lecture des dispositions – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot      27 Results   9 Domains
  parl.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
La lecture des dispositions de l'article 9 du projet de loi amène le Barreau à se questionner sur la possibilité d'intenter les recours prévus depuis peu, en vertu de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine parl.gc.ca as primary domain
A reading of the provisions of clause 9 of the bill leads the Barreau to question the possibility of instituting the proceedings recently provided for under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although recourse against discrimination is of a public nature, the Barreau du Québec believes that the wording of clause 9 limits its application.
  www.tcce.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Or, à la lecture des dispositions applicables de l’offre à commandes dans leur ensemble, les clauses en vigueur laissaient à AMC le droit de ne pas octroyer de contrat à la suite de l’émission d’une demande de disponibilité.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine tcce.gc.ca as primary domain
The question of whether GAC could cancel the RFA and issue a new one raises the question of how to interpret the clauses incorporated into the RFA, namely, the relevant clauses of the standing offer and the call-up procedure set out therein. AIA correctly pointed out that principles of contract interpretation apply here. However, AIA did not present any specific arguments based on an interpretation of the  applicable provisions to support its position.[46]
  cart-crac.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
C'est ce qui ressort de la lecture des dispositions générales de l'Administrative Procedure Act (APA [loi sur les procédures administratives]), qui vise un large éventail de départements et de secteurs d'activité aux États-Unis.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine cart-crac.gc.ca as primary domain
concerning the misuse and mislabelling of pesticides. The alleged violator, also known as the applicant, is then able to submit a request for a review of their case to the Tribunal within 30 days of being issued their NOV. After that, the agency then has 15 days to submit any significant evidence for their case to the Tribunal who will then look over both sides of the evidence. At this point the applicant also has the option of requesting a hearing for their case in the presence of the Tribunal and the agency, allowing them to bring forward witnesses to testify to provide evidence in support of their case. If the applicant does not request a hearing, then the Tribunal Chairperson will make a decision on the case based on the written submission alone from each party.
  www.cart-crac.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
C'est ce qui ressort de la lecture des dispositions générales de l'Administrative Procedure Act (APA [loi sur les procédures administratives]), qui vise un large éventail de départements et de secteurs d'activité aux États-Unis.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine cart-crac.gc.ca as primary domain
concerning the misuse and mislabelling of pesticides. The alleged violator, also known as the applicant, is then able to submit a request for a review of their case to the Tribunal within 30 days of being issued their NOV. After that, the agency then has 15 days to submit any significant evidence for their case to the Tribunal who will then look over both sides of the evidence. At this point the applicant also has the option of requesting a hearing for their case in the presence of the Tribunal and the agency, allowing them to bring forward witnesses to testify to provide evidence in support of their case. If the applicant does not request a hearing, then the Tribunal Chairperson will make a decision on the case based on the written submission alone from each party.
  www.tcce-citt.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Or, à la lecture des dispositions applicables de l’offre à commandes dans leur ensemble, les clauses en vigueur laissaient à AMC le droit de ne pas octroyer de contrat à la suite de l’émission d’une demande de disponibilité.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine tcce-citt.gc.ca as primary domain
The question of whether GAC could cancel the RFA and issue a new one raises the question of how to interpret the clauses incorporated into the RFA, namely, the relevant clauses of the standing offer and the call-up procedure set out therein. AIA correctly pointed out that principles of contract interpretation apply here. However, AIA did not present any specific arguments based on an interpretation of the  applicable provisions to support its position.[46]
  10 Hits csc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
15 Dans la présente affaire, il semble, à la lecture des dispositions législatives provinciales pertinentes, que l’al. 67(1)b) ne s’applique pas. La police d’assurance‑vie de l’intimée n’est pas insaisissable en vertu du droit applicable au Québec au moment de la faillite, à savoir les art. 2552 et 2554 du Code civil.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
15 In this case, it would appear from the face of the relevant provincial legislation that s. 67(1)(b) is not operative.  The respondent’s life insurance policy is not exempt from seizure under the relevant law applicable in Quebec at the time of the bankruptcy, namely arts. 2552 and 2554 of the Civil Code.  Article 2552 exempts from seizure the rights under a life insurance contract “[w]hen the beneficiary of the insurance is the consort, descendant or ascendant of the policyholder”.  The respondent’s policy does not qualify for the exemption, since under her contract with the Company she is both beneficiary and policyholder.  Being united in one person, there is no privileged relationship between the two “parties” that would attract the protection provided under art. 2552.  Article 2554 exempts from seizure the rights of the policyholder and the beneficiary “[a]s long as the designation of a beneficiary as irrevocable subsists”.  Once again, the respondent’s policy does not qualify for the statutory exemption, since the designation of the respondent as beneficiary was never made irrevocable, and does not benefit from the presumption of irrevocability of art. 2547 of the Civil Code.  Articles 2552 and 2554 therefore do not operate under s. 67(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act to exclude the rights attached to the respondent’s life insurance policy from the property that passes to the bankruptcy trustee.
  10 Hits scc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
15 Dans la présente affaire, il semble, à la lecture des dispositions législatives provinciales pertinentes, que l’al. 67(1)b) ne s’applique pas. La police d’assurance‑vie de l’intimée n’est pas insaisissable en vertu du droit applicable au Québec au moment de la faillite, à savoir les art. 2552 et 2554 du Code civil.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
15 In this case, it would appear from the face of the relevant provincial legislation that s. 67(1)(b) is not operative.  The respondent’s life insurance policy is not exempt from seizure under the relevant law applicable in Quebec at the time of the bankruptcy, namely arts. 2552 and 2554 of the Civil Code.  Article 2552 exempts from seizure the rights under a life insurance contract “[w]hen the beneficiary of the insurance is the consort, descendant or ascendant of the policyholder”.  The respondent’s policy does not qualify for the exemption, since under her contract with the Company she is both beneficiary and policyholder.  Being united in one person, there is no privileged relationship between the two “parties” that would attract the protection provided under art. 2552.  Article 2554 exempts from seizure the rights of the policyholder and the beneficiary “[a]s long as the designation of a beneficiary as irrevocable subsists”.  Once again, the respondent’s policy does not qualify for the statutory exemption, since the designation of the respondent as beneficiary was never made irrevocable, and does not benefit from the presumption of irrevocability of art. 2547 of the Civil Code.  Articles 2552 and 2554 therefore do not operate under s. 67(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act to exclude the rights attached to the respondent’s life insurance policy from the property that passes to the bankruptcy trustee.
  www.wto.int  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Les États-Unis ont fait valoir qu'aucune demande d'audience n'avait été présentée. Une simple lecture des dispositions de l'article 6.2 pourrait donner à penser que l'argument des États-Unis est correct.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine wto.int as primary domain
20. In addition, a failure to let the interested parties know the availability of a hearing constitutes another procedural defect in this particular case. The US argued that there was no request for a hearing. Upon simple reading of provisions of Article 6.2, the argument by the US might appear correct. What is problematic, however, is the failure of the DOC to provide interested parties an opportunity for requesting a hearing. As the original Panel explained in paragraph 7.235 of the Panel Report, it is the general practice of the DOC not to hold hearings in expedited sunset reviews; and the original Panel found such practice inconsistent with Article 6.2. With this practice, the interested parties may well be made unaware of their rights and the administrative procedures under US laws to request hearings in the course of the Section 129 proceeding. Considering that the Panel specifically found the DOC’s failure to hold a hearing inconsistent with Article 6.2, the DOC should have notified the interested parties their right of and the procedures necessary to request a hearing. Under this particular situation, the fault is not the inaction of the interested parties but inaction of the DOC that made the present Section 129 proceeding short of meeting the due process requirement. Therefore, Japan supports the argument made by Argentina in Section IV.D.2, in particular paragraph 151, in its First Submission.