Reason to Believe in Legal Meaning

Employees who have reasonable grounds to believe that working conditions are unsafe must follow certain legal procedures. This usually involves immediately notifying the employer or supervisor that they are refusing to work and staying with the employer or supervisor while their situation is being investigated. Caution: I am not a lawyer. It seems to me that the lawyer who uses the phrase “We have no reason to believe that the allegations made here are true” is saying not only that the allegations are not true, but that not all the evidence supporting the allegations is true. Of course, one must consider the possibility that counsel using the phrase “no reason to believe” did so as a tired formulation, trying to emphasize his position, rather than as part of a logical statement in which the reasons [i.e., Evidence] support the conclusions [i.e., the allegations]. Although the existence of the suggests that there is probably a reason to believe the allegations, the term is used almost literally. The term “reasonable grounds to believe” (GBR) is used as a threshold of proof in many legal contexts, both in criminal law and occupational health and safety law. It can be compared to the “reasonable grounds to suspect” threshold, which is a lower threshold that is not often used in OHS contexts. n.

reasonable grounds, based on known facts, to believe that a criminal offence has been committed or that certain property is related to a criminal offence. A probable reason must be for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without warrant, search without warrant or seize property in the belief that the items were evidence of a crime. While some cases are straightforward (guns and illegal drugs in sight, gunshots, suspicious exiting a liquor store while an employee yells “help”), acts “usually” written on the faces of drug dealers, burglars, prostitutes, thieves or perpetrators are more difficult to categorize. The “probable cause” is often subjective, but if the officer`s belief or even hypothesis was correct and the stolen property, hidden weapon or drugs were found, can be claimed as self-fulfilling evidence of probable cause. Technically, there must be probable cause prior to arrest, search or seizure. In the context of a refusal to work, an employee who has reason to believe that he or she is exposed to unsafe work is entitled to protection from reprisals such as dismissal; In the United States, however, workers are not protected from disciplinary action or termination unless they are exposed to imminent danger – refusal to work due to a potential danger can result in dismissal. In contrast, workers in Ontario, Canada, can refuse to work without fear of dismissal as long as they believe the work puts them at risk. In general, a person can be said to have reasonable grounds to believe something if they have seen physical evidence or otherwise obtained empirical facts about unsafe conditions in the workplace. In Lekhmani Mewal, the [Supreme Court (1976(3) IMT 1] held that the term “ground of presumption” does not imply purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the income tax officer. The reason must be in good faith. This cannot be a mere pretext. The court is free to consider whether the grounds for forming the creed are rationally connected to or have a relevant influence on the formation of the creed and are not irrelevant or irrelevant for the purposes of the section.

The standard interpretation of sufficient reasons is the existence of empirical evidence, for example: whether a worker finds that there is an uncontrolled hazard in the workplace; However, regulatory changes in some jurisdictions have changed the amount of evidence required to meet the threshold while retaining the term, so the functional meaning of the term may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. According to OSHA, a reasonable reason to believe that the working conditions are unsafe, that the belief is in good faith, and that another reasonable person also believes that the conditions are dangerous. In other jurisdictions, such as various Canadian provinces, good faith is the only requirement of reasonable faith. In the context of workplace hazards, “reasonable grounds to believe” is a threshold of proof used in different jurisdictions and describes a situation in which a person has the right to take a specific action defined by law. In the context of occupational health and safety, “reasonable grounds to believe” are primarily used as a threshold for concluding: In N Nagendra Rao & Co [1994 (9) IMT 316 – Supreme Court], it was held that the expression “ground of presumption” was interpreted by that court to mean that the formation of opinions may be subjective, but must be based on documents on file. It cannot be arbitrary, whimsical or fanciful. It is therefore a question of controlling the exercise of the power to seize goods. “We have no reason to believe that the allegations made here are true.” I searched for it online, without success. In a lawsuit involving counsel for one or both parties, what a lawyer signals in terms of legal strategy (i.e., beyond the literal meaning of “unfounded”) is to use the phrase “no reason to believe,” especially in the face of overwhelming evidence, as in the following example: If you use the phrase “I have no reason to believe…” Given all the evidence that should give you reason to believe that this is known as a “lie” in law, as in common life. Have knowledge of facts that, although not direct knowledge, would reasonably lead a reasonable person who knows the same facts to the same conclusion.

Of course, the specific quote given may be a concession that some of the accusations are true: but not all. However, what is compelling evidence for you may not be compelling evidence for someone else with whom you have a dispute (or even an arbitrator). Never neglect the possibility that you may be completely wrong. This sentence signals nothing strategic beyond the obvious: the intention to deny the allegations. Home TMI Short Notes Service Tax All indications for this source This.