THE EVIDENCE. The Claimant called one witness, Xx. Xxxx Xxxxxxx whose witness statement was filed on the 8th July 2011. Both Defendants relied on one witness, the Second Defendant, Xxx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx. Her evidence in chief was contained in her witness statement which was filed on the 8th July 2011.
THE EVIDENCE. The defendant called four witnesses including himself – Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx and Andomida Massiah Boochoon. Their witness statements were tendered as evidence in chief and they were cross examined. The Third party called Xxxxxxx Xxxxx. His witness statement filed on September 23, 2011 was put into evidence. He was not cross examined.
THE EVIDENCE. During the trial for the matter, the Court heard evidence from the Claimant and Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx.
THE EVIDENCE. To restate the obvious; the burden lies with the Claimant on a balance of probabilities in Civil matters. The Claimant in its written submissions to this court sets out what it perceives as the evidence upon which this case turns in favour of the Claimant.
THE EVIDENCE. The Claimant relied on the evidence of Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx. The Defendant relied on the evidence of Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxxx and Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx.
THE EVIDENCE. 8. The evidence before this Court is contained in the following affidavits:
THE EVIDENCE. A non-profit entity, NAV Canada took over from the Treasury Board on November 1, 1996 as the public authority responsible for air traffic control in Canada. Although its staff was carved out of the public service, NavCan's labour relations comes within the jurisdictional purview of the Canada Labour Code, not the Public Service Staff Relations Act, by virtue of being a separate and distinct entity. The first collective agreement was not signed before August 1999; in the interim, the collective agreement entered into between Treasury Board and CATCA remained in effect. Initially due to expire on December 31, 1993, it was extended at various times and modified through memoranda of understanding to suit arising circumstances for the parties. The negotiations of the first collective agreement between the parties under the Canada Labour Code were eventful. They were initiated in October of 1997, and a tentative settlement was reached in late March of 1998. After massive rejection of the deal in April by the membership, parties were forced to return to the bargaining table; an impasse was reached in July of 1998. A notice of dispute was filed with the Department of Labour, leading to the appointment of a conciliation commissioner. The conciliation commissioner filed his report in May of 1999 which was released a few days later by the Minister of Labour. A new round of negotiations began which, under the intervention of a neutral called in to resolve what was described as interpretation issues, led to a tentative agreement later ratified by membership. There were as well other incidents that were thought to have retarded the conclusion of a first agreement. One involved an alleged work disruption during which an unusually high number of employees of the Toronto ACC called in sick in the spring of 1998. It is in response to this allegedly high level of absenteeism on the weekend of May 17 1998, that the Employer issued the following policy regarding sick leave. Part of this policy reads as follows:
THE EVIDENCE. The claimant called two witnesses and relied on quotations from several local distributors and tool rental agencies (produced in evidence via hearsay notice) to assist with determining the replacement value of the equipment in the current market. In producing the evidence, the claimant pointed out that given the customized nature of the equipment, it was a challenge to provide accurate replacement values. He provided invoices with current purchase prices for a limited number of similar pieces of equipment. He also provided a spreadsheet for rental of similar equipment on the local market from September 2016 to January 2017.
THE EVIDENCE. At the trial the Court heard evidence from Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx (Claimant), Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (the Second Defendant) and Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (the Fourth Defendant).
THE EVIDENCE. The claimants’ evidence 2 Paragraph 4 In support of its claim the claimants filed witness statements from 5 witnesses namely:
