Sentences with phrase «scc makes»

After receipt of the request for arbitration, the SCC makes a preliminary authentication and confirm receipt to the Claimant.

All About Information SCC makes a modest point in favouring local court's jurisdiction over privacy claim

The SCC made no apparent attempt to decide whether it was obliged to submit the reference under Article 267 TFEU or to apply the criteria established by the CJEU in the Cilfit case.

The statistics for 2016 shows that, when the SCC made the appointment, 22.5 % of women arbitrators were appointed.

The SCC made it number two in Innovative Lawyers Awards 2017, an annual award given by the Financial Times, for its initiative the Stockholm Treaty Lab.

Essentially the SCC made the, correct, decision that a committee created by the employer to bargain on behalf of employees would be an infringement on freedom of association.

Not exact matches

By making a purchase on http://www.sportscampscanada.com (the «Site»), you agree to Sports Camps Canada, ULC's, 2 - 1033 Pape Ave, Toronto, ON, M4K 3W1 («SCC») purchase terms and conditions and our cancellation and refund terms, found in our Peace of Mind Policy (together, the «Terms»).

March 1989 The Scottish Constitutional Convention (SCC) meets for the first time and sets out the key demand for a Scottish assembly or parliament with law - making powers.

The Welsh education system has «massive untapped potential» and the Schools Challenge Cymru (SCC) initiative has a made a «significant impact» within its first two years, according to a leading Welsh government adviser.

Smart Cruise Control (SCC) with full stop capability helps make driving on the freeway less stressful.

Available driver - aid technology, including Advanced Smart Cruise Control (SCC), Blind Spot Detection (BSD), Rear Cross Traffic Alert (RCTA) and Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB)-- which, under appropriate conditions, will bring the vehicle to a complete stop to potentially avoid a collision or reduce damage — makes the task of driving easier and more convenient.

Elantra's Smart Cruise Control (SCC) makes highway and long distance driving more comfortable.

Benefits: If you are selected to participate in the study, the study will cover the costs associated with eye examination, blood collection, and mane pulling; however, if a presumptive diagnosis of SCC is made for your horse, any further diagnostics or therapy associated with the diagnosis of SCC will be your responsibility.

Vouchers are available at participating clinics (see below under «SCC Voucher») so inquire when you make your appointment.

SCC continually upgrades its facilities and service levels as part of its commitment to make itself relevant to its customers» changing needs.

We can amalgamate the changes in assumptions made in the previous two sections to estimate the SCC by assuming a more current ECS distribution in accordance with the Otto distribution and changing the end year to 2150.

A low SCC can make all but the lowest - cost clean - energy policies pencil out as expensive; higher estimates justify more rapid and aggressive measures, since moving too slowly to reduce emissions shows up as a mistake whose costs accumulate at a frightening pace.

As I have argued elsewhere, even though we don't have a good estimate of the SCC, it would make sense to take the Interagency Working Group's $ 21 (or updated $ 33) number as a rough and politically acceptable starting point and impose a carbon tax (or equivalent policy) of that amount.

And even if there were a «perfectly» specified SCC that accounted for catastrophic risks, it would still make for a problematic framework for setting a carbon tax.

The EPA RIA for the revised Clean Power Plan includes an «interim» SCC value that uses a domestic rather than international social cost of carbon value which I think makes more sense for New York policy.

We can certainly change how the SCC estimates are made or used in Federal decision making, including banning their use.

Good: make that case and carry on using the SCC calculation to do it.

By entrenched I mean that SCC has been written into the legal framework for federal cost benefit analysis in ways that will make it difficult to remove.

Your analogy of using IAMs generated SCC as a basis for policy making to an enormous global environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a good one.

Well, Peter, that's pretty much what I was saying earlier in this thread: although there may be some theoretical value in debating the merits or demerits of the SCC, there's no practical point when most of the world has no serious interest in reducing emissions and therefore is not going to make use of it.

And isn't it that reality that makes a nonsense of the US government's SCC estimates (the topic of David Wojick's article)-- whatever those «who know much more» than you may say?

My (admittedly boring) point is that whatever the findings of that team of disinterested analysts — whether or not the SCC was found to be supported by valid evidence — would make no practical difference.

The social cost of carbon (SCC)-- how much damage a ton of CO2 or other GHGs is doing (and will do in the future) to the planet — is a concept much revered in environmental circles as supporting rational policy making.

The IWG SCC calculations aimed to harmonize those models with a common set of inputs and still found their SCC values could vary by a factor of 2 or 3 (telling you that the technical disagreement is perhaps smaller than the ethical choices being made).

While the SCC is clearly not zero, the complexity and assumptions underneath the current calculation process make the FSCC of questionable usefulness in the practical policy debate.

Is the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) metric a good tool for use in making government decisions related to climate change and fossil fuel development?

Changing the assumptions made in the IWG's models can have a dramatic effect on estimates of the SCC.

If all of the adjustments made by Smith and Bernstein were combined with those made by Dayaratna et al. it seems likely that the SCC would fall to well below $ 1.

As I have said before, if one set of people get the benefits of increasing CO2 and another set get the costs, it makes absolutely no sense to say these offset each other in the SCC unless you have a way to transfer money from the gainers to the losers.

(No change is needed to be made to this paper because it was published on the SSRN before the Supreme Court of Canada's «unreasonable delay» decisions in, R. v. Jordan 2016 SCC 27, and, R. v. Williamson 2016 SCC 28, were released, concerning Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 11 (b).)

Considering the remarks made in part 3 on the material limits to European integration, the lack of reference to Article 53 of the Charter can probably be understood as a deliberate choice on the part of the SCC to withhold express assent to CJEU's interpretation of this provision.

And police and prosecutors don't ask their sources about the quality of their records management in preparation for making «Stinchcombe disclosure» to the defence; see: R. v. Stinchcombe [1991] CanLII 45 (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 326; and, R. v. McNeil 2009 SCC 3, [2009] 1 SCR 66.

Your assumption that I didn't read SCC reasoning before I made my comments is insulting.

The SCC, however — in a unanimous decision written by Justice Michael Moldaver — made clear the constitutional obligation to weigh proportionality rests with the court, not the prosecutor:

Commentary: The Supreme Court of Canada in this case, and in the case of R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22 (see our blog summary here) has made clear that tribunals must address Charter issues which are raised before them (unless expressly exempted by their enabling statute).

The Supreme Court of Canada in Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8, recently summarized the elements of the tort of civil fraud as follows: (1) a false representation made by the defendants; (2) some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the... Read More

The Court explained substantive reliability of a statement will exist when the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement provide guarantees of reliability and trustworthiness: R. v. Khelawon, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787, at paras. 62 - 63; R. v. Youvarajah, 2013 SCC 41, at para. 30.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73 («Haida») and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), 2004 SCC 74 («Taku») have once again made it clear that, while the special Constitutional duty of the Crown to Aboriginal peoples can not be fulfilled by developers, it is in the interests of developers that early, meaningful consultation become an essential element in any best practice planning model.

The SCC has created the new web - section in order to increase transparency in Swedish arbitration and to make the SCC practice more accessible to the Russian - speaking communities.

That the SCC has granted the first ever declaration of Aboriginal title in Canada, in and of itself, makes this a decision of great significance (see Jonnette Watson Hamilton's post on that issue here).

It's a bit off topic but do you know if there's any likelihood that, given electronic filing, SCC facta will be made available online in the near future through the SCC website or CANLII?

Given the new approach, the record didn't contain the required findings of fact and they weren't prepared to bend the SCC's rules to make those.

The rights were further enlarged in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser, 2011 SCC 20 (CanLII), [2011] 2 S.C.R. 3, where the Court accepted that a meaningful process includes employees» rights to join together to pursue workplace goals, to make collective representations to the employer, and to have those representations considered in good faith, including having a means of recourse should the employer not bargain in good faith.

But then they'll slip into the subjective emotional experience of the «target» and talk about «dignity and self worth» (to quote the SCC who made a similar mistake in Taylor).

The SCC unanimously held that, while the crown's decision - making process is subject to judicial review, crowns will only be barred from changing their minds where the defence can establish egregiously unfair and oppressive conduct tainted by bad faith or an improper motive.