Potter V Brunswick Legal Aid Services Case Summary

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

The present case is even more tenuous than Jordan because Dr. Stout was not an employee at the time the purported misrepresentations were made. Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6).

The case shown to the court, shows Mr Blyth’s dismissal was not unfair as he did not follow the Safety policies of JBS Australia. The Fair work Commission have many aspects of law to consider before deciding if the dismissal was unfair. The case was brought to the commission within the 21 day period. The Fair Work Act 2009 shows that this case was not a harsh dismissal due to the fact that they followed all the points in s.387. There was a valid reason for dismissal, Mr Blyth was notified of the safety, there was an opportunity to respond, there was no unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussion related to dismissal, Mr Blyth did not relate the dismissal to unsatisfactory

Adomeit alleges two employment decisions made by Union Pacific were the result of discrimination and retaliation. Firstly, she alleges she was denied the position of Engineer and then secondly when she was dismissed.

As the chief steward for Local 37, how would you substantiate your allegation that the dismissal violated the collective bargaining agreement?

Arbitration is not a convenient course of action in this case, as it is dysfunctional to the staff and council. Based on the actions of the employee which are given in the case study, such as his argumentive and depressing attitude, this would be damaging to the entity and its employees, who have every right to expect positivity from those in the same environment. Testimonies are possible forms of evidence, and could therefore cause the favor to be turned against the favor of Mr.

If Larry Marshall were to apply for unfair dismissal from LPHC he would be successful in his application. One, LPHC did not follow the correct procedures when terminating the employment. Two, LPHC did not give a ‘fair go all round’ insufficient weight to the fact was given. Larry will apply to be reinstated as a tactical move, if LPHC declines that on a broken employment relationship, compensation will be

arbitration law, and it’s increasing importance in the wider fields of dispute, is stated that no award or decision will be allowed to stand where the tribunal has committed what was once known more directly as ‘misconduct’ now called ‘serious (procedural) irregularity’ (Uff, 2010). Take a case which would not have got off the ground, yet if the arbitrator explained everything, the court would see it his way (Uff, 2010).

An unjustifiable dismissal occurs when an employer unfairly dismisses and employee, under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000. An employer may make a dismissal for many reasons such as repeated poor work performance, theft or harassment. However, for an employer to prove that the dismissal was justified they must undertake the correct procedures to ensure the decision was not unreasonable. Section 103A(3) of The Employment Relations Act 2000 requires that the Court considers whether the employer has firstly sufficiently investigated the allegations, secondly has raised any concerns with the employee, thirdly gave the employee reasonable opportunity to respond and finally whether the employer considered the employee’s explanation. All employers must act in good faith when taking disciplinary acts to ensure that an unjustifiable dismissal is not carried out (Unfair Dismissal and Personal Grievances, 2006). The question ‘should all or some employers in New Zealand have the right to hire and fire without the threat of having to defend against an unjustifiable dismissal should they discontinue that employment relationship’ will be argued in detail with an explanation of trade offs for New Zealander’s as well as Employment at Will with the effect it both have on employees and the organisation, this will be examined in greater detail with supporting evidence.

The Webster Industries case is about a company that has seen a lot of growth throughout the years. As a result management became strained and needed to divide the company into groups with a divisional corporate structure. In 1974 the company was faced with financial troubles due to a combination of economic slowdown and growing too quickly. Webster grew too fast and this resulted in “sloppy staffing”. The company did have a PA process in effect, but it was used on a voluntary basis. The mindset of the employees is that anything can be appealed to the President and Chairman; no decision is really final and can be brought before the owners.

In addition, please keep in mind the decision to eliminate the previous position held by the defendant, in this case, was decided prior to the defendant notifying the company's

This case concerns the scope and effect of arbitration clauses in charter parties entered into by companies in the Sovcomflot group of companies as owners. They alleged that the charters were procured by bribery and purported to rescind the charters on this ground. The question arose as to whether it was for the Courts to decide if the owners were entitled to do so or if this question should be determined by arbitration. The owners commenced court proceedings for a declaration that the charters had been validly rescinded and the charterers applied for a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Morison J originally refused a stay but the Court of Appeal (Tuckey, Arden and Longmore LJJ) reversed the first instance decision. The House of Lords commented that if the parties are in a dispute that can be thought to be resolved by the process of Arbitration then it should apparent that because of its advantages over the official court proceeding. In order to establish the dissimilarity between disputes that should be arbitrated and which should not (Alternative Dispute Resolution In Civil Disputes,

The Cunningham case examined whether the plaintiff, who sought to invoke personal grievances procedures, was an employee or an independent contractor*. Only had the plaintiff been an employee, such remedies were available.* The judges unanimously held that he was a contractor. The reasons set out in coming to this conclusion sheds light on whether the Koia case interpreted fairly the Cunningham’s court of Appeal decision. The Court of Appeal established that, not limited to what was expressed in contract, all relevant circumstances and the operation of the contract were to be identified in determining one’s status of employment. Both Cooke P and Hardie

between spouses valid, (2) if so, is A entitled to enforce the valid contract allowing him

The greatest opportunity for the settlement of a complaint or grievance lies in the initial step of the procedure. If there is no formal procedure and the firm announces an open door policy , then it is possible that the manager may get bypassed by the worker who would take his grievance directly to the higher level of management .but such bypassing not merely undermines the manager’s authority ,who loses face, but also creates an atmosphere of win-or-loose in which both the worker and manager will try to prove the other wrong.