DOCSLIB.ORG

Investigation Into Possible Freight Rail Service Issues in the Vancouver Area, Pursuant to Subsection 116(1.11) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Investigation Into Possible Freight Rail Service Issues in the Vancouver Area, Pursuant to Subsection 116(1.11) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C Agency File No. 19-00189 CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF: Investigation into possible freight rail service issues in the Vancouver area, pursuant to subsection 116(1.11) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c.10, as amended BETWEEN: CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY - and – CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY AUTHORITIES TO THE RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY 1500, 410 22nd Street East Saskatoon SK S7K 5T6 Lawyer in charge of file: Douglas C. Hodson, Q.C. Phone: (306) 975-7101 Fax: (306) 975-7145 Email: [email protected] LIST OF AUTHORITIES Case Authorities Tab 2747-3174 Québec Inc. c. Québec (Régie des permis d'alcool), [1996] 3 SCR 919 ................................... A A.L. Patchett & Sons Ltd. v Pacific Great Eastern Railway, [1959] SCR 271 .............................................. B Arsenault v Treasury Board (Department of National Defence), 2016 FCA 179 .......................................... C Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 1999 SCC 699 .................................................... D Bell Canada v 7262591 Canada Ltd., 2018 FCA 174 ................................................................................... E Canadian Cable Television Assn. v American College Sports Collective of Canada Inc., [1991] 3 FC 626 (FCA) ................................................................................................................................................ F Canadian National Railway v Viterra Inc., 2017 FCA 6 ............................................................................... G Harris v. Barristers' Society (Nova Scotia), 2004 NSCA 143 ........................................................................ H Hutchinson v Canada (Minister of the Environment), 2003 FCA 133 ............................................................ I Robotham v WestJet Airlines, 2014 ONSC 3141 ......................................................................................... J Decisions Decision No. 360-R-2014 ............................................................................................................................. K Letter Decision No. 2014-10-03 .................................................................................................................... L Russel Metals Inc. v Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Decision No. 273-R-2012 ................................ M Other References Canadian Transportation Agency Rules (Dispute Proceedings and Certain Rules Applicable to All Proceedings), SOR/2014-104 ....................................................................................................................... N Hansard, Senate Debates, Vol. 150 No. 158, 09 November 2017 .............................................................. O 2 2747-3174 Québec Inc. c. Québec (Régie des permis d'alcool), 1996 CarswellQue 965 1996 CarswellQue 965, 1996 CarswellQue 966, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919... 1996 CarswellQue 965 Supreme Court of Canada 2747-3174 Québec Inc. c. Québec (Régie des permis d'alcool) 1996 CarswellQue 965, 1996 CarswellQue 966, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919, [1996] S.C.J. No. 112, 140 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 205 N.R. 1, 42 Admin. L.R. (2d) 1, 66 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1012, J.E. 96-2212, EYB 1996-67914 Le Procureur général du Québec (appelant) et La Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux (appelante) c. 2747-3174 Québec Inc. (intimée) Lamer C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. Heard: March 27, 1996 Judgment: November 21, 1996 Docket: 24309 Proceedings: Reversing 65 Q.A.C. 245, (sub nom. Québec (Procureur général) c. 2747-3174 Québec Inc.) [1994] R.J.Q. 2440, (sub nom. 2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec) 122 D.L.R. (4th) 553 (C.A.) Counsel: Jean-Yves Bernard and Benoît Belleau, for appellants. Simon Venne and Marie Paré, for respondent. Subject: Public; Constitutional Headnote Liquor control --- Liquor licencing and control boards — Powers and procedures — Appeal or review — Grounds — General Liquor control — Liquor licencing and control boards — Powers and procedures — Appeal or review — Grounds — Liquor control board revoking bar's liquor permits following complaints of excessive noise — Board exercising quasi- judicial function and having to comply with requirements of impartiality and independence — Board being sufficiently independent despite government's powers to dismiss directors for specific reasons and large number of contacts between board and cabinet minister — Reasonable apprehension of bias arising because board's employees investigating and prosecuting complaints as well as participating in adjudication of complaints — Board's directors not being impartial because having power to both decide to hold hearing following investigation and to participate in adjudication — Board's decision being quashed because decision not being made by independent and impartial tribunal — Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, ss. 23, 56(1) — Act respecting liquor permits, R.S.Q., c. P-9.1, ss. 2, 75, 86(8). Administrative law --- Requirements of natural justice — Bias Administrative law — Requirements of natural justice — Bias — Liquor control board revoking bar's liquor permits following complaints of excessive noise — Board exercising quasi-judicial function and having to comply with requirements of impartiality and independence — Board being sufficiently independent despite government's powers to dismiss directors for specific reasons and large number of contacts between board and cabinet minister — Reasonable apprehension of bias arising because board's employees investigating and prosecuting complaints as well as participating in adjudication of complaints — Board's directors not being impartial because having power to both decide to hold hearing following investigation and to participate in adjudication — Board's decision being quashed because decision not being made by independent and impartial tribunal — Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, ss. 23, 56(1) — Act respecting liquor permits, R.S.Q., c. P-9.1, ss. 2, 75, 86(8). Human rights --- Miscellaneous issues Human rights — Right to independent and impartial tribunal — Liquor control board revoking bar's liquor permits following complaints of excessive noise — Board exercising quasi-judicial function and having to comply with requirements of impartiality and independence — Board being sufficiently independent despite government's powers to Copyright © Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. 1 2747-3174 Québec Inc. c. Québec (Régie des permis d'alcool), 1996 CarswellQue 965 1996 CarswellQue 965, 1996 CarswellQue 966, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919... dismiss directors for specific reasons and large number of contacts between board and cabinet minister — Reasonable apprehension of bias arising because board's employees investigating and prosecuting complaints as well as participating in adjudication of complaints — Board's directors not being impartial because having power to both decide to hold hearing following investigation and to participate in adjudication — Board's decision being quashed because decision not being made by independent and impartial tribunal — Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, ss. 23, 56(1) — Act respecting liquor permits, R.S.Q., c. P-9.1, ss. 2, 75, 86(8). The provincial liquor control board, which was responsible for issuing and cancelling liquor permits, revoked the permit of the bar following a hearing into complaints of excessive noise. Section 75 of the Act respecting liquor permits (Que.) required that a permit holder not disturb the public tranquility, and s. 86(8) of the Act allowed the board to cancel a permit for a violation of s. 75. The bar claimed that the board's decision violated s. 23 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (Que.), which states that every person has the right to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of his or her rights and obligations. Section 56(1) of the Charter states that a tribunal, for the purposes of s. 23, included an agency exercising quasi-judicial functions. The bar claimed that the board was not impartial because its employees participated in every stage of the complaint process, including the investigation and the filing of complaints, the presentation of the case before the directors, and the making of the board's decision. The board's lawyers both made submissions to the directors, who made the decision to cancel a permit, and then advised the directors, who had no legal training, in making their decision. The directors had the power to both decide to hold a hearing and to decide the case on its merits. As well, the bar claimed that the board was not independent, because its directors held office for only five-year terms, and their appointment could be revoked by the government before the expiry of the term for specific grounds such as defalcation, mismanagement, or gross fault. The bar also claimed that the board was not independent, because the board was under the control of a cabinet minister who evaluated the board's chair, and who could require information concerning the board's activities. The bar successfully challenged the decision before the Quebec Superior Court. The court declared that s. 2 of the Act, which established the board, was invalid because the board did not comply with s. 23. The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed the Superior
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Teksavvy Solutions Inc. Consultation on the Technical and Policy
    TekSavvy Solutions Inc. Reply Comments in Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for the 3650-4200 MHz Band and Changes to the Frequency Allocation of the 3500-3650 MHz Band Canada Gazette, Part I, August 2020, Notice No. SLPB-002-20 November 30, 2020 TekSavvy Solutions Inc. Reply Comments to Consultation SLPB-002-20 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 1 B. Arguments for option 1 and against option 2 _________________________________ 1 a. Contiguity ______________________________________________________________ 1 b. Availability of ecosystem in the 3900: impacts on viability_________________________ 3 c. Moratorium ____________________________________________________________ 4 d. Arguments for Improvements to Option 1 _____________________________________ 4 C. 3800 MHz Auction _______________________________________________________ 5 a. Value _________________________________________________________________ 5 b. Procompetitive Measures _________________________________________________ 5 c. Tier 4 and 5 Licensing Area ________________________________________________ 6 TekSavvy Solutions Inc. Page 1 of 6 Reply Comments to Consultation SLPB-002-20 A. INTRODUCTION 1. TekSavvy Solutions Inc. (“TekSavvy”) is submitting its reply comments on ISED’s “Consultation on the Technical and Policy Framework for the 3650-4200 MHz Band and Changes to the Frequency Allocation of the 3500-3650 MHz Band”. 2. TekSavvy reasserts its position in favour of Option 1 in that Consultation document, and its strong opposition to Option 2, as expressed in its original submission. TekSavvy rejects Option 2 as disastrous both for WBS service providers’ ongoing viability and availability of broadband service to rural subscribers. 3. TekSavvy supports Option 1, wherein WBS Licensees would be allowed to continue to operate in the band of 3650 to 3700 MHz indefinitely as the only option that enables continued investment in rural broadband networks and continued improvement of broadband services to rural subscribers.
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2016-196
    Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2016-196 PDF version Reference: 2016-147 Ottawa, 24 May 2016 Various licensees Various locations across Canada Various terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings – Administrative renewals 1. The Commission renews the broadcasting licences for the terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings set out in the appendix to this decision from 1 September 2016 to 30 November 2016, subject to the terms and conditions in effect under the current licences. 2. This decision does not dispose of any issue that may arise with respect to the renewal of these licences, including past non-compliance issues. The Commission is considering the renewal of these licences in Call for licence renewal applications: Submission of renewal applications for broadcasting licences of terrestrial distribution undertakings (BDUs) that will expire in 2016 and 2017; implementation of certain conditions of licence and review of practices in regard to the small basic and flexible packaging requirements for all BDU licensees, Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2016-147, 21 April 2016. Secretary General *This decision is to be appended to each licence. Appendix to Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2016-196 Terrestrial broadcasting distribution undertakings for which the broadcasting licences have been administratively renewed until 30 November 2016 Licensee Locations Access Communications Co-operative Limited Regina (including White City), Saskatchewan Cogeco Cable Canada GP Inc. (the general Belleville, Burlington, Georgetown, partner)
    [Show full text]
  • Cologix Torix Case Study
    Internet Exchange Case Study The Toronto Internet Exchange (TorIX) is the largest IX in Canada with more than 175 peering participants benefiting from lower network costs & faster speeds The non-profit Toronto Internet Exchange (TorIX) is a multi-connection point enabling members to use one hardwired connection to exchange traffic with 175+ members on the exchange. With peering participants swapping traffic with one another through direct connections, TorIX reduces transit times for local data exchange and cuts the significant costs of Internet bandwidth. The success of TorIX is underlined by its tremendous growth, exceeding 145 Gbps as one of the largest IXs in the world. TorIX is in Cologix’s data centre at 151 Front Street, Toronto’s carrier hotel and the country’s largest telecommunications hub in the heart of Toronto. TorIX members define their own routing protocols to dictate their traffic flow, experiencing faster speeds with their data packets crossing fewer hops between the point of origin and destination. Additionally, by keeping traffic local, Canadian data avoids international networks, easing concerns related to privacy and security. Above: In Dec. 2014, TorIX traffic peaked above 140 Gbps, with average traffic hovering around 90 Gbps. Beginning Today Launched in July 1996 Direct TorIX on-ramp in Cologix’s151 Front Street Ethernet-based, layer 2 connectivity data centre in Toronto TorIX-owned switches capable of handling Second largest independent IX in North America ample traffic Operated by telecom industry volunteers IPv4 & IPv6 address provided to each peering Surpassed 145 Gbps with 175+ peering member to use on the IX participants, including the Canadian Broke the 61 Gbps mark in Jan.
    [Show full text]
  • QUESTION 20-1/2 Examination of Access Technologies for Broadband Communications
    International Telecommunication Union QUESTION 20-1/2 Examination of access technologies for broadband communications ITU-D STUDY GROUP 2 3rd STUDY PERIOD (2002-2006) Report on broadband access technologies eport on broadband access technologies QUESTION 20-1/2 R International Telecommunication Union ITU-D THE STUDY GROUPS OF ITU-D The ITU-D Study Groups were set up in accordance with Resolutions 2 of the World Tele- communication Development Conference (WTDC) held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1994. For the period 2002-2006, Study Group 1 is entrusted with the study of seven Questions in the field of telecommunication development strategies and policies. Study Group 2 is entrusted with the study of eleven Questions in the field of development and management of telecommunication services and networks. For this period, in order to respond as quickly as possible to the concerns of developing countries, instead of being approved during the WTDC, the output of each Question is published as and when it is ready. For further information: Please contact Ms Alessandra PILERI Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT) ITU Place des Nations CH-1211 GENEVA 20 Switzerland Telephone: +41 22 730 6698 Fax: +41 22 730 5484 E-mail: [email protected] Free download: www.itu.int/ITU-D/study_groups/index.html Electronic Bookshop of ITU: www.itu.int/publications © ITU 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any means whatsoever, without the prior written permission of ITU. International Telecommunication Union QUESTION 20-1/2 Examination of access technologies for broadband communications ITU-D STUDY GROUP 2 3rd STUDY PERIOD (2002-2006) Report on broadband access technologies DISCLAIMER This report has been prepared by many volunteers from different Administrations and companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Bell Canada V Adam Lackman Dba TVADDONS.AG
    Date: 20180220 Docket: A-202-17 Citation: 2018 FCA 42 CORAM: NOËL C.J. GAUTHIER J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. BETWEEN: BELL CANADA BELL EXPRESSVU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BELL MEDIA INC. VIDÉOTRON S.E.N.C. GROUPE TVA INC. ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS CANADA INC. ROGERS MEDIA INC. Appellants and ADAM LACKMAN dba TVADDONS.AG Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on November 16, 2017. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 20, 2018. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DE MONTIGNY J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: NOËL C.J. GAUTHIER J.A. Date: 20180220 Docket: A-202-17 Citation: 2018 FCA 42 CORAM: NOËL C.J. GAUTHIER J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. BETWEEN: BELL CANADA BELL EXPRESSVU LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BELL MEDIA INC. VIDÉOTRON S.E.N.C. GROUPE TVA INC. ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS CANADA INC. ROGERS MEDIA INC. Appellants and ADAM LACKMAN dba TVADDONS.AG Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DE MONTIGNY J.A. [1] The appellants Bell Canada, Bell Expressvu Limited Partnership, Bell Media Inc., Vidéotron S.E.N.C., Groupe TVA Inc., Rogers Communications Canada Inc. and Rogers Media Page: 2 Inc. (the appellants) are appealing the order of Justice Bell of the Federal Court (the Judge) dated June 29, 2017 (Justice Bell’s Order or Reasons), whereby he vacated the Anton Piller order granted by Justice LeBlanc on June 9, 2017 (Justice LeBlanc’s Order) and dismissed the appellants’ motion for an interlocutory injunction. In the underlying action, the appellants alleged that Adam Lackman (the respondent) infringed copyright by communicating and making available to the public the appellants’ programs, and by inducing and/or authorizing users of infringing add-ons to initiate acts of infringement through the business it operates under the name TVAddons.ag (TVAddons or the TVAddons website).
    [Show full text]
  • BCE Inc. 2015 Annual Report
    Leading the way in communications BCE INC. 2015 ANNUAL REPORT for 135 years BELL LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATION PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE OUR GOAL For Bell to be recognized by customers as Canada’s leading communications company OUR STRATEGIC IMPERATIVES Invest in broadband networks and services 11 Accelerate wireless 12 Leverage wireline momentum 14 Expand media leadership 16 Improve customer service 18 Achieve a competitive cost structure 20 Bell is leading Canada’s broadband communications revolution, investing more than any other communications company in the fibre networks that carry advanced services, in the products and content that make the most of the power of those networks, and in the customer service that makes all of it accessible. Through the rigorous execution of our 6 Strategic Imperatives, we gained further ground in the marketplace and delivered financial results that enable us to continue to invest in growth services that now account for 81% of revenue. Financial and operational highlights 4 Letters to shareholders 6 Strategic imperatives 11 Community investment 22 Bell archives 24 Management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) 28 Reports on internal control 112 Consolidated financial statements 116 Notes to consolidated financial statements 120 2 We have re-energized one of Canada’s most respected brands, transforming Bell into a competitive force in every communications segment. Achieving all our financial targets for 2015, we strengthened our financial position and continued to create value for shareholders. DELIVERING INCREASED
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Cases on Pensions & Benefits
    CANADIAN CASES ON PENSIONS & BENEFITS Recueil de jurisprudence canadienne en mati`ere de retraite et d’avantages sociaux VOLUME 89 (Cited 89 C.C.P.B.) EDITOR/REDACTRICE´ Andrea Boctor, B.COMM., LL.B. Stikeman Elliott, Toronto ASSOCIATE EDITORS/REDACTEURS´ ADJOINTS Bruce Pollock, B.COMM., LL.B. Michel Legendre, B.A., LL.L. Stikeman Elliott, Toronto Stikeman Elliott, Montr´eal Catherine A. Jenner, B.A., M.L.S., LL.B., B.C.L. Stikeman Elliott, Montr´eal CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF/REDACTION´ DE CARSWELL Jeffrey D. Mitchell, B.A., M.A. Director, Editorial Production and Manufacturing Catherine Bennett, B.A., LL.B., LL.M. Product Development Manager Sharon Yale, LL.B., M.A. Julia Fischer, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Supervisor, Legal Writing Acting Supervisor, Legal Writing Susan Koster, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Lori Lockwood, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Lead Legal Writer Senior Legal Writer Barbara Roberts, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Bridget Mak, B.A.(HON.), LL.B. Senior Legal Writer Legal Writer Rachel Bernstein, B.A.(HON.), J.D. Andrea Toews, B.A., LL.B., LL.M. Legal Writer Legal Writer Mark Koskie, B.A.(HON.), M.A., LL.B. Martin-Fran¸cois Parent, LL.B., Legal Writer LL.M., DEA (PARIS II) Bilingual Legal Writer Michel Marison, B.A.(HON.) Bilingual Content Editor CANADIAN CASES ON PENSIONS AND BENEFITS, a national series of Recueil de jurisprudence canadienne en mati`ere de retraite et annotated topical law reports, is published 12 times per year. Subscription d’avantages sociaux, une s´erie nationale de recueils de jurisprudence rate $397.00 per bound volume including parts.
    [Show full text]
  • Morning News Call Canada
    MORNING NEWS CALL Powered by Re uters Canada Edition Monday, April 26, 2021 TOP NEWS • Frustrated Canada presses White House to keep Great Lakes oil pipeline open Canada is pushing on several diplomatic fronts against the U.S. state of Michigan's efforts to close a cross-border oil pipeline, the second such dispute since Joe Biden became U.S. president in January, complicating the governments' efforts to work together to lower carbon emissions. • Shippers push for CP Railway to win bidding war for Kansas City Southern North America's freight rail customers, from grain shippers to logistics companies, are pushing for Canadian Pacific Railway to win a bidding war for Kansas City Southern over rival Canadian National Railway, eyeing stronger competition and swifter service. • Moderna vaccine to be reviewed for WHO emergency listing on April 30 - WHO spokesman Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine will be reviewed on April 30 by technical experts for possible WHO emergency-use listing, a World Health Organization spokesman told Reuters. • Health Canada finds Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccines from Baltimore plant safe, of high quality Canada's health department said on Sunday the 1.5 million doses of the Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine imported from Emergent BioSolutions' Baltimore facility were safe and met quality specifications. • Canadian government to intervene to end potential Montreal port strike The Canadian government will intervene to end a potential strike at the country's second-largest port, the labour minister said on Sunday, as the clock ticked down to a walkout by Montreal dockworkers. BEFORE THE BELL Canada's main stock index futures fell, weighed by a drop in oil prices, as investors awaited a first-quarter earnings update from Canadian National Railway later in the day.
    [Show full text]
  • Application for Forbearance from the Regulation of Residential Local Exchange Services
    Telecom Decision CRTC 2018-109 PDF version Ottawa, 29 March 2018 Public record: 8640-S22-201711648 Saskatchewan Telecommunications – Application for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services The Commission approves SaskTel’s request for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in the exchange of North Battleford, Saskatchewan. Application 1. The Commission received an application from Saskatchewan Telecommunications (SaskTel), dated 15 December 2017, in which the company requested forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services1 in the exchange of North Battleford, Saskatchewan. 2. The Commission received a submission regarding SaskTel’s application from Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (RCCI). Commission’s analysis and determinations 3. Pursuant to the Commission’s requirements in Telecom Decision 2006-15, SaskTel provided evidence to support its forbearance request, including competitor quality of service (Q of S) results for the six months preceding its application, and a draft communications plan for the Commission’s approval. The Commission has assessed SaskTel’s application based on the local forbearance test set out in Telecom Decision 2006-15 by examining the four criteria set out below. Product market 4. The Commission received no comments with respect to SaskTel’s proposed list of residential local exchange services. 5. SaskTel is seeking forbearance from the regulation of 11 tariffed residential local exchange services. The Commission notes that 10 of these services were included in the list of services set out in Telecom Decision 2005-35-1. The other service, Feature 1 In this decision, “residential local exchange services” refers to local exchange services used by residential customers to access the public switched telephone network and any associated service charges, features, and ancillary services.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Local Content, Internet Development and Access Prices
    THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL CONTENT, INTERNET DEVELOPMENT AND ACCESS PRICES This research is the result of collaboration in 2011 between the Internet Society (ISOC), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The first findings of the research were presented at the sixth annual meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that was held in Nairobi, Kenya on 27-30 September 2011. The views expressed in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of ISOC, the OECD or UNESCO, or their respective membership. FOREWORD This report was prepared by a team from the OECD's Information Economy Unit of the Information, Communications and Consumer Policy Division within the Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. The contributing authors were Chris Bruegge, Kayoko Ido, Taylor Reynolds, Cristina Serra- Vallejo, Piotr Stryszowski and Rudolf Van Der Berg. The case studies were drafted by Laura Recuero Virto of the OECD Development Centre with editing by Elizabeth Nash and Vanda Legrandgerard. The work benefitted from significant guidance and constructive comments from ISOC and UNESCO. The authors would particularly like to thank Dawit Bekele, Constance Bommelaer, Bill Graham and Michuki Mwangi from ISOC and Jānis Kārkliņš, Boyan Radoykov and Irmgarda Kasinskaite-Buddeberg from UNESCO for their work and guidance on the project. The report relies heavily on data for many of its conclusions and the authors would like to thank Alex Kozak, Betsy Masiello and Derek Slater from Google, Geoff Huston from APNIC, Telegeography (Primetrica, Inc) and Karine Perset from the OECD for data that was used in the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-59
    Telecom Decision CRTC 2007-59 Ottawa, 25 July 2007 Bell Aliant – Applications for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services Reference: 8640-B54-200706096, 8640-B54-200706111, 8640-B54-200706129, 8640-B54-200706153, 8640-B54-200706632 (New Brunswick); 8640-B54-200705551, 8640-B54-200705809, 8640-B54-200705824, 8640-B54-200705874, 8640-B54-200705890, 8640-B54-200705957, 8640-B54-200705981, 8640-B54-200705999, 8640-B54-200706020, 8640-B54-200706038, 8640-B54-200706731 (Nova Scotia); 8640-B54-200706046, 8640-B54-200706054, 8640-B54-200706062, 8640-B54-200706070, 8640-B54-200706723 (Prince Edward Island); and 8640-C12-200706351 (general) In this Decision, the Commission approves Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership's (Bell Aliant) request for forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services in 72 exchanges in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. The Commission denies Bell Aliant's request for forbearance in 8 exchanges. Introduction 1. The Commission received applications by Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant), dated between 11 and 30 April 2007, in which the company requested forbearance from the regulation of residential local exchange services1 in 80 exchanges in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia – including exchanges in the priority census metropolitan area (CMA) of Halifax2 – and Prince Edward Island. 2. In a letter dated 7 May 2007, the Commission directed incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), competitive local exchange
    [Show full text]
  • Queen's Law Reports 2018
    Queen’s LAW REPORTS 2018 ’ DEAN’S MESSAGE DEAN’S COUNCIL MEMBERS Sheila A. Murray, Law’82 (Com’79) Chair President and General Counsel CI Financial Corp. David Sharpe, Law’95 Vice- Chair President and CEO Bridging Finance Inc. David Allgood, Law’74 (Arts’70) Past Chair Counsel Dentons Canada LLP Peter Brady, Law’96 Partner McCarthy Tétrault LLP Betty DelBianco, Law’84 Chief Legal and Administrative Officer Celestica Inc. James Dorr, Law’87 (Artsci’84) General Counsel & Secretary GREG BLACK GREG Orbis Investment Management Ltd. Janet Fuhrer, Law’85 en years ago, if you’d said my tenure as Dean would include an alumni Partner Tmagazine with this cover, I would have laughed politely and asked what you Ridout & Maybee LLP were smoking. But as anyone in the legal field knows, change is the one constant. Peter Griffin, Law’77 Marijuana legalization, as it happens, is a good way to highlight the breadth Managing Partner, Toronto Office and depth of our alumni and their accomplishments. From public policymakers Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP to the funding of Indigenous enterprise, our alumni are leading the way in all Jennifer Keenan, Law’90 walks of life and affecting all areas of Canadian society. Chair, Board of Directors Change also means goodbyes – and a fond farewell to Don Stuart upon his Dignitas International retirement. Canada’s most cited criminal law expert, he has been a beloved member of our faculty for decades. We are sharing a short overview of his storied Kelley McKinnon, Law’88 (Artsci’85) career here. VP and Chief Compliance Officer Our alumni features also serve to show how the law is changing.
    [Show full text]