Traduction de «pertinence des informations probantes » (Français → Anglais) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 170 Hon. Irwin Cotler: With regard to the victims' surcharge: (a) for each of the last ten years, broken down by province and year; how much was collected; (b) broken down by program and service, how was the money in (a) spent; (c) broken down by province and year, in what percent of cases was a surcharge imposed; (d) since the enactment of the Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims Act (IOAVA), how much, broken down by province and territory, has been collected; (e) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government given to victims' programs and services, ...[+++] broken down by program or service; (f) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government transferred to provinces for victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (g) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, in how many cases did a judge provide more than 20 years for surcharge repayment; (h) for the ten years prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, what were the mean, median, mode, and value of surcharges collected; (i) since the enactment of the IOAVA, broken down by year and province, what were the mean, median, and mode, and value of surcharges collected; (j) since the enactment of the IOAVA, how much money has the government given to victims' programs and services, broken down by program or service; (k) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in what specific cases, broken down by province, has a surcharge not been imposed; (l) since the enactment of the IOAVA, in what specific cases, broken down by province, has the collection of a surcharge been delayed more than 20 years; (m) prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases was the constitutionality of the surcharge challenged; (n) prior to the enactment of the IOAVA, in which specific cases did the Crown appeal on a matte ...

As regards ‘getting results from the EU budget’, the Commission is not in a position to provide sufficient, relevant and reliable evidence on what the EU’s policies have achieved in a way that is suitable for the purposes of the discharge procedure.

They include such factors as the relevance and materiality of the evidence to the issues at trial; the necessity of the evidence to the accused's case and his or her ability to make full answer in defence; the probative value of the evidence; whether the evidence is available through any other means; whether the media's ability to gather and report the news will be impaired by being called to give evidence and, if so, the degree of the impairment; whether the necessity of the evidence in the case at hand outweighs the impairment, ...[+++] if any, of the media; and whether the impairment of the media's function can be minimized by confining the evidence adduced to only that which is necessary to the accused's case.[Technical difficulty Editor].certainly a sophisticated consideration of the pertinent factors.

Expenditure paid by final beneficiaries shall be substantiated by receipted invoices or accounting documents of equivalent probative value or other relevant documents, where, according to the programme, assistance is not a function of expenditure.

all relevant elements, at the applicant's disposal, have been submitted, and a satisfactory explanation regarding any lack of other relevant elements has been given.

Given the inherent risk of unduly widening the scope of the relevant market, findings of chain substitutability should be adequately substantiated(50).