These are the points on which the JWs judicial hearing fails natural justice rules (thank you to a reddit poster for this list) This is what is at issue:
1) The Judicial Meeting did not follow any rules of natural justice. Highwood did not afford, inter alia, the Applicant:
a) Notice of any kind, but certainly not any form of proper notice;
b) No disclosure of evidence was provided, accordingly, the Applicant could not know the case he was required to answer (Suresh http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc1/2002scc1.html?autocompleteStr=suresh&autocompletePos=1 );
c) No list of witnesses was provided, nor was there any opportunity to cross-examine them or test the veracity of their statements;
d) The chairman was in a position of conflict of interest on the basis of prior association (Marques v Dylex http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1977/1977canlii1157/1977canlii1157.html?resultIndex=1 ), accordingly he had a reasonable apprehension of bias;
e) Legal or other representation was forbidden;
f) No support individual was made available before, during or after the proceeding;
g) Note-taking or recording of the proceeding was forbidden;
h) The possible outcome was not disclosed;
i) No hearing rules or by-laws were provided; and,
j) No rules or by-laws outlining membership requirements and expulsion procedures were provided.