General Biography Louis M. He specializes in resolving a wide variety of disputes, and is especially adept at handling large, complex cases, including matters involving class actions, PAGA claims and mass tort, employment and discrimination, and personal injury issues. Marlin also is experienced at using early mediation to resolve intra-corporate and inter-corporate disputes without the necessity of litigation, a unique practice area developed by him.
Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal is upheld. The HSF approached the High Court seeking to have that decision reviewed and set aside on the grounds that it was unlawful and irrational.
This record consisted of: The reasons for the decision were distilled from the deliberations by the Chief Justice. Two days before the applicant was due to file its supplementary affidavit, it became aware that the JSC routinely recorded its deliberations and that the deliberations in question had also been recorded.
It requested the JSC to file a recording of the deliberations on the basis that the recording formed part of the rule 53 record.
The HSF launched an interlocutory application to compel the JSC to file a full record of the decision, including the recording. However, there are cases, such as this one, where confidentiality considerations warrant non-disclosure of deliberations. The appeal was dismissed.
It submits that, while a disclosure of deliberations may be required in some circumstances, this cannot be the norm.
The JSC submits that there are good reasons for the confidentiality of its deliberations. Requiring disclosure may have the unintended consequence of discouraging the JSC from recording its deliberations in future. That this Court has jurisdiction is clear.
There are reasonable prospects of success. Thus it is in the interests of justice that leave to appeal be granted.
The content of a rule 53 record  In order to decide if it is legally permissible to exclude a recording of JSC deliberations from a rule 53 record, it is necessary first to consider what the existing state of our law is on what a rule 53 record is, and what it contains.
It helps ensure that review proceedings are not launched in the dark. It allows an applicant to interrogate the decision and, if necessary, to amend its notice of motion and supplement its grounds for review.
That comment must surely be of relevance even to the exclusion of privileged information from a rule 53 record. After all, the content of a rule 53 record is but evidentiary in nature.
The authors say that in the case of privileged information, the exclusion is based on the recognition that the general policy that justice is best served when all relevant evidence is ventilated may, in some cases, be outweighed by a particular policy that requires the suppression of that evidence.
In the latter case it would, I venture to think, include every scrap of paper throwing light, however indirectly, on what the proceedings were, both procedurally and evidentially. It does, however, include all the documents before the Executive Committee as well as all documents which are by reference incorporated in the file before it.
In what I consider to be a positive development, they place emphasis on the fact that deliberations are relevant to the enquiry as to what it is that informed the decision. The content of such deliberations can often be the clearest indication of what the decision-maker took into account and what it left out of account.
It held that deliberations are not necessarily excluded from the record but that in some circumstances considerations of confidentiality will justify their exclusion. Irrelevance and privilege are the usual grounds for excluding information from the record.
It cannot be that deliberations, as a class of information, are generally: Further, I cannot conceive of any policy or public interest reasons for excluding deliberations from the record in general. Whatever the basis for exclusion may be, it is surely not because the notes are not relevant to the decision.
Reasons that have been proffered for the exclusion are based on the existence of strong policy considerations that justify exclusion. They are not based on generalised notions of confidentiality. That said, the exclusion under this example is not before us for decision.
Therefore, I need not pronounce definitively on it. Deliberations are the most immediate and accurate record of the process leading up to the decision.
They clearly bear on the lawfulness, rationality and procedural fairness of the decisions.Although mediation and arbitration have the same goal in mind, a fair resolution of the issues at hand, there are some major differences which both parties must understand beforehand.
In , Hearing Assist set out to solve a problem: the high cost of available solutions for mild-moderate hearing loss. Numerous barriers limit access to hearing health care, particularly the high cost of hearing aids (average cost is $ for a pair), and lack of .
(The Commission will now redact Complainants' names when it publishes decisions. Beginning on October 1, , all federal sector appellate decisions issued for publication will use a randomly generated name as a substitute for the name of the complainant, .
Hdac Technology AG respects the privacy of its Members, Contributors, Users or Clients and is dedicated to controlling the use and disclosure of information provided by Members, Contributors, Users or Clients using the Site. ABSTRACT GOES HERE. The “What” of Mediation: When Is Mediation the Right Process Choice?
Louis M. Marlin, Esq.
|A TYPICAL GRIEVANCE PROCESS||The number of lists generated, and the number of arbitrator names per list, depend on the specific case type. Parties may rank the remaining arbitrators on each list.|
is a full-time neutral with JAMS who brings over 40 years of significant trial and litigation experience in his background as both plaintiff and defense iridis-photo-restoration.com specializes in resolving a wide variety of disputes, and is especially adept at handling large, complex cases, including matters involving class actions, PAGA claims and mass tort, employment and discrimination.