Phil re: “it occurred to me that if a PC wants to revisit its allowance to a protest to be withdrawn, it can simply protest the boat that had withdrawn its protest under rule 60.3(a).”
You should post that nugget at the end of the other thread so people following that one can find it.
Also, I can’t take credit for that thread’s idea. That came from John Allan.
Paul, I like your addition of “coercion” to the tick-box list. I think it goes well along with “foul play” and concepts of “for good reason”. Also your points on “hearing” make sense to me.
I keep coming back to my list (adding “for good reason” questions). I’m not suggesting below is a fixed script, but rather emblematic of information-gathering and process. The info below can be obtained separately and pieced together. Seems to me if the PC gets the info represented by the Q’s below, they have a basis that they conducted due diligence prior to a decision on withdraw-allowance.
Ask both parties: "Did the incident involve injury or damage?"
- If “yes” above, may need to assess “seriousness”
- “What is the reason that you are requesting to withdraw your protest?”
- “Are you being pressured or coerced in any way to make this request?”
Ask Protestee: "The Protestor has requested to withdraw their protest against you. Do you have any objections to the PC allowing this?”
- If "yes" above, "What is the basis of your objections?"