Sentences with phrase «national railway»

UK About Blog An AFOL (Adult Fan of LEGO) based in the UK, he build for displaying at LEGO exhibitions and shows, and have had the pleasure of displaying at large LEGO fan events as well as at events including those organised by the National Railway Museum.

Ideal Companies: City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Canadian Pacific Railway, Canadian National Railway, Harley - Davidson

Notable examples include the operator of Switzerland's national railway service initiate a two - year pilot project that sell Bitcoin from over a thousand ticketing kiosks last year.

So, enjoy the discussion around linearity of voice interaction, how National Railway is providing information by voice and much more.

On July 5 2013 the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated judgment in Canadian National Railway v McKercher LLP.

Similarly, in Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway Co., 20 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a workplace policy that mandated hard hats, thus precluding Sikh turbans.

The alleged conflict in McKercher arose from the McKercher firm's decision to represent the plaintiffs in a $ 1.75 B class action suit against Canadian National Railway (CNR).

Notable mandates: Successfully fended off a class action certification motion against Canadian National Railway over alleged overcharging for grain carriage; acted for Federated Co-operatives Ltd. in its $ 138 - million acquisition of oil company Triwest Exploration Inc.; Saskatchewan counsel to Wal - Mart Canada Realty Inc. and SmartCentres Realty Inc. on the $ 200 - million sale of shopping centres to Great - West Life Assurance Co. and London Life Insurance Co.; represented Northern Property REIT in $ 70 - million purchase of Nunavut properties; advised Saskatchewan Power Corp. on its $ 1.24 - billion Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration Project.

I have also done large - scale change communication at Nortel, Canadian National Railway, and Hydro One.

An important case on the scope of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, Canadian National Railway v. McKercher LLP and Gordon Wallace (on appeal from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal), was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 24.

Peace River Coal Inc., in its complaint to the Canadian Transportation Agency under s. 120.1 of the Canada Transportation Act, sought an order establishing reasonable fuel surcharge rates for the carriage of its coal by the Canadian National Railway Company (CN).

Perhaps the most well - known case is that of Bhinder v. Canadian National Railway, which involved the occupational requirement of wearing a hard hat.29 The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found that C.N.'s requirement that employees wear hardhats was a bonafide occupational requirement, even if it had the effect of discriminating against Sikhs.

On May 2, 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal released its long - awaited decisions in Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnstone, 2014 FCA 110 (CanLII) and Canadian National Railway Company v. Seeley, 2014 FCA 111 (CanLII).

Most recently, in the 2013 case of Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, Supreme Court of Canada once again considered the issue of lawyer conflicts.

This case involved a large firm in Saskatchewan, McKercher LLP («McKercher»), that had accepted a retainer to act against the Canadian National Railway Company («CN») in a class action lawsuit notwithstanding the fact that it was acting for CN on a variety of unrelated matters.

Speaking on a panel at the Association of Corporate Counsel annual meeting in Boston last week, in - house counsel Alison Burton, assistant general counsel at RBC, and Kim Madigan, vice president for human resources at Canadian National Railway Co., teamed up with Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP partner William Hlibchuk to discuss some of the hot topics in Canadian employment law.

A step in the proceeding is a formal step that moves the action forward: Canadian National Railway Company v. Chiu, 2014 BCSC 75 at para. 7.

See: Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP.

[24] In numerous decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a broad, policy - based and liberal interpretation must be given to human rights legislation and the policies behind such legislation: see Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission), 1987 CanLII 109 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114; Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Boisbriand (City), 2000 SCC 27 (CanLII), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 665; B. v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2002 SCC 66 (CanLII), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 403 at para. 44.

McCracken v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2010 ONSC 6026 (Ont SCJ) is necessary reading for any member of the legal profession with any (relevant) involvement in class actions... [more]

Class action certification claims cor unpaid overtime have also been filed by employees from the Bank of Nova Scotia and Canadian National Railway Co..

In Canadian National Railway Co. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada (2007), 85 O.R. (3d) 185 (C.A.) the Court of Appeal overturned a comprehensive trial judgment on the basis that the trial judge had failed to consider admissions made by a representative of one of the parties.

Likewise, in the Canadian National Railway v Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2013 FC 117 (Seeley) case, CNR argued that this case really dealt with the question of whether balancing family life and employment duties will be transferred from the home to the workplace.

A less restrictive standard was set out by the CHRT in Hoyt v Canadian National Railway, 2006 CHRT 33, [2006] CHRD No 33, and endorsed by the Federal Court of Canada in Johnstone v Canada (Attorney General), 2007 FC 36, [2007] FCJ No 43 (Johnstone); affirmed in 2008 FCA 101, [2008] FCT No 427 (Fed CA).

Case considered: Canadian National Railway v Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2013 FC 117.

Canadian National Railway (CNR) applied for judicial review on the case of Denise Seeley.

In 2014 and 2015, two federal court of appeal decisions (Canada (Attorney General) v. Johnstone and Canadian National Railway Company v. Seeley) and one Ontario Court of Appeal decision (Partridge v. Botony Dental Corporation) set out and applied a four - part test employees must meet to succeed in a family status discrimination claim in the context of childcare:

In Canadian National Railway v. Seeley, 2013 FC 117, the Federal Court of Canada confirms that family status protection offered by human rights legislation includes childcare obligations, and that employers must meaningfully consider parents requests for accommodation based on childcare obligations, or they run the risk of violating human rights legislation.

The addition, which is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, says the risk of conflict «must be more than a mere possibility; there must be a genuine, serious risk to the duty of loyalty or to client representation arising from the retainer.»

By: Shaun Fluker PDF Version: Let's Shine Some Light into Creative Environmental Sentencing Case Commented On: R v Canadian National Railway Company sentencing order dated June 2, 2017 (ABPC) On June 12 the Alberta government announced that Canadian National Railway Company... Continue reading →

The court placed considerable reliance on the analysis in McCracken v. Canadian National Railway Company.

Another element of the duty of loyalty is the duty not to act against the interests of a current client, even on an unrelated matter: R. v. Neil [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24 and Wallace v. Canadian National Railway, 2013 SCC 39.

[2] In the case at bar, which is a proposed class action, without obtaining court permission, Via Rail Canada Inc. («Via Rail») and Canadian National Railway Company («CNR»), the defendants in the proposed class action, communicated with several putative class members, who had been passengers on a train that derailed on route to Toronto.

Key clients: Canadian National Railway Co.; CBCL Ltd.; Scotsburn Dairy Group; Stanfield's Ltd.; Wagner Forest Products; Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co..

A third lawsuit against Canadian National Railway Co., in which it was alleged that some of the company's employees were misclassified as managers to avoid paying them overtime, has been denied class action certification.

The Queen, 1984 CanLII 20 (SCC), (taxation); Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission), 1987 CanLII 109 (SCC), (administrative); Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), (employment); R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2, (criminal) Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, and Merk v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771, 2005 SCC 70.

The bright - line rule, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, comes into play whenever there's concurrent representation, adds Cohn.

However, binding precedent may be found in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada National Railway Co. v. Bell Telephone Co..

Grauer J. cited the Ontario Superior Court decision in Canadian National Railway Company v. Google Inc. to support the proposition that a higher hurdle would normally be needed than the normal three - part test in R.J.R. McDonald Inc. v. Canada Attorney, where a plaintiff must simply show there is a serious case to be tried.

In Attorney General of Canada v. Fiona - Ann Johnstone and Canadian Human Rights Commission, [2014] FCA 110 and Canadian National Railway Company v. Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission [2014] FCA 111, the FCA determined that the term family status does not extend to elective family requests that are a preference and only need be accorded to those that are a substantial obligation.

Returning to this morning's decision, in Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, which we gave the headline for in an earlier post, I thought it would be helpful to boil down the judgment, into twelve paragraphs, largely using the court's own words:

AND IN THE MATTER OF a complaint filed under section 32 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act by Mr. K S. Bhinder against Canadian National Railway Company BETWEEN K. S. BHINDER and THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Appellants AND: CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF a complaint filed under section 32 (1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, by Mr. K. S. Bhinder against the Canadian National Railway Company

1) Question: I am traveling on the Dutch national railway today.

In 2008, Gordon Wallace retained McKercher LLP to represent him as the leading plaintiff in a class action lawsuit on behalf of Prairie farmers against Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, and others for allegedly overcharging them for grain transportation over 25 years.

Interpretation of quantitative information, especially as it relates to equity - seeking groups, should keep in mind the subtle and insidious manner in which discrimination occurs (See, for example, Basi v. Canadian National Railway Co. (No. 1)(1988), 9 C.H.R.R. D / 5029 (C.H.R.T.); Raheja v. Newfoundland (Human Rights Commission)(1997) at para 32).

«The most important question for the Supreme Court of Canada to address here is probably whether that extends to companies such as Canadian National Railway and in what circumstances that exception is applicable,» says MacKenzie.

The Canadian Bar Association will urge the Supreme Court of Canada to water down its bright line rule on conflicts during Thursday's hearing of Canadian National Railway v. McKercher LLP.

In 2005, Canadian National Railway spilled 1.3 million liters of bunker fuel into Wabamun Lake, Alberta, west of the provincial capital Edmonton, when 43 cars derailed on the railway's main line through western Canada.

Earlier this week, one of their national railway companies, Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), announced that, since 1st January, every single one of its electric trains...