HEAL, PARTNER HEAL & Co. LLP - 2 - DISCLOSURE: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROSECUTION
More informationCOMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE PROCESS
COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE PROCESS Approved by CPHR SASKATCHEWAN Board as of September 18, 2009 Updated COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE PROCESS I Introduction 2 II Definitions 2 III Establishment of CPHR SASKATCHEWAN
More informationDISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF CHIROPODISTS OF ONTARIO. Cesar Mendez,Chairperson Ed Chung Member Khalid Daud Public Member Riaz Bagha Member
1 DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF CHIROPODISTS OF ONTARIO PANEL: Cesar Mendez,Chairperson Ed Chung Member Khalid Daud Public Member Riaz Bagha Member BETWEEN: ) JORDAN GLICK for COLLEGE OF CHIROPODISTS
More information2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 67 ELIZABETH II, Bill 203. An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment
2ND SESSION, 41ST LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO 67 ELIZABETH II, 2018 Bill 203 An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment The Hon. K. Flynn Minister of Labour Government Bill 1st Reading March 6, 2018
More informationBoard of Trustees Bylaws
Board of Trustees Bylaws Revised June 16, 2015 Table of Contents Preface... Page 4 Article I. Legal Basis. Page 4 Section 1. Establishment by General Assembly Section 2. Corporate Name Section 3. Office
More informationRules for the Conduct of an administered Arbitration
Rules for the Conduct of an administered Arbitration EXPLANATORY STATEMENT 1.1 These Rules govern disputes which are international in character, and are referred by the parties to AFSA INTERNATIONAL for
More informationNFA Arbitration: Resolving Customer Disputes
NFA Arbitration: Resolving Customer Disputes Contents Why arbitration? 2 What does it cost to arbitrate? 4 What is NFA Arbitration? 6 Glossary of terms 17 National Futures Association (NFA) is a self-regulatory
More informationREDACTED. DECISION OF THE REGISTRAR Hearing Date: December 8, 2016
REDACTED IN THE MATTER OF THE ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS ACT, R.S.B.C. 1996, chapter 116, as amended (the Act ) and a hearing concerning [APPLICANT A] (the Applicant ) DECISION OF THE REGISTRAR Hearing
More informationBritish Columbia Institute of Agrologists Communications Committee - Terms of Reference
1. Committee Establishment BCIA Council Communications Committee TOR amended February 24, 2018 British Columbia Institute of Agrologists Communications Committee - Terms of Reference The British Columbia
More informationCriminal Procedure Act 2009
Examinable excerpts of Criminal Procedure Act 2009 as at 2 October 2017 CHAPTER 2 COMMENCING A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PART 2.1 WAYS IN WHICH A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS COMMENCED 5 How a criminal proceeding
More informationArgued September 27, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez, Nugent, and Geiger.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationMembers' Code of Conduct
TABLED DOCUMENT 67-17(3) TABLED ON OCTOBER 17, 2012 A~bCl..A~~nc ~'Jcr~ba...oc Cl.. r..c-
More informationJAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures
JAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures Effective September 1, 2016 JAMS INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION RULES JAMS International and JAMS provide arbitration and mediation services from Resolution
More informationPRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF R. v. K.G.B.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF R. v. K.G.B. Brian D. Williston THE ORTHODOX RULE Until recently, the "orthodox rule" dictated that prior inconsistent statements made by a non-party
More information