THE FACTS Sample Clauses

THE FACTS. [4] In the Reasons which he gave in support of his decision, Blais J. carefully and thoroughly reviewed the facts relevant to the issues before him. Although the Judge’s summary of the evidence is somewhat lengthy, it is essential to a proper understanding of the issues raised in the appeal. Before reproducing the relevant paragraphs of the Judge’s Reasons, a few words concerning the reasons which led the Minister to introduce the Pilot Plan will be useful. [5] There are over sixty different species of fish on the Pacific coast, with seven different fleets. Because the nature of the Fisheries is that species intermingle, this leads to what is referred to in the industry as a “bycatch”. In effect, although fishers may be licensed to catch one species of fish, for example halibut, they may well catch a number of other fish, i.e. the bycatch, while attempting to catch halibut. In such a situation, 2008 FCA 212 (CanLII) because fishers can only retain the fish that they are licensed to catch, the non-licensed fish must be returned to the water and, depending on the type of fish so returned, there is a high probability that the fish will die when returned to the water. This is clearly the situation in the case of rock fish. [6] In 2001, the Minister determined that changes in the Fisheries had to be made, failing which significant curtailment thereof would be necessary. The proposed changes were meant to address conservation and protection issues pertaining to endangered and at risk rock fish species, bycatch mortality and to allow the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (“DFO”) to assess stocks by improving the monitoring and catch reporting for all species. [7] In June 2003, the Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002, c. 29, was enacted, resulting in the classification of Boccaccio rock fish as a threatened species and the identification of 11 other rock fish species as high priority for possible listing as “species at risk” under the Act. [8] In March 2005, DFO decided that commencing with the 2006 fishing season, 100% electronic monitoring of catch would be required for all commercial groundfish fishing trips. Monitoring was deemed necessary in order to accurately account for all catch by a fishing vessel, be it landed or at sea releases. Through this means, DFO believed that it would have more accurate information to determine whether total allowable catches (“TAC”) within a given commercial groundfish Fishery were being exceeded. With more accurate information, th...
THE FACTS. The Privatization Contract provided among others, in section 5.5, that the Local Investment Company should transfer to the State certain assets of the Privatized Company (the “Transferred Assets”), in exchange of shares in companies owned by the State in other, not specified companies (the “Compensation Shares”). Such transfer of assets and compensation in state–owned shares is in accordance with a Governmental Regulation No. 482 of 1998. The Local Investment Company complied with all its obligations under the Privatization Contract, including also the obligation under section 5.5 about the Transferred Assets, following which the Privatized Company repeatedly requested compensation in Compensation Shares, in accordance with the Privatization Contract and the Regulation No 482 of 1998. The existence and the amount of the claim to compensation do not seem to be in dispute, since they have been acknowledged by the Department of Privatization in its letters dated 19 November 2003 and 10 May 2004. However, the due compensation has not yet taken place. The first request of Compensation Shares made by the Privatized Company (dated 19 November 2001 and 17 October 2002) was rejected by the Department of Privatization (by letter dated 7 November 2002). The reason for rejecting the request was that the Privatized Company had requested shares that did not appear on a list of state–owned shares that are eligible as Compensation Shares (the “List of Eligible Compensation Shares”). The List of Eligible Compensation Shares contained only shares of companies in which the State owned less than 30% of the capital. Such criterion was based on an Order issued by the Department of Privatization on 17 December 2001, that introduced this restriction to the possibility to choose Compensation Shares. The second request of Compensation Shares made by the Privatized Company (dated 31 July 2003) was also rejected by the Department of Privatization. The reason for rejecting the request was that the Privatized Company had requested shares that were removed from the List of Eligible Compensation Shares following a request by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry on 30 October 2003. The third request of Compensation Shares made by the Privatized Company (dated 12 November 2003) was again rejected by the Department of Privatization (by letter dated 19 November 2003). The reason for rejecting the request was that the State did not own a number of the requested shares that was suffic...
THE FACTS. 1. To launch a criminal inquiry into the events of April 22, 1992, the federal government exercised its right of `federalization', even though most of the crimes committed fell under local jurisdiction. But the main instances of uninvestigated conduct were those pertaining to determination had been made in the Attorney General’s inquiry, inasmuch as no appeal was filed against the court ruling that had closed the case definitively.
THE FACTS. 2.01: In January 2005 the United Nations Secretary General, Koffi Annan flew to Cameroon and obtained a commitment [herein referred as the Ann Bakassi Peace Accord] which accordingly reads….. “
THE FACTS. 16. At the time of the doping control, the Athlete was a member of the Silber Pro Cycling team. He had signed a one-year contract just after finishing training with the team. He had been a member of the Norco team before beginning with that team. He has been a road cyclist since the age of 12.
THE FACTS. In the school year 1997-1998, petitioner Nadine Rosario M. Morales transferred from the UP Manila campus, where she was taking up Speech Pathology, to UP Diliman and enrolled in the European Languages undergraduate program under the College of Arts and Letters. Said program has three curricula, namely, Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C. Upon the petitioner’s transfer, she chose the Plan A curriculum and elected French as her major and German as her minor. Under the Plan A curriculum, the student is required to complete 141 units worth of subjects in the University, 27 of which should be electives in his or her minor field of study. During the first semester of school year 1997-1998, the petitioner enrolled in the subjects German 10 and German 11 where she obtained the grades of 1.0 in both subjects. At the start of the second semester, however, the petitioner changed her language minor from German to Spanish, while maintaining French as her major. By the end of the first semester of school year 1999-2000, the petitioner was included in the list of candidates for graduation "with probable honors" issued by the College of Arts and Letters of UP Diliman. The inclusion of the petitioner in the said list was based on the computation made by the College of Arts and Letters of the petitioner’s General Weighted Average (GWA) inclusive of her grades of 1.0 in German 10 and 11. According to the college’s computation, the petitioner had a GWA of 1.725, clearly above the minimum weighted average grade6 for conferment of cum laude honors.7 Petitioner obtained an average of 1.708 for her remaining subjects in her final semester in the University, bringing her GWA to 1.729, which is definitely higher than the 1.75 average grade required for cum laude honors. During the assessment for graduation though, the petitioner was not granted cum laude honors because her grades of 1.0 in the subjects German 10 and 11, which she took when her minor was still German, were excluded in the computation of her GWA, thus bringing her GWA to 1.760, which is lower than the minimum weighted average grade required for the conferment of cum laude honors.
THE FACTS. The weight of the evidence indicates as follows: The Company is a domestic airline, with headquarters in Dallas, Texas. The Grievant was a Ramp Agent stationed in St. Louis, Missouri (“STL”), who had worked for the Company for approximately fourteen (14) years when he was terminated effective March 29, 2010. On March 16, 2010, Ramp Agent reported to Ramp Supervisor Eppy Epenesa and Ramps & Operations Manager Mike Lovett that he had witnessed the Grievant, whom he described as “agitated”, bending the pull handle on a Customer’s bag while cursing (“motherf**ker”) at the bag. According to Ramp Agent , the Grievant then threw the bag “hard” on the bag belt. In a written memorandum prepared March 22, 2010, which was prepared at Management’s request, Ramp Agent stated as follows: On Tuesday, March 16, 2010, I was walking into work from the security door by T-Point I noticed (the Grievant) dropping off his STL Bags on belt #1. He seemed agitated and he was bending the pull handle on the bag. He then threw the bag on the bag belt hard and he was cursing mf to the bag. This is the 3rd time I have seen (the Grievant) doing this sort of damage to the Customer bags. I have also witnessed (the Grievant) breaking wheels off bags and bending handles. I have enough of this and can’t stand watching another bag be(ing) damaged by (the Grievant) so I reported to Mike Lovett and Eppy.
THE FACTS. The controversy stemmed from the February 6, 1999 Memorandum of Agreement3 (MOA) signed by Barangay 901 and Barangay 902, represented by their respective chairmen, Azer E. Dolot (Dolot)
THE FACTS. In the first case, two passengers booked a flight with Air Berlin, consisting of two connecting flights from Ibiza to Palma de Mallorca and from there to Düsseldorf. The first flight was operated by Air Nostrum, and the second flight by Air Berlin. Because the first flight was delayed, the passengers missed their connecting flight, and finally arrived in Düsseldorf after considerable delay. The two passengers assigned their claims under the Flight Compensation Regulation4 to flightright GmbH, an organisation that enforces the rights of air passengers. Subsequently, flightright brought an action against Air Nostrum − as the operating air carrier conducting the delayed first flight − before the District 1. Case 34/82 Martin Peters Bauunternehmung GmbH v Zuid Nederlandse Aannemers Vereniging [1983] ECR 988, para. 9; Case 189/87 Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst und Co. [1988] ECR 5579, para. 15.