![]() ![]() Self-Promotion posts are allowed on a 1:5 ratio basisįive posts or comments for every self-promoted submission (Videos/Guides from your personal youtube, etc.) Users not following this ratio will have their posts removed. (e) Full frontal nudity/camel toe/borderline pornographic or hypersexualized content is NOT allowed. Īrtwork submissions must adhere to the following criteria: Minor Achievements & Crafted Equipment collections Uncivil posts will be removed at moderator discretion. Insults, inciting arguments, and discrimination will not be tolerated. Posts similar to recent threads will be removed. Additionally, buying and selling of services (merchandise, exclusive quests, etc) is not allowed.Ĭhances are your question has been asked before. Rage/Complaint posts belong in /r/monsterhunterrage. Recruitment posts for in game hunting or clans belong in /r/monsterhunterclan. Memes and similar posts belong in r/MemeHunter and will be removed from this sub. Non-Monster Hunter related material will be removed at moderator discretion.Ĭertain topics belong in specific subreddits Submissions must be directly relevant to Monster Hunter In the context of an ongoing investigation of the embattled engineering firm, SNC-Lavalin, Québec’s securities regulator compelled an executive to produce certain documents.ASK QUESTION SUBMIT MEME DAY MODE NIGHT MODE MHW: Weekly Reset Thread | Remove Art and Highlight posts | Accepting Mod Nominations ★★★ RULES ★★★ In the same letter, however, the regulator purported to prevent the executive from telling anyone else about the documents (apart from the company’s lawyers). Revealing the existence of an ongoing investigation was permitted, but not any details of the requested documents.Īfter some back and forth, the prohibition on disclosure was modified somewhat, so as to allow the company to comply with the request. However, the company was forbidden from communicating the details of the requested documents to its auditors. The auditors cried foul, arguing that they could not sign off on the company’s books without knowing the details of the investigation, which they could piece together once they had identified the requested documents. On (internal) appeal to the Bureau de décision et révision, the company won, and the auditors had the necessary information (almost) at their fingertips, at which point the regulator too cried foul and appealed to the ordinary courts. The saga came to an end yesterday (barring the granting of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada), with defeat for the regulator in Autorité des marchés financiers c. Interestingly, the decision did not turn on the legality of the prohibition on disclosure as such. Section 245 of the Québec Securities Actgives it the power to impose confidentiality obligations in the context of an investigation. Rather, the substantive issue was whether the Bureau had the authority to modify the prohibition. If not, the executive should have sought judicial review in the ordinary courts (which would, at the very least, have applied a standard of review much more congenial to the regulator). 322 of the Act, which gives the Bureau the jurisdiction to review any “decision rendered by the ”. One might think, as the regulator argued, that “decision” means a final decision reached after investigation, consideration of the evidence, representations of the parties and adjudication. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |