Holly MooreAPTN InvestigatesCanada’s highest court has denied a bid by Regina- based Merchant Law Group (MLG) Thursday declining to hear an appeal in a case where more than $20,000 of a residential school survivor’s compensation was retained by the firm to settle outstanding legal bills.Survivor J.S was awarded $93,000 Jan. 2014 under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement’s (IRSSA) Independent Assessment Process (IAP).MLG had, since 2000, acted for the woman and her son in both their IAP claims and in other unrelated legal matters.When the firm received the IAP compensation money for J.S. in trust, they raised the possibility of legal action if she failed to instruct the firm to withhold $21,310.83 to pay for the previously incurred legal bills.During the routine fee review conducted on each IAP file, the adjudication secretariat took note of the deduction for the previous legal bills and MLG was told to pay that money back.A 2006 Supreme Court of British Columbia decision, Article 18 of the IRSSA and the Financial Administration Act, all prohibit assignments. Because IAP claimants were considered especially vulnerable lawyers were expressly forbidden to assign any part of IAP compensation.MLG believed it could make an argument that this case was an exception to that prohibition.MLG filed a request for direction in October 2014 to retain part of the award to settle the debts. A B.C. court denied the request in 2016 and the law firm ordered to repay the money to J.S.Read the B.C. decision here: MLGThe court found the assignment was “impermissible” and ruled the firm was “not entitled to retain the funds.” MLG was ordered to return the cash to J.S with interest.With Thursday’s ruling that it won’t hear MLG’s appeal of that B.C. court decision. The case comes to an end.When contacted, Tony Merchant of MLG declined to comment.IAP Chief Adjudicator “pleased” with decision.“I am pleased that the SCC has allowed the decision of the BC Court of Appeal to stand,” wrote Dan Shapiro, the Chief Adjudicator of the IAP in an emailed statement.“The lower Court decision affirms that compensation awarded to claimants under the IAP cannot be assigned, as this would deny claimants the benefits to which they are entitled under the Settlement Agreement.” He added that the Court’s decision is consistent with case law, IAP decisions and “special clauses in our adjudicators’ fee rulings.”Shapiro provided direction to lawyers representing IAP clients in this document.He added that the decision ensures all compensation paid under the IAP will reach claimants apart from approved legal fees and [email protected]@HollyMooreaptn
Related Items:danny, tropical storm Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsAppProvidenciales, 24 Aug 2015 – Danny is a Tropical Storm again now and according to the Bahamas Department of Meteorology, we will likely feel the effect of the system by late tomorrow or mid-week. The system, which was on Friday barreling WNW as a major Category three hurricane has lost momentum thankfully, but there is a new system right behind which has a high chance of becoming stronger. Tropical storm warnings as a result of Danny have been discontinued for countries that make up the Lesser Antilles like Anguilla, but remain in force for Antigua and Barbuda, Montserrat, St Kitts and Nevis and watches are on for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands among others. That new low pressure system will become a tropical depression in a matter of days the Natl Hurricane Center is saying; this one is moving westward at 20mph. Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp Recommended for you Sandals Foundation to the rescue for Dominica Update on the Tropics; System forecast to strengthen Hurricane Joaquin damaging and costly to TCI
KUSI Newsroom Categories: Local San Diego News FacebookTwitter Muslim community finds allies, support following hate crime March 29, 2019 Posted: March 29, 2019 KUSI Newsroom, 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsSAN DIEGO (KUSI) – It’s been nearly a week since an Escondido mosque was set fire by an arsonist. The Muslim community and its friends and allies are trying to heal together.KUSI’s Sasha Foo is in Escondido with an update.
Renault India sold 10,292 cars in India during December 2015, 160% more than the 3,956 units than the company sold in December 2014. The company had sold 7,819 cars in November 2015, 144% more than 3,201 units sold in November 2014. In calendar year 2015, the fully-owned subsidiary of Renault S.A.S. France sold 53,847 cars, a growth of about 20% over 44,849 units sold in calendar year 2014.The company’s factory is located in Oragadam on the outskirts of Chennai and suffered disruption as a result of the heavy rainfall that wreaked havoc on the city and surrounding districts.The plant has a capacity to make 4,80,000 cars annually.The company sells compact hatchback Kwid, sedan Fluence, luzury SUV Koleos, compact car Pulse, SUV Duster, Scala and MPV Lodgy in India. Earlier, Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai had reported an increase of 13.5% and 28.8% respectively in their domestic car sales for December 2015.India’s largest car maker Maruti Suzuki sold 1,11,333 cars, up 13.5% from 98,109 units in December 2014.Hyundai, the second-largest player, sold 41,861 units in India in December 2015, up 28.8% from December 2014 sales of 32,504 units. Mahindra and Mahindra reported a 1% increase in domestic car sales, while Toyota Kirloskar Motor and Tata Motors saw sales declining in December 2015.
.A Dhaka court on Tuesday issued bail to actress Quazi Nawshaba Ahmed who was earlier denied bail in a case relating to spreading rumours.She was sued under the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, reports UNB.Dhaka metropolitan magistrate Debabrata Biswas granted the bail upon a bond of TK 5,000 after hearing on a bail petition, said sub-inspector Mokbul Hossain, general recording officer of the court.On Monday, metropolitan magistrate Mahmuda Akhter denied her bail after being produced before it on completion of her treatment at Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH).Later, she was sent to jail.On 13 August, Nawshaba was admitted to the DMCH for treatment following a court order as she fell sick in the courtroom.A Dhaka court earlier on 11 August put her on a two-day fresh remand in the case when Mohammad Rafiqul Islam, Counter Terrorism and Transnational Crime (CTTC) unit inspector and the investigation officer of the case, produced her before the court on expiry of her four-day remand and sought a 10-day fresh remand.Members of Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) detained the actress from Uttara area in the capital on August 4 over spreading ‘rumours’ on Facebook over the attack on protesting students.In a Facebook live, Nawshaba claimed that the attackers killed two students and gouged out the eyes of another at Jigatala intersection.In her post, she also requested people to get united, take to the streets to ‘protect’ the students as they were attacked by Bangladesh Chhatra League activists.
Enroll Now for Free How far does electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc have to go to reach its goal of matching Apple Inc’s current market value? It would take 26 years, based on rough calculations by Reuters, unless it starts selling a lot more cars.Tesla CEO Elon Musk surprised analysts on the company’s earnings call on Wednesday by saying that his company could be worth $700 billion by 2025. That is roughly the same size as Apple Inc, the most valuable company in the Standard and Poor’s 500 index, is worth now.Investors were quick to point out that reaching that goal would require a jump of 2,700 percent in the value of Tesla’s shares, given its market value of $26.6 billion.Actually, at its current annual production rate of 55,000 cars a year, the company would have to sell every car until 2040 to get to that market cap.More likely, Musk expects the production rate to expand, but the question is by how much? Today, every Tesla car represents $463,636 in market cap. Assuming that ratio remains unchanged, it would take sales of 1.45 million cars every year to justify a $700 billion figure and the same investor faith in future growth.By Musk’s 2025 target date, everyone who currently bought a Tesla would have to convince 26 of his best friends and relatives to buy one as well.Toyota Motor Corp, by comparison, sold 10.2 million cars worldwide last year. Each vehicle sold represented approximately $21,681 in market value for the $221.1 billion company.Michael Mullaney, chief investment officer at Boston-based Fiduciary Trust Co, said that the company’s rich valuation is the main reason he doesn’t own shares.”It probably is the next generation of cars, but it is ridiculous when you consider what you’re paying for as far as future growth prospects,” he said.Tesla faces stiff competition from high-end car makers such as BMW and Audi, who will eventually roll out their own electric cars that are comparable to Tesla’s, he said. Apple, by comparison, has an easier path with selling $200 iPhones.Tesla did not respond to a request for comment on this story.Shares of the company, which did not post a profit last quarter, fell 5.6 percent in midday trading Thursday, and are down 23 percent over the last six months.(additional reporting by Ryan Vlastelica; editing by Linda Stern and David Gregorio) 2 min read This story originally appeared on Reuters February 13, 2015 Free Workshop | August 28: Get Better Engagement and Build Trust With Customers Now This hands-on workshop will give you the tools to authentically connect with an increasingly skeptical online audience.
2 min read May 31, 2016 This hands-on workshop will give you the tools to authentically connect with an increasingly skeptical online audience. Free Workshop | August 28: Get Better Engagement and Build Trust With Customers Now This story originally appeared on Engadget Enroll Now for Free Microsoft has started its own venture capital division. The new group is called Microsoft Ventures, and it will focus on early-stage startup investments. Confusingly, Microsoft Ventures was already the name of a startup accelerator initiative at Microsoft, and that group is being rebranded as “Microsoft Accelerator” — one of the problems with having a massive, 41-year-old company is running out of names, apparently.In an article announcing the change, Nagraj Kashyap, the corporate vice president of the new Microsoft Ventures, says that while the company has done a lot of investment in the past, it’s not been focused on early stage, instead investing alongside commercial deals. The new division will be more like Google Ventures, which takes risks on young companies for a potentially huge return.One company that Microsoft invested in early was Facebook, which it pumped $250 million into back in 2007. But that was an investment in preferred stock at a $15 billion valuation, and more about ad sales than venture capitalism.The new division will have an initial presence in San Francisco, Seattle, New York City, and Tel Aviv, Israel. “…We were not a part of the early industry conversations on disruptive technology trends,” said Kashyap, but “with a formalized venture fund, Microsoft now has a seat at the table.” Expect to see Microsoft to invest in more companies at a nascent stage, especially those focused on those that complement the company’s existing products and services, and those focused on machine learning and security.While the announcement talks a good talk, it’s not clear how much this is a rebrand and reorganization vs. a real effort to step up investment. Kashyap said that the division is “not aiming to hit a specific number of investments annually,” but “in the coming days and weeks ahead and beyond, you will see us showing up as an investor in companies that complement these spaces and those that aim to disrupt how business is done today.”
Earlier this month, the AI Now Institute published a report, authored by Sarah Myers West, Meredith Whittaker, and Kate Crawford, highlighting the link between the diversity issue in the current AI industry and the discriminating behavior of AI systems. The report further recommends some solutions to these problems that companies and the researchers behind these systems need to adopt to address these issues. Sarah Myers West is a postdoc researcher at the AI Now Institute and an affiliate researcher at the Berkman-Klein Center for Internet and Society. Meredith Whittaker is the co-founder of the AI Now Institute and leads Google’s Open Research Group and the Google Measurement Lab. Kate Crawford is a Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research and the co-founder and Director of Research at the AI Now Institute. Kate Crawford tweeted about this study. The AI industry lacks diversity, gender neutrality, and bias-free systems In recent years, we have come across several cases of “discriminating systems”. Facial recognition systems miscategorize black people and sometimes fails to work for trans drivers. When trained in online discourse, chatbots easily learn racist and misogynistic language. This type of behavior by machines is actually a reflection of society. “In most cases, such bias mirrors and replicates existing structures of inequality in the society,” says the report. The study also sheds light on gender bias in the current workforce. According to the report, only 18% of authors at some of the biggest AI conferences are women. On the other side of the spectrum are men who cover 80%. The tech giants, Facebook and Google, have a meager 15% and 10% women as their AI research staff. The situation for black workers in the AI industry looks even worse. While Facebook and Microsoft have 4% of their current workforce as black workers, Google stands at just 2.5%. Also, vast majority of AI studies assume gender is binary, and commonly assigns people as ‘male’ or ‘female’ based on physical appearance and stereotypical assumptions, erasing all other forms of gender identity. The report further reveals that, though there have been various “pipeline studies” to check the flow of diverse job candidates, they have failed to show substantial progress in bringing diversity in the AI industry. “The focus on the pipeline has not addressed deeper issues with workplace cultures, power asymmetries, harassment, exclusionary hiring practices, unfair compensation, and tokenization that are causing people to leave or avoid working in the AI sector altogether,” the report reads. What steps can industries take to address bias and discrimination in AI Systems The report lists 12 recommendations that AI researchers and companies should employ to improve workplace diversity and address bias and discrimination in AI systems. Publish compensation levels, including bonuses and equity, across all roles and job categories, broken down by race and gender. End pay and opportunity inequality, and set pay and benefit equity goals that include contract workers, temps, and vendors. Publish harassment and discrimination transparency reports, including the number of claims over time, the types of claims submitted, and actions taken. Change hiring practices to maximize diversity: include targeted recruitment beyond elite universities, ensure more equitable focus on under-represented groups, and create more pathways for contractors, temps, and vendors to become full-time employees. Commit to transparency around hiring practices, especially regarding how candidates are leveled, compensated, and promoted. Increase the number of people of color, women and other under-represented groups at senior leadership levels of AI companies across all departments. Ensure executive incentive structures are tied to increases in hiring and retention of underrepresented groups. For academic workplaces, ensure greater diversity in all spaces where AI research is conducted, including AI-related departments and conference committees. Remedying bias in AI systems is almost impossible when these systems are opaque. Transparency is essential, and begins with tracking and publicizing where AI systems are used, and for what purpose. Rigorous testing should be required across the lifecycle of AI systems in sensitive domains. Pre-release trials, independent auditing, and ongoing monitoring are necessary to test for bias, discrimination, and other harms. The field of research on bias and fairness needs to go beyond technical debiasing to include a wider social analysis of how AI is used in context. This necessitates including a wider range of disciplinary expertise. The methods for addressing bias and discrimination in AI need to expand to include assessments of whether certain systems should be designed at all, based on a thorough risk assessment. AI-related departments and conference committees. Credits: AI Now Institute Bringing diversity in the AI workforce In order to address the diversity issue in the AI industry, companies need to make changes in the current hiring practices. They should have a more equitable focus on under-represented groups. People of color, women, and other under-represented groups should get fair chance to get into senior leadership level of AI companies across all departments. Further opportunities should be created for contractors, temps, and vendors to become full-time employees. To bridge the gender pay gap in the AI industry, it is important that companies maintain transparency regarding the compensation levels, including bonuses and equity, regardless of gender or race. In the past few years, several cases of sexual misconducts involving some of the biggest companies like Google, Microsoft, have come into light because of movements like #MeToo, Google Walkout, and more. These movements gave the victims and other supporting employees the courage to speak against employees at higher positions who were taking undue advantage of their power. There are cases were the sexual harassment complaints were not taken seriously by the HRs and victims were told to just “get over it”. This is why, companies should publish harassment and discrimination transparency reports that include information like the number and types of claims made and the actions taken by the company. Academic workplaces should ensure diversity in all AI-related departments and conference committees. In the past, some of the biggest AI conferences like Neural Information Processing Systems conference has failed to provide a welcoming and safer environment for women. In a survey conducted last year, many respondents shared that they have experienced sexual harassment. Women reported persistent advances from men at the conference. The organizers of such conferences should ensure an inclusive and welcoming environment for everyone. Addressing bias and discrimination in AI systems To address bias and discrimination in AI systems, the report recommends to do rigorous testing across the lifecycle of these systems. These systems should have pre-release trials, independent auditing, and monitoring to check bias, discrimination, and other harms. Looking at the social implications of AI systems, just addressing the algorithmic bias is not enough. “The field of research on bias and fairness needs to go beyond technical debiasing to include a wider social analysis of how AI is used in context. This necessitates including a wider range of disciplinary expertise,” says the report. While assessing a AI system, researchers and developers should also check whether designing a certain system is required at all, considering the risks it poses. The study calls for re-evaluating the current AI systems used for classifying, detecting, and predicting the race and gender. The idea of identifying a race or gender just by appearance is flawed and can be easily abused. Especially, systems that use physical appearance to find interior states, for instance, those that claim to detect sexuality from headshots. These systems are urgently in need to be checked. To know more in detail, read the full report: Discriminating Systems. Read Next Microsoft’s #MeToo reckoning: female employees speak out against workplace harassment and discrimination Desmond U. Patton, Director of SAFElab shares why AI systems should be a product of interdisciplinary research and diverse teams Google’s Chief Diversity Officer, Danielle Brown resigns to join HR tech firm Gusto