British Columbia. 2.1 British Columbia will continue to provide Canada and FNESC with aggregate data on the provision of low incidence high cost special education, as well as the number of Individual Education Plans (IEPs) in place for First Nation Students, no later than July 30th of each year.
British Columbia. In the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Island the above scheduled rates will be subject to the provisions of Appendix "A" of this Agreement.
British Columbia. Her reasons at 30 read as follows: I cannot agree, however, that such are the circumstances here. As Xxxxxxxxx X.X. noted, the re- spondents' argument is based on an allegation of "systemic" negligence -- "the failure to have in place management and operations procedures that would reasonably have prevented the abuse" (pp. 8-9). The respondents assert, for example, that JHS did not have policies in place to deal with abuse, and that JHS acted negligently by placing all residential students in one dormitory in 1978. These are actions (or omissions) whose reasonability can be determined without reference to the circum- stances of any individual class member. It is true that the respondents' election to limit their allega- tions to systemic negligence may make the individual component of the proceedings more difficult; clearly it would be easier for any given complainantto show causation if the established breach were that JHS had failed to address her [Emphasis start] own[Emphasis end] complaint of abuse (an indi- vidualized breach) than it would be if, for example, the established breach were that JHS had [Em- phasis start] as a general matter[Emphasis end] failed to respond adequately to some complaints (a "systemic" breach). As Xxxxxxxxx X.X. wrote, however, the respondents "are entitled to restrict the grounds of negligence they wish to advance to make the case more amenable to class proceedings if they choose to do so" (p. 9). [emphasis in original] 61 The issue therefore, insofar as the application of s. 4(1)(c) is concerned, is to what extent is the present case distinct from L.R., given that the common issue as framed is more or less the same, resting on the commonality of an assertion of "systemic" negligence. 62 The defendant's position that the issues in this case do not meet the requirements of common- ality is partly founded on the difference between "direct" liability for systemic negligence to which the Crown in right of the Province in British Columbia is susceptible, and "vicarious" liability which is the (more limited) basis to which the Crown in right of Canada is susceptible in the case at bar. 63 The distinction between direct and vicarious liability and its significance was litigated and re- solved in the first part of these proceedings, where it was determined that a claim of systemic negli- gence was not a claim involving "direct" liability because it rested on the acts or omissions of Crown servants, agents or employees acting in the...
British Columbia. Day 1: Eight and one half (8 ½) hours between the hours of 7:00 am to 5:00 pm with a half hour unpaid lunch, two fifteen (15) minute paid breaks. Days 2 through 9: Eight and one quarter (8 1/4) hours between the hours of 7:00 am to 5:00 pm with a half hour unpaid lunch, and two fifteen (15) minute paid breaks. (To allow for the 10th day off.)
British Columbia. This Agreement to the Exploration and Purchase Agreement was acknowledged before me on ____________________________________, 2005. /s/ Xxxxx X. Xxxxx By: Xxxxx X. Xxxxx, Property OWNER Notary Public My Commission Expires On: __________________________ This Agreement to the Exploration and Purchase Agreement was acknowledged before me on ____________________________________, 2005. /s/Xxxxxx Xxxxxx By: Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, President, Trend Mining Company Notary Public My Commission Expires On: __________________________ EXHIBIT “A” “THE PROPERTY” Mineral Exploration and Purchase Agreement The Property herein shall mean, be defined and include all lands, claims and interests described in and made apart of this Agreement and shall include an “Area of Interest” attached to and made part of the Mineral Exploration and Purchase Agreement made between OWNER and Company in respect to Saskatchewan Mineral Claim S-106843, Saskatchewan, dated September 2, 2004. Description of the Property and Area of Interest
British Columbia. Her Majesty The Queen In Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by The Minister of the Environment PO Box 9339 Stn. Prov. Govt. Xxxxxxxx, XX X0X 0X0 Her Majesty The Queen In Right of The Province Of British Columbia as represented by The Minister Of Finance (PST-BC/Income Tax) Consumer Taxation Branch PO Box 9442 Stn. Prov. Govt. Xxxxxxxx, XX X0X 0X0 Ministry Of The Attorney General Revenue & Taxation Group Legal Services Branch 601 - 0000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx PO Box 9289 Stn. Prov. Govt. Xxxxxxxx, XX X0X 0X0 Attention: Xxxxx Xxxxx Email: xxxxx.xxxxx@xxx.xx.xx Tel: 000-000-0000 Fax: 000-000-0000 WorkSafeBC (British Columbia) 0000 Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, XX XX Xxx 0000 Xxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, XX X0X 0X0 The District of North Vancouver 000 Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, XX X0X 0X0 Attention: Legal Department Email: xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx The City of Surrey 00000 - 000 Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, XX X0X 0X0 Attention: Legal Services Email: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx Attention: City Clerk, Legislative Services Email: xxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx
British Columbia. (i) Personal Property Security Act (British Columbia) Registration No. / Control No. Current Debtor Current Secured Party Current General Collateral Description and Other Particulars
British Columbia. To recap, in 2017 BFN filed a lawsuit against the BC alleging that the government's failure to protect BFN’s lands and resources violated its Treaty and Aboriginal rights. Treaty 8 includes recognition of the rights of BNF’s members and those of other signatories to hunt, fish, and trap on their respective traditional lands. Treaty 8 promised that these activities would not be disrupted by settlement or development. Over the years since Treaty 8 was signed, BC allowed the development of various industrial activities that encroached upon BFN’s traditional lands and waters, historically without consultation or consent. Most notable of these disruptive activities were oil and gas development and forestry. Madam Justice Xxxxx of the British Columbia Supreme Court found that BC had breached its obligations under Treaty 8 by allowing industrial activities to proceed without adequate consideration of their cumulative impacts on BFN’s rights. She found that permitting of industrial development required consideration of more than just the individual project’s impacts, and that the cumulative effects of industrial development in the region had significantly impacted BFN’s ability to exercise its Treaty and Aboriginal rights. She ordered that BC must cease permitting activities that would result in further impairments of BFN;s rights. She ordered BC to diligently consult and negotiate an enforceable agreement with BFN for the assessment and management of industrial developments such that Xxxxxxxxx’s treaty rights would be respected. BC elected not to appeal the decision. The Initial Agreement On Oct. 7, 2021, BFN and BC signed an initial agreement to provide some interim stability and certainty for forestry and oil and gas permit holders in BFN’s traditional territory. The initial agreement provided for “investments in healing the land, cultural renewal, wildlife management and land protection while finding a way forward for projects that were already permitted or authorized prior to the court decision, and where activities have not yet started.” Highlights of the initial agreement included a $35-million fund for land, road and seismic restoration; river, stream and wetland restoration; habitat connectivity; native seed and nursery projects; and training for restoration activities. Three separate $10-million funds were established for: rebuilding and renewing trapline and hunting cabins, restoring cultural areas, building trails, developing educational materials, and...
British Columbia. Owner Operators Letters of Understanding Letter of Understanding 1 – Move into body of agreement under article 5 Letter of Understanding 2 – Xxxxx Letter of Understanding 3 – Xxxxx and move under new language on reroutes or under article 5 Letter of Understanding 4 – Move into Article 5 with changes. Letter of Understanding 5 – Agreed to delete already Letter of Understanding 6 – Agreed to delete already Letter of Understanding 7 – Xxxxx could be discussion on national XXX Letter of Understanding 8 – Renewed already Letter of Understanding 9 – Xxxxx and move into body under article 13 Letter of understanding 10- Deleted already Letter of Understanding 11 – Agreed to delete already Letter of Understanding 12 – Renew. Letter of Understanding 13 – Renewed already. Letter of Understanding 14 – Deleted in local bargaining Letter of Understanding 15 – Move into body under Schedule A Letter of Understanding 16 – Update. Letter of understanding 17 – Renew. Hourly Letters of Understanding Letter of Understanding 1 – Move into body under Article 15. Letter of Understanding 2 – Move into body under Article 15. Letter of Understanding 3 – Delete, covered in new restructuring provisions. Letter of Understanding 4 – Renewed already move under article 24 Letter of Understanding 5 – Same as XXX #1 under O/O Letter of Understanding 6 – Renewed already. Letter of Understanding 7 – Delete. Letter of Understanding 8 – Renew. Letter of Understanding 9 – Renew. Letter of Understanding 10 – Deleted already Letter of Understanding 11 – Move into body under Article 28. Letter of Understanding 12 – Xxxxx and add in a completion date. Leave as XXX subject to national language Letter of Understanding 13 – Renew. Letter of Understanding 14 – Xxxxx as per local bargaining agreement. Letter of Understanding 15 – and move under article 28 Letter of Understanding 16 – Renewed as per local bargaining agreement. Letter of Understanding 17 – Update and renew based on this MOA.