Sentences with phrase «what scc»

It's a summary of all appeals as well as leaves to appeal granted so you will know what the SCC will soon be dealing with (January 1 to February 16, 2018 inclusive).

It probably isn't what the SCC says the law is, at least if we take Athey's statements at face value: even a minor role is sufficient so long as it is a necesary role (Athey, para. 41.2).

If you're interested in guessing along with us as to what the SCC might do you can watch the webcast of the appeal argument.

But we might find out what the SCC has to say about this issue

What the SCC did say was «On the evidence before us» (ie the evidence of the expert witness in the case) the realistic possibility of transmission was negated by the low viral load and condom use evidence.

It's a summary of all appeals as well as leaves to appeal granted so you will know what the SCC will soon be dealing with (November 24 to December 29, 2017 inclusive).

But looking at what the SCC said in its earlier decision, if I was in their shoes, I would have thought the chances of success to be slim.

And, what the SCC says the law was is what we, when we're practicing law, have to take as the received truth as to what the law was, even if we know better and the SCC ought to have to known better to.

what we also know is that the logic of what the SCC said in Fairchild requires that Resurfice mc apply to the one tortfeasor situation, not the least because the blood donor in Walker Estate wasn't necessarily negligent.

You've not understood what the SCC's approach in Clements means, but it's not my job, my duty, nor my anything else to explain it to you.

What the SCC did not decide was whether the Union's intended use of the personal information — to, among other things, post pictures of employees crossing the picketline on a website called www.casinoscabs.ca — was reasonably necessary to inform or persuade the public, and whether it was reasonable to collect the personal information without consent for this purpose.

It's a summary of all appeals as well as leaves to appeal granted so you will know what the SCC will soon be dealing with (February 15 — March 29, 2018 inclusive).

One might suggest that evidence can quite readily be found suggestiing that the issue is at least what the SCC choses to cite, not what was cited to it.

But it is still worth thinking about the statements offered to the committee and what SCC calculations tell us about the scale of climate risks.

Yet this is precisely what the SCC models claim to do, or rather what the Federal agencies claim they do.

Not exact matches

SCC has been working hard to determine just where Canada's expertise lies and what industries they should be engaging to ensure long - term growth for Canada.

This would certainly seem to be effective to confer an immunity on the listed parties for losses that are incurred in the province; but what if a party outside the province suffers losses (see Reference re Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, [1984] 1 SCR 297, 1984 CanLII 17 (SCC)-RRB-, or what if the exercise of authority under the Act rests upon a reckless understanding as to the constitutional underpinnings of a particular provision?

What costs are and should be included in SCC?

What is the range of SCC using standard analysis techniques?

Accordingly, let's look at the relative changes in SCC between low and high climate sensitivity to see what it would mean if we really live in a low - sensitivity world.

Unfortunately, we don't know what the authors think the discount rates ought to be in SCC calculations because they do not explore the matter.

We have filed a series of Comments with the OMB outlining what is wrong with the current SCC determination.

Therefore, although it might perhaps be useful to show that the SCC exercise isn't valid (although it's likely to take a long time with believers fighting it to the bitter end), I suggest a more practical way to unwind current US climate policies is to show that, given what's happening in the wider world, they're completely pointless.

[So you could say that the SCC is basically what the authors determining / publishing it want it to be.]

Existing estimates are based not on testable (let alone tested) economic models of how changes in climate generate economic costs, but on conjecture, guesswork, and sometimes simply by asking «experts» — the people who construct SCC estimates — what they think the damages from climate change might be.»

But Peter, if you consider the SCC's estimates to be a «complete joke» (because of what's happening out there in the real world where the US is responsible for only about 15 percent of GHG emissions), what do you hope to learn from those «who know much more» than you?

although it might perhaps be useful to show that the SCC exercise isn't valid (although it's likely to take a long time with believers fighting it to the bitter end), I suggest a more practical way to unwind current US climate policies is to show that, given what's happening in the wider world, they're completely pointless.

I hope this explains so we can now get onto focusing on what is needed to get valid estimates for SCC.

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.

However that's not what's being done for the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC).

I think these two papers (Nordhaus and Johnston) complement each other insofar as they represent the extreme positions on SCC... Nordhaus approach in all its excruciating IAM detail is just what Johnston describes as being so dependent on assumptions and approach to be no more than meaningless and whatever you would like the answer to be.

What is needed is valid values for SCC.

The audit CPA does 10 times better than the 2nd case, which is 10 times better that what I think is a key element of the SCC.

What I didn't go into in my op - ed, because it is a rather complicated topic, is the choice of discount rate used in the administration's SCC analysis.

More broadly, as long as the tax is beneath the SCC, alternative uses of the revenue can a) achieve cost - effective emission reductions beyond what the tax achieves on its own, and / or b) loosen political constraints, allowing the carbon price to rise.

Perhaps in response to the fact that they can't argue against what we have been saying, the Administration has finally capitulated and is opening up their determination of the social cost of carbon (SCC) for public comment.

If someone were to dispute the SCC value in that process, the court would not decide what the appropriate value of a ton of CO2 is, but only whether EPA's use of the SCC value was «arbitrary or capricious.»

We have filed a series of comments with the OMB outlining what is wrong with the current federal determination of the SCC used as the excuse for more carbon dioxide restrictions.

I have written extensively on the shortcomings of the Administration's determination of the SCC (for example, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-social-cost-carbon-odds-science) and the folks at the Heritage Foundation just yesterday released a report looking at what would happen in DICE model if recent estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity were used in place of the (outdated) ones used by the Administration.

The question now is what value regulatory agencies should use for the SCC — if any — when evaluating rules that affect greenhouse gas emissions.

As Mr. Morris notes «The question now is what value regulatory agencies should use for the SCC — if any — when evaluating rules that affect greenhouse gas emissions.»

What needs to be proven is that there was «a substantial connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct»: see Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 333, at para. 23.

The SCC used, in reading the provision, a very commonplace legal rule of interpretation: what did the people who enacted the legislation mean by the word in question.

None of this is of the server - crashing magnitude and political impact of the SCOTUS Affordable Care Act decision, but it does highlight what works well with the SCC and its judges:

Or, at the least, what we should now understand the SCC to have meant?

Let's agree that the second and third bulleted points in para. 100 are an accurate statement of what Canadian common law was between the time of the release of the SCC's reasons in Athey, in 1997, and the release of the SCC's reasons in Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, [2007] 1 SCR 333, 2007 SCC 7 in February 2007.

The SCC's decision will provide much - needed guidance on what kind of testimony will be admissible in a drug - impaired trial.

I suspect that's what happened in the SCC tax case that Mickey refers to.

What's the chance of the current SCC bench disagreeing with them?

Even in the case of the Succoth hut on the condominium's balcony, where the SCC said that religious belief had only to be sincere to qualify for Charter protection (Linus van Pelt in Peanuts expressed that decades ago: it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're sincere), the religious person got to set up his hut contrary to the condo's by - laws because the court held it was no big deal for the condo.