Sentences with phrase «v. general development»

See: Scocozzo v. General Development Corp., 191 So.

Not exact matches

The first is that the total absence of any explanation or reasons fundamentally undermines the process of political accountability that this element of CEAA, 2012 (a holdover from CEAA, 1992) was intended to facilitate (see Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302 (CanLII) at para. 72).

From the embarrassment of approving abysmally low — and Plessy v. Ferguson - like — proficiency targets (including that for Virginia, which had only required districts to ensure that 57 percent of black students and 65 percent of Latino peers were proficient in math by 2016 - 2017), to complaints from House Education and the Workforce Committee Ranking Minority Member George Miller and civil rights - based reformers about how the administration allowed states such as South Dakota to count General Education Development certificates in their graduation rate calculations (and minimize graduation rates as a factor in accountability measures), the administration finds itself contending with complaints from civil rights - based reformers as well as from centrist Democrats finally acknowledging the high cost of their push for revamping No Child at any cost.

In allowing the appeal in Canada (Governor General in Council) v. Mikisew Cree First Nation, [2017] 3 FCR 298, 2016 FCA 311, the Federal Court of Appeal held that while federal ministers have executive powers in their responsibilities for their departments pursuant to statues, those statutes do not refer to the ministers» roles as policy - makers or to the development of legislation for introduction in Parliament.

70 While the principles of fairness and flexibility have informed the modern approach to the application of proprietary estoppel, as adopted by this Court in its jurisprudence (see Idle - O Apartments Inc. v. Charlyn Investments Ltd., 2014 BCCA 451 (B.C. C.A.) at para. 49; Sabey v. von Hopffgarten Estate, 2014 BCCA 360 (B.C. C.A.); Scholz v. Scholz, 2013 BCCA 309 (B.C. C.A.) at para. 31; Sykes v. Rosebery Parklands Development Society, 2011 BCCA 15 (B.C. C.A.) at paras. 44 - 46; Erickson v. Jones, 2008 BCCA 379 (B.C. C.A.) at paras. 52 - 57; Trethewey - Edge Dyking (District) v. Coniagas Ranches Ltd. [2003 CarswellBC 657 (B.C. C.A.)-RSB- at paras. 64 - 73; Zelmer v. Victor Projects Ltd. (1997), 34 B.C.L.R. (3d) 125 (B.C. C.A.) at paras. 36 - 37), there remains a necessary balancing between an overly broad application of the doctrine under the general guise of «unfairness» and an overly narrow application of the doctrine that places excessive weight on the technical requirements of the doctrine.

She discussed some of the key cases of 2015 including the Northern Gateway Enbridge Pipeline regulatory review and judicial review, Chartrand v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2015 BCCA 345, Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2014 FC 1244, Hupacasath First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs), 2015 FCA 4, Prophet River First Nation v. Minister of the Environment, 2015 BCSC 1682, Prophet River First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 1030, and Lubicon Lake Indian Nation v. Penn West Petroleum Ltd., 2015 ABQB 342.

Runchey v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. 2013 FCA 16 Administrative Law — Judicial review — General — Scope or standard of review A Review Tribunal upheld a decision by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to allow the application of Runchey's ex-spouse for a division of pension credits under the Canada Pension Plan (the Plan).

New Brunswick (Minister of Social Development) v. N.S. et al. 2013 NBCA 8 Evidence — Opinion evidence — Expert evidence — General — Qualifications and declaration that a witness is an expert An application judge dismissed the application by the Minister of Social Development for an order of guardianship of N.S.'s children.

1 Lane v. Alcock Enterprises et al, 2007 NLTD 157 2 Rizzi v. Mavros, 2007 ONCA 350 3 Radke v. M.S. (Litigation guardian of), 2007 BCCA 216 4 B.S.A. Investors Ltd. v. DSB, 2007 BCCA 556 5 Jackson v. Kelowna General Hospital, 2007 BCCA 129 6 Barabash v. U-Haul Co. (Canada) Ltd., 2007 BCPC 195 7 Hawkins v. Mathieson et al, 2007 MBQB 163 8 Hutchings v. Dow, 2007 BCCA 148 9 Ashcroft v. Dhaliwal, 2007 BCSC 533 10 Agno v. Wilson, 2007 BCSC 1160 11 Windsor v. Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, 2007 ABCA 294 12 Duley v. Friesen, 2007 BCSC 1723 13 Simpson v. Baechler et al., 2007 BCSC 347 14 Michaud v. Brodsky, 2007 MBQB 239 15 Nason v. Nunes et al, 2007 BCSC 266 16 Martin v. Capital Health Authority, 2007 ABQB 260 17 Ruffle v. Canada (Correctional Service), 2007 BCSC 1264 18 Hall v. MacDougall, 2007 BCSC 1296 19 Whyte v. Morin, 2007 BCSC 1329 20 Bohun v. Sennewald et al, 2007 BCSC 269 21 Greenall v. MacDougall and HMTQ, 2007 BCSC 339 22 Durand v. Bolt, 2007 BCSC 480 23 Williams v. Thomas Development (1989) Corporation, 2007 NLCA 54 24 Naidu v. Mann, 2007 BCSC 1313 25 Lyon v. Ridge Meadows Hospital, 2007 BCSC 1000 26 Nash v. MacDougall and HMTQ, 2007 BCSC 563 27 Jackson v. Rooney, 2007 BCSC 761 28 Nolet c. Boisclair, 2007 QCCS 4417 29 Zazelenchuk v. Kumleben, 2007 ABQB 650 30 Vasiliopoulos v. Dosanjh, 2007 BCSC 703 31 Wilde v. Archean Energy Ltd., 2007 ABCA 385 32 B. (P.) v. V.E. (R.), 2007 BCSC 1568 33 Wainwright (Town of) v. G - M Pearson Environmental Management Ltd., 2007 ABQB 576 34 Burbank v. R.T.B., 2007 BCCA 215 35 Marszalek et al v. Bishop et al, 2007 BCSC 324 36 Tonizzo v. Moysa, 2007 ABQB 245 37 Mainland Sawmills Ltd. v. USW Union Local — 1 - 3567, 2007 BCSC 1433 38 Haj Khalil v. Canada, 2007 FC 923

These are as follows: T -117-17 Blacklock's v. Attorney General of Canada re Health Canada for $ 90,100.55 + punitive damages of $ 25,000; T -132-17 Blacklock's v. Attorney General of Canada re Employment and Social Development Canada (EDSC) for Statutory Damages + punitive damages of $ 20,000; T -133-17 Blacklock's v. Attorney General of Canada re Transport Canada for $ 85,228.50 + punitive damages of $ 10,000; T -134-17 Blacklock's v. FINTRAC for $ 11,470 + punitive damages of $ 5,000...

In Canada (Attorney General) v. Hicks, 2015 FC 599 (CanLII) the Federal Court heard an appeal concerning the validity of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal («CHRT») decision which held that the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada («HRSDC») discriminated against its employee on the basis of family status.

In another influential ruling in Rio Tinto Plc v. Vale S.A. (Southern District of New York, 2015), Judge Peck addressed the issue of transparency, stating that in general that he encourages parties to be transparent with their seed set development but also noted that there are other means to evaluate the efficacy of predictive coding without agreeing on seed set parameters, including manual sampling of coded documents.

Significant SCC decisions came in at # 5 (Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers» Association 2011 SCC 61); # 10 (Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Human Resources and Social Development) 2011 SCC 60), garnering over 300 views even so; and # 12 (Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses» Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) 2011 SCC 62) released less than a week ago.

«The decision of the BC Court of Appeal in Federation of Law Societies of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) is the latest development in a long - running legal saga that dates back to 2001 when the federal government first took steps to bring lawyers under the anti-money laundering regime.