Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion configured an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the staff member¡¯s motion to remove immunity from certain staff members, should her appeal fail, was entirely misconceived, as such a request was entirely outside of the mandate of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Order No. 133 (GVA/2015), finding that the Appellant had failed to present compelling grounds that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had exceeded its jurisdiction in restricting its judicial review to a paper-only assessment and not...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing on the basis that it would be neither necessary nor useful since the relevant facts were clear, the witness was already heard by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT (by audio conference) as verified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, the unusual context of the case was insufficient to indicate that any fact or issue could be refined by specific testimony and it would not assist Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT with the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. On the Appellant¡¯s motion for additional hearings, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the documents contained arguments already submitted, although phrased differently, and no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was not persuaded that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in procedure or otherwise exceeded its jurisdiction such as to warrant reversal of the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no reason to differ from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s findings that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA had no reason to refer the Appellant to a medical board and that the issue was not relevant as the Appellant did not contest that he was unfit for service, nor did he allege that his health problems were related to his service with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further noted that, as the Appellant was over sixty years of age, he was not eligible for a disability...

ArÄ¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT¡¯s decision not to hold an oral hearing was a shortcoming since the parties had not agreed to the case being decided on the papers and the facts needed to be established by witnesses and/or further documentary evidence. On the question of bias and its possible bearing on the outcome of the selection process, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT should have engaged in a thorough examination of the facts, rather than drawing an inference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the inference drawn by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT, that it was realistic to conclude that not all of the posts could be filled by suitable candidates...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since it did not find that an oral hearing would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Summary judgment, finding that the application was manifestly inadmissible, was not tainted by any errors. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was asking for the execution of an alleged default judgment issued by the first instance court in the previous proceedings more than six years earlier, and for enforcement of a non-existent mediation agreement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

A telephone conversation that was suggestive of gender discrimination in the decision-making process and was raised by the Appellant in his application was ignored by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made an error in the procedure by failing to hold an oral hearing where witnesses could testify about that conversation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the matter back to a different judge of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for the production of further evidence, additional findings of fact, and the issuance of a new judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by Mr. Mezyed. As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied Mr. Mezyed¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Turning to the merits of the appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT had applied correctly the first four conditions in Area Staff Rule 109.4 precedent to possible severance from service for abandonment of post. As to the fifth condition, Mr. Mezyed¡¯s failure to submit an acceptable written explanation for his failure to report, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Agency had failed to properly address the grounds advanced by Mr. Mezyed for his non-return, and as such, the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT could not...

As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declined Mr. Hossain¡¯s request for an in-person hearing and held that Mr. Hossain did not explain, at least sufficiently, why his appeal should be dealt with other than on papers filed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law by rejecting Mr. Hossain¡¯s proceedings other than on their merits and for threshold jurisdictional reasons that it was empowered to examine and assist to establish. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, while perhaps disposing of the case in an expeditious way, did not do so fairly, or certainly justly, as between the parties. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT admitted on appeal the...

In cases deemed suitable to be decided by summary judgment, usually an oral hearing is not necessary. In non-disciplinary cases, it is a matter of judicial discretion to hold an oral hearing or to abstain from it. The mandate of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is confined to the review of administrative decisions. Although the definition of this term may be disputed, it is beyond question that administrative decisions must by essence be taken by the Administration. Since the decisions of former Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT are judicial decisions, they cannot be contested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. The provisions on transitional measures apply to pending...