Statutory Declaration Ontario: Fill & Download for Free

5 regular, and 6 federal. Each province is a bit different when it comes to being a statutory holiday. In BC and Alberta, I always got a day off or holiday pay on Remembrance Day, but now that I moved to Ontario (big mistake!) there's nothing. Remembrance Day of last year, I had a moment of silence at the factory where I worked. Well. Would've been a moment of silence if it weren't for the silence being punctuated by angry meatheads declaring “WTF this is bullshit. Just keep working"

A decent wage is also viewed as the living wage. How much it should be will depend on which country, city or town one lives in. For example, the living wage for the city I live in - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada -is $18.21 per hour, while the statutory minimum wage is $14. It was supposed to go up to $15 last January, but the Conservatives who won the last election stopped this raise. That is rather sad!Teddy Roosevelt, 26th president of the United States from 1901 to 1909, tried to define it in the above quote. I agree with this definition. It is also defined in the International Bill of Rights, 1966 which was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. that itself was based on the concept of four freedoms enunciated by another U.S. president, Franklin Roosevelt, in 1941. Almost all countries today are signatory to this international treaty, but sadly very few countries follow its provisions.Many countries have statutory minimum wage rates but they fall short of a living wage because governments place more weight on what businessmen want. Of course businessmen, in general, want to pay as low a wage as they can legally get away with. It is for the governments to make sure that minimum wage is not less than the living wage.

No, the value in a domain is in its discovery and usage, be it for email, a website, or brand consulting services and offering it for sale. And that is what gives it a property interest.There's even value in a list of brandable or generic domain names, as not everyone has the imagination of a brand consultant.Businesses Similar to Domain InvestingReal Estate Investing: flippingLandlords owning many homesStock market investing, Angel and VC investingCurrency tradersCoin collectorsRent-seekingIn contrast, rent-seeking businesses help elect politicians who pass legislation to get further profits without contributing anything. Rent seekers manipulate the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than creating new wealth.A company like Disney and copyright extension legislation comes to mind. Rent-seeking implies extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity.The classic example of rent-seeking, according to Robert Shiller, is that of a feudal lord who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee (or rent of the section of the river for a few minutes) to lower the chain.Rent-seeking is distinguished in theory from profit-seeking, in which entities seek to extract value by engaging in mutually beneficial transactions.[6]Profit-seeking in this sense is the creation of wealth, while rent-seeking is "profiteering" by using social institutions, such as the power of the state, to redistribute wealth among different groups without creating new wealth.Property Interest in DomainsHunting for domains is akin to hunting for rabbits or foxes. You can domesticate them or eat them and use their fur. Or you can sell them alive at a market.There are millions of possible domains that have never been registered. It takes labour to find and decide whether there’s significant value in a domain.When an individual adds their own labour, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labour. [Locke] uses the simple example of picking an apple:the apple becomes mine when I pick it because I have added my labour to it and made it my property.This appropriation of goods does not demand the consent of humankind in general--each person has a license to appropriate things in this way by individual initiative.Locke's Second Treatise on Civil GovernmentWatch a video on Locke’s Second Treatise at:Domain name owners may use their domain names by themselves, through a licensee, or sell them for money or trade them for something else that they may need, within the limits of the ACPA, applicable trademark laws, and the WIPO UDRP 3.0 Consensus.https://trademarkpro.org/acpa-cases/Court Finds A Property In DomainsThe Ontario Court of Appeal declared that domain owners have a valid property interest in their domain names. Tucows Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A., 2011 ONCA 548,Property Rights in Domain Names - Trademark ProWhether a domain name is used now or it was used in the past, there's inherent value in having it registered. An aged domain name is generally more valuable than a fresh domain name, from an SEO perspective.Domain Age: In this video, Google’s Matt Cutts states that:“The difference between a domain that’s six months old versus one-year-old is really not that big at all.”The first date of a crawled backlink to a domain an important ranking factor according to one of Google’s patents on ranking domains.Domain SquattingNow, there's no value in a big corporation seizing a domain in a UDRP and then just forwarding it to their active website. Forwarded domains lose their value because Google de-indexes them so that they don't show up in auto-complete when typing them in the Universal bar.“Domain Squatting” in this sense is different than Cybersquatting under the ACPA https://trademarkpro.org/category/cybersquatting/No Trademark Rights In GrossSince there are no rights in gross for a trademark, one shouldn't conclude that there are no non-infringing uses for domains matching a registered trademark.1. The “Trademark Use” Requirement Prevents Recognition of Rights in GrossA mark is a word, name, symbol, or device that a business uses to identify its goods or services and to distinguish those goods or services from those offered by others. 50The legal significance of the mark lies in its relationship to the product or service it identifies. The law undertakes to protect the effectiveness of the mark’s ability to inform consumers that the product it identifies comes from a particular source. The mark has no legal meaning or existence independent of its role in identifying the product or service with which its owner uses it.51Thus, the courts have made it clear that there are no “rights in gross” or “rights at large” in the word, name, symbol, or device that constitutes a mark. The scope of trademark rights is meant to be much narrower than the scope of a copyright or patent.52The definition of “trademark use,” set forth in Part I.B, is consistent with this understanding. It ensures that only a defendant’s actions that interfere with consumers’ ability to rely on the plaintiff’s mark for information about product source are actionable.50: 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (2000); RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION § 9 (1995).51: United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90, 97 (1918); American Foods, Inc. v. Golden Flake, Inc., 312 F.2d 619, 625 (5th Cir. 1963); MCCARTHY, supra note 11, § 2:15; Jessica Litman, Breakfast with Batman: The Public Interest in the Advertising Age, 108 YALE L.J. 1717, 1720 (1999).52: United Drug, 248 U.S. at 97 (characterizing plaintiff’s argument as “based upon the fundamental error of supposing that a trade-mark right is a right in gross or at large, like a statutory copyright or a patent for an invention, to either of which, in truth, it has little or no analogy”); Interactive Products, 326 F.3d at 695 (stating that there is no claim for infringement when defendant’s unauthorized use of mark does not identify source of product).https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/39/2/articles/DavisVol39No2_Barrett.PDF, page 172. No Automatic DilutionDilution of a mark can’t be shown merely by proving that the challenged mark causes people to think of the famous mark. In its March 31, 2016 decision in the Omega case (118 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1289, 1298) the TTAB quoted from its last year’s decision in the New York Yankees case (114 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1497, 1506). It said that dilution by blurring occurs when “a substantial percentage of consumers, on seeing the junior party’s use of a mark on its goods, are immediately reminded of the famous mark and associate the junior party’s use with the owner of the famous mark, even if they do not believe that the goods come from the famous mark’s owner.” That’s just a part of what dilution demands and is not what the statute says. . . .The Supreme Court made it clear that as a matter of basic dilution theory, proof of association is itself neither proof of blurring nor proof that blurring is likely: “‘[b]lurring’ is not a necessary consequence of mental association. (Nor, for that matter, is ‘tarnishing.’)” Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418, 434 (2003).McCarthy speaks