Traduction de «DES Action Alberta » (Anglais → Français) :

DES Action Alberta [ Diethylstilbestrol Action Alberta ]

Alberta Economic Development and Tourism [ Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation | Alberta Tourism | Alberta Recreation and Parks | Alberta Recreation, Parks and Wildlife | Alberta Economic Development and Trade | Alberta Economic Development ]

Alberta | AB [Abbr.] | Alta [Abbr.]

Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission [ AGLC | Alberta Liquor Control Board | Alberta Lotteries | Alberta Lotteries and Gaming | Gaming Control Branch | Alberta Gaming Commission ]

appeal to the Court (EU) [ action brought before a Community court | action brought before the EC Court of Justice | appeal to the European Court of Justice ]

EU Action Plan on Drugs | EU Action Plan to Combat Drugs | EU Drugs Action Plan | European Union Action Plan on Drugs | European Union Action Plan to Combat Drugs | European Union Drugs Action Plan

Moslem Democratic Action Party | Moslem Party of Democratic Action | Party for Democratic Action | SDA [Abbr.]

Rare disease with manifestations of action tremor associated with relatively mild cerebellar ataxia. Associated pyramidal and extrapyramidal signs and dementia have been reported. Prevalence is unknown. Approximately 40 families have been reported. T

Let us look at the partial list of organizations in Canada that are making their voices heard to save the court challenges program: Action Canada for Population and Development; Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes; African Canadian Legal Clinic; Alberta Association for Community Living; Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians; ARCH Disability Law Centre; Association des juristes d'expression française de la Colombie-Britannique; Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick; Associatio ...[+++]n of Chinese Canadian Lawyers of Ontario; B.C. Human Rights Coalition; B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities; Brain Injury Association Network; Breast Cancer Action Montreal; Canadian Arab Federation; Canadian Association for Community Living; Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; Canadian Association of Law Teachers; Canadian Association of the Deaf; Canadian Auto Workers Union; Canadian Bar Association; Canadian Council for Refugees; Canadian Council of Muslim Women; Canadian Federation of Students; Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action; Canadian Hard of Hearing Association; Canadian Health Coalition; Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic; University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law; Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women; Canadian Union of Public Employees; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2204 and Local 3260; Canadian Women's Health Network; Canadians for Equal Families; and Canadians for Equal Marriage.

Q-240 — Mr. Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona) — With regard to ports of entry into Canada: (a) what are the standards used by all customs officers across Canada to determine a high-risk traveller or shipment, and what is the standard procedure as to what to do with such a traveller or shipment once it is determined to be high-risk; (b) under what standard procedure are customs officers expected to refer travellers to immigration officers, and is there any standard for immigration officers to notify customs officers as to the results of such referrals; if it is determined that a traveller should be referred to an Immigration officer and there is no immigration officer at that location ...[+++], what is the standard procedure that a customs officer should follow; (c) why are there no joint Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) evaluations planned to determine the effectiveness of customs officers and immigration officers at the border; (d) is there a standard for the sharing of data and intelligence between customs officers and immigration officers; (e) is there a standard referral procedure by which customs officers can clearly determine by which points should a traveller be referred to immigration officers; (f) is there an agreement between the CCRA and CIC that would provide for periodic evaluations to be performed jointly by CCRA and CIC to determine the effectiveness of their joint operations; (g) what percentage of the time does the Primary Automated Lookout System-Highway equipment correctly read licence plates of vehicles stopped at border crossing booths; (h) what facilities exist for examining commercial shipments at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and where are they located in relation to the bridge customs site: (i) what is the standard procedure for ensuring that truck operators told to report to the facility actually arrive there; and (ii) under what circumstances would procedures dictate that a truck be escort ...

Other The Senate resumed debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools calling the attention of the Senate:(a) to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the sexual assault case Her Majesty the Queen v. Steve Brian Ewanchuk, delivered February 25, 1999, which judgment reversed the Alberta Court of Appeal's judgment upholding the trial court's acquittal; (b) to the intervenors in this case, being the Attorney General of Canada, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Disabled Women's Network Canada and Sexual Assault C ...[+++]entre of Edmonton; (c) to the Supreme Court of Canada's substitution of a conviction for the acquittals of two Alberta courts; (d) to the lengthy concurring reasons for judgment by Supreme Court of Canada Madame Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dube, which reasons condemn the decision-making of Mr. Justice John Wesley McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the decision of the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal; (e) to Mr. Justice John Wesley McClung's letter published in the National Post on February 26, 1999, reacting to Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dube's statements about him contained in her concurring reasons for judgement; (f) to the nation-wide, extensive commentary and public discussion on the matter; and (g) to the issues of judicial activism and judicial independence in Canada today.

(a) to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the sexual assault case Her Majesty the Queen v. Steve Brian Ewanchuk, delivered February 25, 1999, which judgment reversed the Alberta Court of Appeal's judgment upholding the trial court's acquittal; (b) to the intervenors in this case, being the Attorney General of Canada, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Disabled Women's Network Canada and Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton; (c) to the Supreme Court of Canada's substitution of a conviction for the acquittals of two Alb ...[+++]erta courts; (d) to the lengthy concurring reasons for judgment by Supreme Court of Canada Madame Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dube, which reasons condemn the decision-making of Mr. Justice John Wesley McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the decision of the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal; (e) to Mr. Justice John Wesley McClung's letter published in the National Post on February 26, 1999, reacting to Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dube's statements about him contained in her concurring reasons for judgement; (f) to the nation-wide, extensive commentary and public discussion on the matter; and (g) to the issues of judicial activism and judicial independence in Canada today.