Sentences with phrase «us uniform act»

The changes also make fee caps consistent with the uniform act.

This Bill incorporates the 2008 changes for consistency with other states adopting the uniform act.

This bill incorporates changes to the uniform act by NCCUSL so that the provisions are consistent with federal regulation and no advance fees can be collected.

Where the federal Act permits disclosure (i.e. of non-contents records), the Uniform Act is likely to require it, since disclosure will not violate federal law.

The ULC Committee is developing a Uniform Act on the topic, known familiarly as FADA.

The Uniform Act as drafted would apply only to fiduciaries whose appointments arise after the Act comes into force in the applicable state or from court proceedings begun after that date.

The app also includes citations and links to state statutes based on the uniform acts for easy comparison.

The Uniform Act is scheduled for final reading at the annual meeting of the Uniform Law Comission in July.

The implementation started at the Uniform Law Conference, which adopted a report and a Uniform Act in 2001.

For this reason the draft uniform Act creates different rights of access to records about communications in the hands of the services named in the federal statute and to the contents of the communications.

If the service providers have the US federal barriers in mind, or just come to look for statutory authority in the US Uniform Act, then Canadian fiduciaries may find it helpful to be able to point to a similar source of authority.

and unlike the Uniform Act (which had not been adopted in its current form when the Alberta Act as passed), it does not have an «including in electronic form» clause.

In deciding what to include or leave out, Canada had to consider the two main features of the Model Law that were adopted by the Uniform Act: they were minimalist and they were technology - neutral.

Question: is there any point, in the light of this decision, for a province or territory that has not legislated on court jurisdiction — enacted the Uniform Act, probably — to do so?

The purpose of the Model Law and the Uniform Act, and thus of most Canadian legislation, was to remove barriers to the legally effective use of electronic communications.

The Standard was, by the way, developed with a view to providing a way to satisfy the requirements of the Uniform Act, as well as to be a generally good way to keep electronic records.

The Uniform Act was clear in its policy that excluding land transfers was not a statement that these transfers should never be done electronically, but only that additional security might be needed.

The Uniform Act was adopted by the ULCC as a complement to the Uniform Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Acct.

The court held (wrongly, in my view) that the Alberta Evidence Act (which implements the Uniform Act) required compliance with the CGSB Standard, but the proponent of the electronic evidence persuasively qualified its witness and the witness showed the court that her employer had complied, and the evidence was admitted.

All the common law provinces, Yukon and Nunavut have enacted the Uniform Act, as shown here.

The Uniform Act says that where the law requires writing or an original, the requirement may be satisfied by an electronic document of certain characteristics.

The Uniform Act on jurisdiction contains two parts, the other — as its title indicates — providing a method to transfer a proceeding from one Canadian jurisdiction to another.

The reason that section 6 on standards was put into the Uniform Act was to try to ensure that such standards would be read broadly, toinclude if need be these private agreements on how electronic evidence would be handled.

The Uniform Act still leaves some decisions on technology to governments, at least if they choose to intervene.

The American equivalent to the Uniform Act, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, did not exclude land transfers.

(All of the Conference's working papers and the Uniform Act itself are on the Conference web site.)

Most provinces at the time of the Uniform Act did not have electronic land registration, and Ontario's system was tightly controlled as to access and technology.

As archivists, the authors find the Uniform Act's definition of «electronic record» deficient, both because of its reference to computer systems and because of its failure to distinguish between a record and a document.

With such considerations in mind, the Uniform Law Conference excluded from the Uniform Act a number of communications: wills, testamentary trusts, personal powers of attorney and land transfers that would require registration to be effective against third parties.

, that would bring in the principles that the rest of the Uniform Act describes.

As noted in my last column here, the Uniform Act also excluded negotiable instruments, for other reasons.

A couple of updates: In May 2011, the Northwest Territories adopted its Electronic Transactions Act SNWT 2011 c. 13, so all three territories have the Uniform Act, essentially, along with the common law provinces.

Whether «broader, new statutory rules» are desirable for the other areas they mention, which the Uniform Act was not aiming at, needs cautious review.

Should the Uniform Act and its provincial enactments be amended to remove that exception, so the legislation would apply to real estate transfers?

The article notes the official comment on the Uniform Act that says that the working group decided to apply its system test only once, to best evidence, rather than twice (i.e. repeating it as part of authentication).

BC has a modern statute of its own similar to the Uniform Act, and the other common law provinces have something based on the English Act of about 1890.

That statute was certainly present in the minds of the drafters of the Uniform Act.

Thus if the law does not require any of these forms, the legal effect of electronic communications does not rely on the legislation based on the Uniform Act.

It seems to me to misunderstand both the goal and the achievements of the Uniform Act and want something that the Conference did not set out to do and that may not be achievable in any event.

On the other hand, it is not clear that courts that have focused on the distinction between real and other computer - generated evidence have had any difficulty in applying the version of the Uniform Act before them to the extent that it applied.

The Uniform Act and its enactments say that it yields to any other law that authorizes, prohibits or regulates electronic communications (section 2 (5)-RRB-.

I am not aware of any cases where any implementation of the Uniform Act was refused because the technology did not fit its language.

The Uniform Act itself is here and the policy paper supporting it is here.

The other common - law provinces and the territories have all implemented the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act and have maintained the Uniform Act's silence on electronic seals.

The court properly (in my view) looked at s. 18 of the Act (s. 20 of the Uniform Act)... [more]

As noted last week, the ULCC has adopted more than 120 model or uniform acts to date.

The only section in that Act that was not settled, i.e. the Uniform Act gave alternative provisions, was on med / arb.

As set out on the ULCC website, uniform acts (lois uniformes) are recommended for implementation by all relevant governments across Canada.

The Uniform Act on Cooperative companies was adopted on December 15th, 2010 and will be enforced on May 15th, 2011 according to Section 9 of the OHADA treaty.

The 17 OHADA states now share the same business laws, based on a civil law system, namely uniform acts regarding companies, commercial law, debt recovery, securities, insolvency, transport and arbitration.