Undisputed Facts. 152. The Parties agree that, under s. 5 of the CEAA, industrial activity that affects rivers and oceans which are habitat for fish and marine life generally comes under federal legislative authority; put differently, and more specifically, the federal legislation sets out that a EA is required where the responsible federal authority concludes that a project poses a risk of destruction of fish, disruption of fish habitat, or a danger to marine life owing to work in navigable waters.94 These three potentialities are referred to as “triggers” for a federal EA. Industrial activity on land generally comes under provincial authority; there, a provincial authority may also conclude there is a need for an EA.95 153. Between August 2002 and March 2003, GQP went through three rounds of filing project descriptions with NSDEL that would be used for an EA of the intended project.96 The final, accepted description included project infrastructure that consisted of a 152 ha quarry and a 170 m long marine terminal.97
Undisputed Facts. 220. On 22 October 2007, the JRP submitted its report to the federal Minister of the Environment and the Nova Scotia Minister of Environment and Labour, recommending rejection of the proposal.236 Between 29 October and 16 November 2007, Bilcon requested in writing that the government of Nova Scotia dismiss the JRP’s recommendations. 237 Nevertheless, on 20 November 2007, Nova Scotia adopted the JRP’s recommendations to reject the Whites Point project.238 The next month, the Canadian Government also accepted the JRP’s recommendation and announced its decision not to issue the permits and authorizations that Bilcon had requested in connection with the Whites Point project.239
Undisputed Facts. 120. On 6 February 2002, Xxxx Xxxxx applied to the Canadian Coast Guard under s. 5 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act (“NWPA”) for a permit to build a “floating loading dock” in Nova Scotia at Whites Point in Digby Neck.35 121. On 18 February 2002, Nova Stone applied to the NSDEL for a permit to construct and operate a quarry on the Whites Point project site. The NSDEL rejected this application on 15 April 2002 as it concluded that the proposed quarry exceeded 4 ha, the maximum size permitted through the 35 Memorial, para. 103; Application Form by Nova Stone Exporters Inc., 6 February 2002, Exhibit C-35. basic NSDEL approval process.36 Any quarry greater than 4 ha requires an EA before it can proceed in Nova Scotia.37 122. On 23 April 2002, Nova Stone submitted a new application for a permit to build a quarry at the Whites Point project site that was limited to 3.9 ha.38 The NSDEL issued this permit on 30 April 2002. The approval was made subject to certain blasting conditions added at the DFO’s request (the “Blasting Conditions”).
Undisputed Facts. The Equipment Provider (EP) sent the Motor Carrier (MC) the following two per diem invoices: Invoice NYC9080565250X – Invoice Date: 6/2/2008 – amount $00.00 (Moving Party disputing $00.00 of invoice) Invoice NYC9080775624X – Invoice Date: 8/1/2008 – amount $00.00 (Moving Party disputing $00.00 of invoice) (Note: Only Invoice NYC9080775624X is applicable to this arbitration claim. Invoice NYC908056250X is dated prior to August 1, 2008 so is not acceptable for submission under the binding arbitration process.)
Undisputed Facts. The following facts are undisputed.4
Undisputed Facts. The parties agree that
Undisputed Facts. 1. The Employer is an air carrier providing scheduled transportation for passengers, baggage, mail and cargo to over 160 locations in many countries.
Undisputed Facts. The Equipment Provider (EP) sent the Motor Carrier (MC) a Per Diem invoice 01024, dated 10/30/2012, in the amount of $00.00. The invoice states the following: “Chassis: MSCZ415508, Container: CARU9634391, Type: 40xx, Description: Bare Chassis Per-Diem, Start Date: 08/31/2012, End Date: 09/22/2012, Days: 22.” The out-gate EIR shows that the unit was out-gated at the BNSF Railway facility on 07/27/2012 and in- gated at the CSX Bedford Park facility on 08/02/2012. ISSUE: The MC stated that their driver picked up the CMA-CGM container on another EP’s chassis at the BNSF rail facility on 7/27/2012 and then in-gated the empty container and chassis at the CSX Bedford Park facility on 08/02/2012, as requested by CMA-CGM. Therefore, the MC feels that because the unit was in-gated at the CSX rail facility and that the in-gate EIR indicates the same, they should not be charged after the date of interchange 08/02/2012. The MC also disputes that the necessary backup information was not supplied by the EP to support the invoice. The MC bases their dispute on Section E.6.d of the UIIA. The EP submitted no response to this UIIA dispute.
Undisputed Facts. The Equipment Provider (EP) sent the Motor Carrier (MC) Invoice CALE0104642, dated July 01, 2013 for per diem charges totaling $00.00. The invoice stated the following: “Equipment Export Detention Charges, Start Event Data: March 28, 2013 – Gate out Empty – New York, NY-APM Elizabeth NJ, From Date: March 28, 2013 to April 26, 2013, Days: 21, Type: Working, Rate: $0.00 From Date: April 27, 2013 to June 21, 2013, Days 56, Type: Calendar, Rate: $00.00.” The out-gate EIR indicated that the unit was picked up at the APM Terminal in Newark on 03/28/13. There was no in-gate EIR provided. The EP claims the unit was involved in an accident and was listed as a “total loss”.
Undisputed Facts. 1. The First Defendant was wholly owned by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and its Board of Directors was appointed by the Government. As a result of Government’s plan to restructure the sugar industry, the First Defendant ceased operations as an operating company as at 31st July, 2003, with the exception of a Transition Team which was appointed to fulfill outstanding obligations and to wind down and complete administrative and other matters. The First Defendant had offered a Voluntary Separation Employment Package (VSEP) to its workers and with the implementation of this package, the First Defendant ceased cultivation and processing of sugar cane.
