Undisputed Facts Clause Samples

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. 120. On 6 February 2002, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ 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 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.”

Undisputed Facts. The following facts are undisputed.4

Undisputed Facts. The Motor Carrier (MC) invoiced the Equipment Provider (EP) for reimbursement of a floor repair that was made to container MCSU719320-6 while the unit was in the MC’s possession.

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.” 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

Undisputed Facts. 3. During the first six months of 2004, while engaged in the practice of his profession as a pharmacist at Heights Pharmacy in Needham, Massachusetts, Respondent: (1) engaged in the unauthorized personal use of controlled substances (Roxicet, Vicodin, Xanax, Depo-Testosterone and OxyContin) (Exhibit 4A); and (2) was indicted on (5) counts of stealing a controlled substance from persons authorized to dispense or possess in violation of G.L., c. 94C ("Chapter 94C"), § 37. (Exhibit 2B) 4. On December 7, 2004, Respondent entered into a treatment contract with the Massachusetts Professional Recovery System ("MPRS"), the Board's substance abuse rehabilitation program. (Exhibit 4A). 5. On March 4, 2005, the Board and Respondent entered into the Consent Agreement, which provides as follows, in pertinent part: 1: The parties enter into this Consent Agreement in order to resolve disputed matters arising out of the complaint pending against Registrant (hereinafter "Respondent") before the Board as Docket No. PH-05-025 ("Complaint"). 2: Respondent agrees that this Agreement has been entered into as a result of his unauthorized personal use of the controlled substances: Roxicet, Vicodin, Xanax, Depo-Testesterone and OxyContin, on diverse [sic] dates during 2004, while employed at Heights Pharmacy (Permit No. 10398) ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇.

Undisputed Facts. 183. The federal Minister of the Environment and the provincial Minister of the NSDEL released a draft JRP Agreement and the JRP’s Terms of Reference (“TOR”) for public comment on 11 August 2003. The final JRP Agreement and associated TOR were signed on 29 October and 3 November 2004 respectively.