Sentences with phrase «n't scr»

Now, it looks like she's finally going to get her Oscar (if something doesn't scr * w it up like the movie's average quality).

Plausibly humanity is NOT scr * w * d... yet!

Not exact matches

If you don't have one, don't expect anyone to bow and scr ape to your crap.

You can't complain that the US isn't where it should be because of its god believers in all facets of politics and then complain that the US is scr e wed up because we don't have enough god believers in politics..

My boss may be scr - ewing me but it is not the same.

You Said:» My boss may be scr - ewing me but it is not the same.

If you aren't familiar with the Secret Recipe Club (SCR), here is how it works: Each month, I will be assigned a new blog where I select one recipe from their site, make it, take photos of it, and write a blog post about it.

SCR ZA40 / 200/01 OF 21ST July 2011 written after my letter of the previous day, you did not find it appropriate to inform H. E. the President about my letter to you, the content of which H. E. the Vice President, your good self and me had agreed upon on 19th July 2011.

For this reason, records without fingerprints had to be updated otherwise the concerned voters will not be able to vote using the PVC and SCR.

SCR ZA40 / 200/01 OF 21ST July 2011 written after my letter of the previous day, you did not find it appropriate to inform H. E. the President about my letter to you, the content of which H. E. the Vice President, your goodself and me had agreed upon on 19th July 2011.

(B) Survival of mice after intracardiac injection of 1833 (1 × 105) breast cancer cells transduced with control shRNA (Scr) or shRNAs against ABL1 and ABL2 (shAA); n = 10 mice per group.

Four Nights With Anna (Poland / France) dir: Jerzy Skowlimowski The Hurt Locker dir: Kathryn Bigelow L'heure d'ete (Summer Hours)(France) dir / scr: Olivier Assayas Of Time And The City dir / scr: Terence Davies Still Walking (Japan) dir / scr: Hirozaku Kore - Eda Ain't Scared (France) dir / scr: Audrey Estrougo

Source: NFVLS Prod Co: RKO Prod: Eric Pommer, Harry E. Edington Dir: Dorothy Arzner Scr: Tess Slesinger, Frank Davis, from the story by Vicki Baum Phot: Russell Metty Ed: Robert Wise Art Dir: Van Nest Polglase Mus Dir: Edward Ward Choreography: Ernst Matray

This First Grade Literacy Centers for the Year includes: Unit 1: - phonics: short a - words to know - comprehension: character chart - comprehension: character - ending: s, short a - fluency - text features: photographs - phonics: short a - double final consonants - study skills: parts of a book - phonics: short I - phonics: final blends: nd, st, nt, nk - comprehension: author's purpose chart - cvcc words - literacy element: rhyme and more... Unit 2: - phonics: short o - words to know - comprehension: main idea and details web - comprehension: main idea and details - ending: ed - fluency - phonics: digraphs: sh, th - ending: - ing - fluency - study skill: dictionary - phonics: digraphs: sh, th, short e, o - phonics: short u - contractions:'s - fluency - text features: directions and more... Unit 3: - phonics: long a - words to know - comprehension: predictions chart - comprehension: make predictions - endings: - ed, - ing - words to know - comprehension: compare and contrast - chart - one - and two - syllable words - fluency - literary element: word choice - phonics: digraphs: ch, tch, wh - phonics: long I - phonics: blends, scr, spl, spr, str and more... Unit 4: - phonics: long o - words to know - endings: - er, - est - literary element: repetition - phonics: long o, i, a - phonics: long u - words to know - comprehension: conclusions chart - comprehension: draw conclusions - fluency - vocabulary strategy: context clues - CVCe words - text feature: floor plan - phonics: long u, o and more... Unit 5: - phonics: long o - words to know - comprehension: fantasy and reality chart - comprehension: fantasy and reality - fluency - vocabulary strategy: dictionary - ending: - y - comprehension: problem and solution chart - comprehension: problem and solution - fluency - vocabulary strategy: word parts - endings: - er, - est - text feature: diagram - phonics: r - controlled vowel: ar - abbreviations: Mr., Sat., Dr. @Little Tots Learning Enjoy!

It's a Ruf SCR 4.2, so although I wasn't wrong with my 964 guess, it's actually a new car with a carbonfibre body and powered by a modified, water - cooled Mezger engine.

> Ruf SCR 2018 - over 500bhp from a naturally aspirated flat - six, what's not to like.

Unlike its close relative, the CTR 2017, the SCR does not have a big whale - tale fixed - rear wing.

This car doesn't have a single scr

There is not a SEMA Show attendee nor exhibitor who wouldn't gain significant benefit from attending the RDE offerings from SCRS.»

The Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) worked with SkillsUSA during a recent national competition, held in Kansas City between June 23 — 27 2012, to demonstrate the industry's support and encouragement to not only the student competitors, but also to the schools and advisors who have put so much time into preparing these future industry members.

The Frost and Sullivan consultancy says SCR penetration is currently less than 10 % in Europe and won't reach one - third until after 2020, according to industry publication Automotive News.

Recorded at QHD (2560 × 1440) and is much smoother than using the SCR Screen Recorder Pro app at 1080p, but doesn't support recording audio (at... Read more»

The lack of trophies & story doesn't really bother me, they did say it was all bout the competitiveness this game would bring & watching the SCR tourney was intense.

ADOLPH GOTTLIEB Blues on Green screenprint in colors, 1971, on Arches, signed and dated» 1970» in pencil, numbered 5/150, published by Marlborough Graphics, Inc., New York, with full margins, a few pale foxmarks in the margins, the palest time staining, otherwise apparently in good condition, not examined out of the frame Scr.

Accordingly, she said, the revised state plan does not require the power company to install selective catalytic reduction equipment (SCR), considered industry's gold standard for cutting NOx from plants» exhaust.

I recently dined at my old Oxford college, where in the SCR they whined about the pressure to publish, cackled about how they gamed the system, and generally gave me an impression of a system distorted by a strange point - awarding scheme which I do not understand, but I gather was introduced, probably rightly, to prevent bed - blocking lazybones achieving tenure and sitting tight.

Air quality driven measures, like obligatory particle matter (PM) and NOx filters and in - engine measures, do not result in higher fuel use if appropriate technologies are used, like Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)- NOx catalyst.

It tells me about the SOLAR WIND that is SCR, not ICR and was not what your theology espouses as the cause of earth's temperature changes.

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.

But if the only reason the state will not let it have one is its religious belief, then the state is in default of its duty of religious neutrality, which applies as much to prevent the state from singling out a set of beliefs for a particular burden as to prevent it singling out a set of beliefs for special support (the proposition upheld by the Supreme Court in Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16, [2015] 2 SCR 3).

The majority opinion of Justice Stewart was specifically approved by a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada in Hunter v Southam Inc., [1984] 2 SCR 145 where Justice Brian Dickson held, at p. 159, that s. 8 of the Charter containing the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is not restricted to the protection of property or associated with the law of trespass, at p. 159: «[I] n Katz... Stewart J. delivering the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court declared at p. 351 that «the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places».

We say this because the division of powers part of the judgement (commencing at para 98) is full of all sorts of references to two levels of government (see e.g. para 141) and similar comments about «interlocking federal and provincial schemes» that make it abundantly clear that this Court has given no thought to the space within which indigenous laws may operate within the modern constitutional order (for recognition that the law making authority of aboriginal peoples pre-dated the Crown's acquisition of sovereignty, was not extinguished by that acquisition of sovereignty and was not impaired by the division of legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments in 1982 see Campbell v British Columbia (2000), 189 DLR (4th) 333 (BCSC) and Justice Deschamps in Beckman v Little Salmon / Carmacks First Nation, [2010] 3 SCR 103 at para 97).

This is, of course, not new and Tsilhqot» in draws from R v Gladstone, [1996] 2 SCR 723 to explain that the objectives which can be said to be compelling and substantive (Gladstone at para 72, cited in Tsilhqot» in at para 81):

The Court's reference (Tsilhqot» in at para 136) to R v Marshall, [1999] 3 SCR 533 as support for the proposition that interjurisdictional immunity does not apply where provincial legislation conflicts with treaty rights is also puzzling, as the applicability of provincial law was not at issue in that case — Marshall involved a prosecution under federal legislation, the Fisheries Act.

It makes unnecessary the two step analysis of the applicability of provincial laws suggested by s. 88 of the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c I - 5 (at least so far as provincial laws are claimed to apply to «Indians» rather than «lands reserved») and the Court's decision in Dick, [1985] 2 SCR 309 — in fact we don't need s. 88 any longer since there are no longer any inapplicable provincial laws that need to be made applicable by operation of a federal statute.

Importance: The Court of Appeal noted support decisions are fact driven, involve considerable discretion, and should not be overturned unless the decisions reveals: 1) an error in principle; 2) a significant misapprehension of the evidence; or 3) unless the award is clearly wrong; Hickey v Hickey, [1999] 2 SCR 518 (SCC) at para. 11.

Despite the jury finding, Google proceeded with a non-obstante application that they were not liable because they were not a publisher of the images, relying on cases from the UK, Metropolitan Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corp»n [2011] 1 WLR 1743; Webb v Bloch [1928] HCA 50; Tamiz v Google Inc [2012] EWHC 449; and Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407, as well as the Canadian Supreme Court decision in Crookes v Newton [2011] 3 SCR 269.

ITO - Int» l Terminal Operators v. Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 SCR 752 at 788: «I would observe on this point that conceptual difficulties of this nature are not a novel feature of the common law.

I'm not sure that I like the look of «Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII)(LexUM), [2008] 1 SCR 190 ″, but I can't think of a better alternative.

The court cited Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 SCR 190 as concluding that a full privative clause does not mean what it says, i.e. that judicial review is precluded.

It is open to a trial judge applying the «but for» test to conclude on all the evidence that «but for» the negligent actions of each of the multiple actors, the loss would not have occurred notwithstanding the negligent actions of one or more being different in time than the negligent actions of the others: see Athey v Leonati, 1996 CanLII 183 (SCC), [1996] 3 SCR 458, where two car accidents, successive in time, were found to be causative.

The recent litigation in Canada regarding production orders that were issued before the amendment to s. 487.012 began with R v Telus Communications Co., [2013] 2 SCR 3 where the Supreme Court of Canada held that a general warrant under s. 487.01 of the Code could not be used to compel a telecommunication company to provide prospective text messages to the police.

In R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326, at p. 336, Sopinka J., writing for the Court, described this right as «one of the pillars of criminal justice on which we heavily depend to ensure that the innocent are not convicted.»

But Kyllo was not followed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Tessling, [2004] 3 SCR 432 where Justice Ian Binnie, writing for a unanimous court, at para. 51, agreed with Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the minority in Kyllo, that, ``...» public officials should not have to avert their senses or their equipment from detecting emissions in the public domain such as excessive heat, traces of smoke, suspicious odors, odorless gasses, airborne particulars, or radioactive emissions, any of which could identify hazards to the community.»

The above arguments are based upon the constitutional law doctrine of «structural argumentation» (see: Robin M. Elliott, «References, Structural Argumentation and the Organizing Principles of Canada's Constitution» (2000), 80 Canadian Bar Review 67, and decisions such as the, Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721, [1985] S.C.J. No. 36, the, Reference Re Secession of Québec, [1999] S.C.J. No. 4, [1998] 2 SCR 217, and the, Reference re Remuneration of Judges, [1997] S.C.J. No. 75, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3, to argue that the need for access to the rule of law, and to constitutional rights and freedoms, dictate that law societies in Canada can not enforce a monopoly over the provision of legal services that enables their members to charge fees of whatever size they see fit.

By way of comparison, «minors» as referred to at para. 111 of Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 331, 2015 SCC 5 (CanLII) do not fall within the parameters of para. 127 — which applies only to adults.

The Alberta Court of Appeal concludes the declaration of invalidity in Carter does not require the applicant to be terminally ill to qualify for authorization; persons with a psychiatric illness are not explicitly or inferentially excluded, so long as they fit the criteria at para. 127 of Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 331, 2015 SCC 5 (CanLII).

Persons with a psychiatric disorder are not excluded from the wording of para. 127 in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 331, 2015 SCC 5 (CanLII).

The Court of Appeal concluded it is simply not permissible to conclude people who are not expressly excluded from Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 331, 2015 SCC 5 (CanLII) are in some way «inferentially excluded».

Although I have previously argued that the Piresferreira decision was legally wrong and, in fact, contrary to other appellate decisions including Sulz v. Canada, 2006 BCCA 582 and Queen v. Cognos, (the Supreme Court of Canada did not disturb or address the trial judge's award of $ 5,000 in damages for «emotional stress» in its decision in Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 SCR 87,) this post will focus on a different issue: whether the decision highlights the differences to which claims of a hostile work environment can be put.