Vertaling van "violation became known " (Engels → Frans) :

29.27 A document appearing to have been issued by the Minister and certifying the day on which the acts or omissions that constitute the alleged violation became known to an inspector is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed it and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof that the inspector became aware of the acts or omissions on that day.
29.27 Tout document paraissant établi par le ministre et attestant la date où les faits reprochés sont parvenus à la connaissance d’un inspecteur est admissible en preuve et fait foi de cette date, sauf preuve contraire, sans qu’il soit nécessaire de prouver l’authenticité de la signature qui y est apposée ni la qualité officielle du signataire.

22.26 A document appearing to have been issued by the Minister and certifying the day on which the acts or omissions that constitute the alleged violation became known to an inspector is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed it and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof that the inspector became aware of the acts or omissions on that day.
22.26 Tout document paraissant établi par le ministre et attestant la date où les faits reprochés sont parvenus à la connaissance d’un inspecteur est admissible en preuve et fait foi de cette date, sauf preuve contraire, sans qu’il soit nécessaire de prouver l’authenticité de la signature qui y est apposée ni la qualité officielle du signataire.

39.24 A document appearing to have been issued by the Minister and certifying the day on which the acts or omissions that constitute the alleged violation became known to a designated person is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed it and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof that the designated person became aware of the acts or omissions on that day.
39.24 Tout document paraissant établi par le ministre et attestant la date où les faits reprochés sont parvenus à la connaissance d’une personne désignée est admissible en preuve et fait foi de cette date, sauf preuve contraire, sans qu’il soit nécessaire de prouver l’authenticité de la signature qui y est apposée ni la qualité officielle du signataire.

70. A document appearing to have been issued by the Minister, certifying the day on which the acts or omissions that constitute the alleged offence or violation became known to the Minister, is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the document and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof that the Minister became aware of the acts or omissions on that day.
70. Tout document paraissant établi par le ministre et attestant la date où les faits reprochés sont parvenus à sa connaissance fait foi de cette date, sauf preuve contraire, sans qu’il soit nécessaire de prouver l’authenticité de la signature qui y est apposée ni la qualité officielle du signataire.

37 (1) No proceedings in respect of a violation may be commenced later than six months after the subject-matter of the proceedings became known to the Superintendent, in the case of a minor violation, or two years after the subject-matter of the proceedings became known to the Superintendent, in the case of a serious violation or a very serious violation.
37 (1) Les poursuites pour violation se prescrivent par six mois à compter de la date où le surintendant a eu connaissance des éléments constitutifs de la violation, lorsque celle-ci est mineure, et par deux ans, lorsqu’elle est grave ou très grave.