Latest news with #judicialreview
Irish Times
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
Government plans for €35,000 fees cap to halt High Court delays to building projects
The Government wants to cap legal fees that can be claimed from the State in environmental planning cases, in a bid to discourage High Court actions against infrastructure and housing projects. Ministers have been taking advice on the measures from Attorney General Rossa Fanning this week. This is being done in the hope of stemming the tide of legal actions that have held up schemes relating to wastewater, roads and housing. The move reflects growing anxiety in the Coalition about the need to boost the State's basic infrastructure, as concerns grow about housing delivery being hindered by constraints in electricity and water networks. One option under discussion is to impose a limit of about €35,000 on legal costs that litigants can claim from the State if they succeed in a judicial review challenge against a planning decision. READ MORE Such moves would apply to High Court cases taken under the Aarhus Convention, an international agreement that governs access to justice in environmental matters. Minister for the Environment Darragh O'Brien is required, under new planning legislation, to 'prescribe monetary amounts' for costs in Aarhus proceedings, after consulting with Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan and Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers. On this question, the law requires ministers to take into account 'the need to ensure that court and judicial resources are utilised for the common good and in the interests of justice'. They must also consider 'the cost to the Exchequer'. Such measures are included in the Planning and Development Act of 2024, an extensive body of law to overhaul and speed up the planning process. The act is one of the biggest pieces of legislation in the State's history. Minister for Housing James Browne is commencing the law in phases, with measures taking force this week to establish An Coimisiún Pleanála in succession to An Bord Pleanála. The new commission is chaired by Paul Reid , former chief executive of the Health Service Executive. Despite the worsening housing crisis, thousands of new homes in certain parts of the Dublin region have been delayed because they cannot access electricity . Uisce Éireann has separately warned it will have no capacity for new housing connections within three years if a new north Dublin wastewater plant does not proceed. Permission for the plant was struck down by the High Court five years ago. A cap in the region of €35,000 has yet to be settled and people involved in the talks stressed the debate was still open. 'There's a scheme being developed under the legislation but it hasn't been finalised,' said one figure with knowledge of the talks. Asked for comment on the prospect of a €35,000 cap, Mr O'Brien's spokeswoman said: 'Proposals are currently being developed and will be assessed. No decision has been made at this stage.' People familiar with the proposal believe it is likely to provoke resistance from environmental campaigners. Any move to impose a cap would drastically reduce lawyers' earning potential in judicial review cases taken on environmental grounds. Legal sources say successful litigants often rack up legal fees of hundreds of thousands of euro in cases taken on a 'no foal no fee' basis by lawyers, where litigants incur no fees if they lose.
Associated Press
2 days ago
- Business
- Associated Press
GCMS Notes Request Advises Applicants to Secure GCMS and CBSA Notes After Canada's Judicial-Review Deadline Extended
GCMS Notes Request Advises Applicants to Secure GCMS and CBSA Notes After Canada's Judicial-Review Deadline Extended to 75 Days TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA, June 18, 2025 / / -- Canada's Federal Court has expanded the filing window for immigration judicial reviews from 30 days to 75 days, giving refused visa, permit, and permanent-residence applicants more time to assemble evidence for their cases. GCMS Notes Request says the extra six weeks make it practical and strategic to obtain the full electronic records that immigration and border officers used when making the original decision. 'A judicial review isn't a fresh application; it's a challenge to how the decision was made,' a spokesperson explained. 'Having the officer's own words in the gcms notes or the inspection details in CBSA notes can reveal procedural errors, unmet evidence thresholds, or misinterpretations that a lawyer can cite in court.' GCMS notes from IRCC's Global Case Management System typically run 30 to 200 pages and include document checklists, background-screening logs, and officer comments. CBSA notes provide parallel insight for cases involving border examinations, enforcement actions, or entry refusals. Both records are available under Canada's Access to Information Act and, according to the company, can be obtained well within the new 75-day limit. Applicants facing tight timelines can order gcms notes from Canada or outside Canada in minutes through the GCMS Notes Request website. The platform delivers encrypted files by email and offers access to independent immigration professionals for complex file reviews. 'With more time on the clock, there's no reason to proceed without the complete record,' the spokesperson added. 'It's the quickest way to turn a generic refusal letter into actionable legal grounds.' About GCMS Notes Request GCMS Notes Request is a Canada-based platform that helps applicants worldwide obtain their GCMS notes from IRCC and CBSA. The service manages requests under the Access to Information Act, delivers encrypted files securely, and provides access to expert reviews from independent immigration professionals for complex files. Learn more at GCMS Notes Request is an independent service and is not affiliated with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), or any Government of Canada department. Obtaining GCMS notes does not guarantee a visa approval. Media Relations GCMS Notes Request email us here Visit us on social media: Instagram Facebook YouTube Legal Disclaimer: EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
CTV News
2 days ago
- Health
- CTV News
West Grey ‘denied' judicial review of hospital cuts by Ontario court
West Grey council says while they don't agree with it, they accept a decision by Ontario's Superior Court to deny their request for a judicial review of cuts to the Durham hospital. Last year, the emergency room hours at the Durham Hospital were reduced, and all 10 inpatient beds at the rural hospital were moved elsewhere by the South Bruce Grey Health Centre. Nursing shortages were to blame, said hospital administration. 061825 - Durham Municipality of West Grey-Durham on June 2024. (Scott Miller/CTV News London) Upset over the decision, West Grey council instituted a 'state of emergency' in the community due to the cuts, and requested the courts to weigh in on the controversial healthcare cuts. This week, the Ontario Superior Court called the hospital board's decision 'a private operational matter,' and not something the courts should weigh in on. In a news release, West Grey says the municipality, 'accepts the Court's decision; however, it does not concede the validity or importance of the claim.' 'As we move forward, the Municipality remains committed to working with healthcare partners, provincial representatives and community stakeholders to advocate for sustainable, inclusive healthcare solutions that reflect the needs of all residents,' said Mayor Kevin Eccles.
New York Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Sotomayor Writes the Court ‘Abandons' Transgender Children to ‘Political Whims'
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court's three liberals, wrote a scathing dissent criticizing her conservative colleagues' decision to uphold a state ban on some medical treatments for transgender youths. The justice said that the court had retreated from 'meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most,' adding that 'the court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' Justice Sotomayor also took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench during the opinion announcement on Wednesday, a move typically reserved to emphasize a justice's extreme displeasure with a decision. She took issue with the majority's view that questions about such medical treatments should be resolved by 'the people, their elected representatives and the democratic process.' In her 31-page dissent, she argued that 'judicial scrutiny has long played an essential role' in guarding against efforts by lawmakers to 'impose upon individuals the state's views about how people of a particular sex (or race) should live or look or act.' Justice Sotomayor pointed to landmark Supreme Court cases that pushed back against discriminatory laws and policies. She cited United States v. Virginia, the 1996 case in which the court struck down Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy, along with Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that declared state laws prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional. 'Those laws, too, posed politically fraught and contested questions about race, sex and biology,' the justice wrote. In the interracial marriage case, she wrote as an example, Virginia had argued that if the court intervened in the matter, it would find itself in a 'bog of conflicting scientific opinion upon the effects of interracial marriage, and the desirability of preventing such alliances, from the physical, biological, genetic, anthropological, cultural, psychological and sociological point of view.' Her dissent was joined fully by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and, in part, by Justice Elena Kagan. Although justices often include 'respectfully' in the essay explaining their dissents, Justice Sotomayor wrote only this: 'In sadness, I dissent.'
Free Malaysia Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Apex court allows Najib to attend appeal hearing on royal addendum
The Federal Court had previously fixed July 1 and 2 to hear the appeal against a Court of Appeal decision that allowed Najib Razak to initiate a judicial review related to the addendum. (EPA Images pic) PETALING JAYA : The Federal Court today allowed an application by Najib Razak to attend the hearing of the attorney-general's appeal on the existence of a royal addendum allegedly permitting him to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest. A three-member panel comprising Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim and Federal Court judges Zabariah Yusof and Hanipah Farikullah allowed the application, and issued an order to facilitate Najib's presence at the hearing in July. Bernama reported that the former prime minister's counsel, Shafee Abdullah, submitted the application and that it was unopposed by federal counsel Ainna Sherina Saipolamin, who represented the attorney-general. The Federal Court had previously fixed July 1 and 2 to hear the appeal against a Court of Appeal decision that allowed Najib to initiate a judicial review related to the addendum. In a 2-1 majority decision on Jan 6, the Court of Appeal remitted the case on Najib's claim of the existence of a royal addendum purportedly allowing him to serve the remainder of his six-year prison sentence under house arrest to the High Court to be heard on its merits. This decision overturned the High Court's earlier dismissal of Najib's application for leave to commence a judicial review regarding the alleged addendum. Najib is currently serving a six-year jail sentence in connection with the SRC International Sdn Bhd case, following the Federal Court's dismissal of his appeal and review application. In February last year, the Federal Territories Pardons Board reduced his initial 12-year jail sentence and fine of RM210 million to six years and a RM50 million fine.
