This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Years ago, when I discovered the threat of climate change and the opportunities presented by solar photovoltaic energy, I thought this was pretty straightforward. Humankind just had to stop using coal and natural gas and replace them by solar PV. How foolish and naive one can be at age 20? Since that fateful English class in April 2004, a lot has changed and I have spent thousands of hours reading and writing about climate change.
"Good fences do not always make good neighbours." I wonder how many court decisions begin with that line or something like it - it seems like it must be a lot. Madam Justice Gomery of the Ontario Superior Court opens her reasons with that line in a recent case involving a claim for a prescriptive easement in Ottawa. Neighbours were in court disputing the space between their houses, each built sometime prior to 1928.
By Michael Burger. Climate change nuisance litigation is entering a new and dynamic phase. Tomorrow, Thursday, May 24, Judge William H. Alsup in the federal district court in San Francisco will hear oral argument on motions to dismiss filed in City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C. , a consolidated case in which Oakland and San Francisco claim that five fossil fuel companies’ production and promotion of fossil fuels constitutes a public nuisance under federal and California common law.
The United States Supreme Court ruled today that contracts requiring individualized arbitration of employment-related disputes are enforceable and do not violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Background Some employers require their employees to enter into agreements binding the parties to arbitrate employment-related disputes.
Speaker: Nikhil Joshi, Founder & President of Snic Solutions
Is your manufacturing operation reaching its efficiency potential? A Manufacturing Execution System (MES) could be the game-changer, helping you reduce waste, cut costs, and lower your carbon footprint. Join Nikhil Joshi, Founder & President of Snic Solutions, in this value-packed webinar as he breaks down how MES can drive operational excellence and sustainability.
A lot of news and noise surround electric cars but another vehicle is also benefitting largely from elecrification: buses. Running not for just a little bit in the morning and in the evening, they run all day, and sometimes, even part of the night. Tranporting not just one or two people to work at a time, they can transport dozens. This is why switching 5,000 buses to full electric has the impact of switching 100,000 cars.
A Superior Court case heard in April, 2018 involved rural neighbours and the unauthorized removal of trees. Neighbour O sold trees on his property to the owner of a local sawmill, T. T apparently had a permit to remove the trees from Neighbour O's property, and took the timber that he had purchased. T did not, however, have a permit to remove trees from Neighbour M's property, and neither Neighbour O nor Sawyer T had permission from Neighbour M to take down any trees at all on her property.
A corporate landowner in Grey County applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a ruling that the County's Forest Management By-law restricted a normal farm practice. The landowner was effectively seeking a ruling that would eliminate a charge that had been laid against the landowner under the By-law after the landowner's tenants cleared a large portion of the landowner's property that was covered "with a young ash tree stand".
A corporate landowner in Grey County applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for a ruling that the County's Forest Management By-law restricted a normal farm practice. The landowner was effectively seeking a ruling that would eliminate a charge that had been laid against the landowner under the By-law after the landowner's tenants cleared a large portion of the landowner's property that was covered "with a young ash tree stand".
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
52 
Let's personalize your content