British Columbia. Vendor's Years in Business
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.
2.2 Subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, British Columbia will provide the following aggregate data to FNESC for First Nations Students who attend BC Schools:
a) percentage of students who are meeting or exceeding expectations for reading, writing and numeracy in grades 4 and 7 in the Foundation Skills Assessment;
b) participation rates for the Foundation Skills Assessment;
c) six-year completion rates (provincial and school district level data);
d) proportion of students awarded a BC School Completion Certificate;
e) six-year completion rate for students ever enrolled in an Alternate Program;
f) grades 10 to 12 math course participation rates;
g) data related to assessments required for graduation purposes; and
h) attendance.
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. Owner Operators Letters of Understanding Hourly Letters of Understanding
British Columbia. Subsidiaries marked with an asterisk are Material Subsidiaries.
(1) Direct subsidiary of AK Media Group, Inc. C-1 47 SCHEDULE I Number of Underwritten Underwriters Securities to be Purchased ------------ --------------------------
British Columbia. (For a more detailed discussion on the case and its implications, see my previous article, Death by a Thousand Clearcuts –
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. 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 teaching of tradition...
British Columbia. Amended April 1, 2007 Amended April 1, 2007
1. Notwithstanding item 1 e), for the purpose of section 1 a) (iii), a farm motor vehicle not qualified as a farm vehicle in British Columbia and having a licensed gross vehicle weight of 13,601 kg or more shall not be included as a category B vehicle for use in the Province of British Columbia.
2. For the purposes of temporary intra-provincial operation as provided for in Item 4, in BC the time period for temporary operation of category “B” vehicles as described in Item 1(a)(i) is limited to 90 days in a calendar year with these 90 days including any operation of the vehicle on a highway in the Province of British Columbia.
3. Notwithstanding item 1 a) (iv), a vehicle traveling unladen is not considered to be a category B vehicle if used in the Province of British Columbia.
4. Notwithstanding items 4 and 5, apart from vehicles described in items 1(a)(i) and 1(a)(viii), British Columbia does not grant intra-provincial reciprocity for category “B” vehicles used on a highway in the Province of British Columbia.
5. Notwithstanding item 1 f), for the purpose of section 1 a) (vii), government vehicle does not include a vehicle registered to the federal government.
British Columbia. Her reasons at 30 read as follows: 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 scope of their employment.
British Columbia. 82 The defendant relies on the judgment of Xxxxxxxxx J. in that case at (2003), 12 B.C.L.R. (4th) 121, 2003 BCSC 234 ( L.R. No. 2 ), in which after amending the common issue to narrow it to re- flect what was envisioned by the Court of Appeal in certifying it, Xxxxxxxxx J. at 91 warned the plaintiffs that in doing so she "reached a precarious balance between a potentially workable class proceeding and unmanageable confusion...". 83 In L.R. No. 2, Xxxxxxxxx J. was facing an application for decertification in the face of the de- fendant's submission that the case "as presently conceived and conducted by the plaintiffs is not the proceedings certified by the Court of Appeal and that it is irredeemably individual and is not man- ageable as a class proceeding." ( supra, 54) 84 The essential problem identified by the defendants in L.R. No. 2 and facedby Xxxxxxxxx J. is set out in paragraph 30 of her reasons for judgment which read as follows:
