Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In Canadian law, a reasonable apprehension of bias is a legal standard for disqualifying judges and administrative decision-makers for bias. Bias of the decision-maker can be real or merely perceived. The test was first stated in Committee for Justice and Liberty v. Canada (National Energy Board), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369:
R v. S (RD), [1997] 3 SCR 484, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision which established rules governing reasonable apprehension of judicial bias in the court system and the consideration of social context, such as systemic racism, when rendering judgement.
Baker further argued that the duty of fairness owed her by the Minister meant that the decision-makers should be free from any "reasonable apprehension of bias". The court concurred and found on the facts that there was a "reasonable apprehension of bias" in the case of the immigration officer who wrote the notes on the file that were ...
Newfoundland Telephone Co v Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities), [1992] 1 SCR 623 is a Canadian administrative law case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court held that the standard of bias may vary depending on the function of the administrative body.
Fair procedures, Constitutional Justice, Bias, Reasonable apprehension, Failure to raise an alleged procedural unfairness at first opportunity. Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd (No 6) [2000] IESC 15; [ 1 ] [2000] 4 IR 412 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court considered the test for objective bias in Ireland.
The judge overseeing the Arizona "fake elector" case against several of Donald Trump's allies has recused himself from the case after accusations of personal bias. Last week, defense attorneys for ...
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in a decision released late Tuesday said the case presented a common question over the impact that a 2022 mass layoff at the company had on workers 50 and older.
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."