As opposed to TFA, the actual law says:

Nowhere in the law does it say they have to apply for reimbursement. They can challenge the order to hire the archaeologist by stating they don't have the funds to hire him.

The Star does that a lot. Gins up a headline, then reports the actual facts down at the bottom after they've finished editorializing.

You must pay. Unless you can demonstrate it's a financial burden. These clauses are within a few lines of each other in the legislation. How is that lazy?

In some jurisdictions in Canada, the state will do some things to maintain the sidewalk/edges of your property (pay for repairs to concrete, maintain trees, etc) but you are still responsible for others (shovelling sidewalk, mowing grass, etc).

It depends on the local bylaws.

It was written by the Toronto Star, so you're not far off...

I was just thinking "wouldn't insurance cover this"?

Especially in Ontario. It's a known risk. Like building your museum on a known ancient meeting place like the Forks in Winnipeg. Bound to be tons of archaeological finds every time the backhoe scoops the ground.

Demand 100% perfection. That'll solve everything. And cost an arm and a leg. How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to never have to call them to say "hey, there's been a mistake"?

The local band is raising the money to have the skeleton re-buried at their cemetery.

The issue is that they are required to also have an archeological survey done to ensure there aren't other artifacts buried there too.

The Act allows for them to apply to the minister for an exemption, upon granting the state will pay the cost.

The law as written was meant to ensure companies are responsible for the archaeological costs incurred from digging up their land instead of saddling the taxpayer.

The Star is just ginning this up as their usual "GOVERNMENT BAD" drivel.

From what I understand, this is mostly implemented not by Apple, but by the carriers. AT&T iPhones come pre-programmed to "know" about AT&T hotspots, etc.

It likely won't work, as the elevator was selling the other seed as feed, not for planting. The farmer was banking on getting RR seed, because he knew the elevator didn't care what kind of seed went into the stuff for "feed/milling/etc".

He was trying to argue that first sale doctrine means the patent can't tell him he can't use the cheap seed for planting. Which is true. But the patent still applies because he can use the seed to grow more seed, and he knew it.

This isn't a case of a farmer's crop being cross-contaminated. This guy was deliberately trying to get around having to honour the plant patent by obtaining the seeds through other means.

Monsanto may have a case against the elevator for not heat-treating the seeds sold as feed to ensure they could not be used for planting. But the farmer does not have a case, as he was banking on the elevator not treating the seed.

The first thing they grabbed was the "emergency checklist" and started going through ways to restart the engines while the pilot attempts to maintain control.

Not every emergency requires in a split-second decision. Sometimes you actually have time to check the checklist, which usually has helpful steps to keep things calm while you deal with the situation. In this case, it's an emergency in that if they don't get it fixed soon, they are screwed. But not an "OMFG bail out" kind of emergency.