This table contains information about the number of cases reported, inspections conducted, and non-compliances to The Animal Care Act from 2016 to present.This table contains information about the number of cases reported, inspections conducted, and non-compliances to The Animal Care Act for each year, starting in 2016, to the most recent quarter. These data are populated by the Provincial Animal Welfare Database for the Manitoba Animal Welfare Program and are displayed in the Manitoba Animal Welfare Program – Trends chart. The table will be updated on a quarterly basis. Fields included [Alias (Field Name): Field description] Category (Category): Includes the year, beginning in 2016, to the current year (e.g., 2016, 2017, 2018) # of cases reported (F__of_cases_reported): Includes the total number of cases reported for each year # of inspections conducted (F__of_inspections_conducted): Includes the total number of inspections conducted for each year # of non-compliances found* (F__of _non_compliances_found_): Includes the total number of non-compliances found following an inspection for each year * The number of non-compliances found as a result of an inspection by an Animal Protection Officer (APO) include animals deemed abandoned, issued notice of seizure, custody and distress, Director’s Order issued, surrendered ownership and recommendations for improvements.

This table contains information about the status, actions and outcomes from inspections conducted by Animal Protection Officers (APO) and prosecutions in the Manitoba Animal Welfare Program.This table contains information about the status, actions and outcomes from inspections conducted by Animal Protection Officers (APO) and prosecutions in the Manitoba Animal Welfare Program for each year, starting in 2016, to the most recent quarter. This data is populated by the Provincial Animal Welfare Database for the Manitoba Animal Welfare Program and is displayed in the Manitoba Animal Welfare Program – Case Outcomes dashboard. The table will be updated on a quarterly basis. Fields included [Alias (Field Name): Field description] StatusGroups2 (StatusGroups2): Includes the status, actions or outcomes that have occurred throughout each assigned case DashboardGrouping2 (DashboardGrouping2): Includes the dashboard element under which the statuses need to be grouped for each assigned case Year (Year): Includes the year, beginning in 2016 to the current year (e.g., 2016, 2017, 2018) Month (Month): Includes the numeric value of all months within a calendar year (e.g., 1, 2, 3) Quarter (Quarter): Includes the numeric values of all quarters in a calendar year (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4), where quarter 1 corresponds with January, February and March, quarter 2 corresponds with April, May and June, quarter 3 corresponds with July, August and September and quarter 4 corresponds with October, November and December YQ (YQ): Includes the year and quarter of the most recent 12 quarters (e.g., 2021 Q1, 2021 Q2 )

This data set contains information on inspections carried out by the Health Division of the Housing Department (formerly the Land Development Department).The City of Montreal, through its [Regulation Respecting Health, Maintenance and Security of Housing (R.V.M. 03-096)] (https://montreal.ca/reglements-municipaux/recherche/60d7656afd6531443f578d96), ensures the health, good maintenance and security of housing and residential buildings on its territory. By healthiness, we mean all the conditions that make a home suitable for housing.To learn more about the efforts made by the City of Montreal in terms of housing health, consult the [Action Plan for decent housing conditions 2018-2021] (https://montreal.ca/sujets/salubrite-entretien-et-securite-des-logements).**Note: ** This package only concerns inspections carried out by the Health Division of the Housing Department, and not those carried out by district staff. The inspection data does not present a portrait of unsanitary conditions or a diagnosis of the condition of the rental housing stock, but rather the work done by the team.**This third party metadata element was translated using an automated translation tool (Amazon Translate).**

The data represents the result of preventive inspections carried out by the Housing Department. Data includes: the physical condition of the inspected parts of the building on a scale of 1 (excellent) to 6 (very poor), whether or not the building was transferred for a complete inspection, and whether or not a statement of violation was served without notice. The period from January 1 to June 1, 2024 served as a pilot project during which several processes were tested and optimized.**This third party metadata element was translated using an automated translation tool (Amazon Translate).**

This web experience includes four dashboards and graphs that show inspections, the most common food safety violations, and the levels of progressive compliance measures taken by health officers to enforce the law.1. Inspections: This dashboard includes tables showing inspection data collected by the Food Safety and Inspection Directorate over the past five years. <o:p></o:p>Inspection Violations — Overview (arcgis.com) 2. Food safety violations: This dashboard shows the number of violations observed during the years indicated. The number of violations observed is then classified into the category of critical or non-critical offenses. Critical violations are violations that present an immediate risk to food safety and must be corrected within a specified period of time. Non-critical violations do not present an immediate food safety risk but need to be addressed before they become one. <o:p></o:p>Inspection Violations — Overview (arcgis.com) 3. Top five food safety violations: This dashboard shows charts and tables showing the five most common food safety violations observed during inspections. Each type of violation refers to the Manitoba Food Regulations. The five most common violations are expressed as a percentage of all observed food safety violations. <o:p></o:p>Main offences<o:p></o:p> 4. Progressive compliance measures: This dashboard shows how often health officers applied progressive compliance measures to food processing establishments that did not correct food safety violations within the time frame specified in the inspection. The dashboard explains that food processing establishments have a certain amount of time to correct food safety violations based on the risk associated with them. Progressive compliance measures are only applied if the violation is not corrected within the prescribed timeframe. Progressive compliance measures<o:p></o:p>**This third party metadata element was translated using an automated translation tool (Amazon Translate).**

Programs that perform a laboratory analysis of body fluids and tissue to determine the presence of irregularities or to identify unknown substances submitted for analysis. Definition is protected by Copyright by Information and Referral Federal of Los Angeles County, Inc (https://211taxonomy.org/subscriptions/#agreement)

Standards Units for an opening represents desired soil conservation limits and stocking outcomes for the defined net area to be reforested. An opening may have one or more standard units. Standards Units may not overlap. Older records may not have standard unit maps available. Stocking standards represent legal silviculture obligations for harvested areas for the defined standard units. This is part of the Silviculture and Land status Tracking dataset, which includes tracking achievement of silviculture obligations on Crown Land

This spatial dataset represents the boundaries of the areas of responsibility for aggregate inspectors working on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. In southern Ontario, inspectors may use various criteria to determine their area of responsibility, including: * geographic township boundaries * the number of licences and permits in a given area * geographic size In northern Ontario, areas of responsibility generally follow MNRF district boundaries. Use our interactive [Pits and Quarries map](https://www.ontario.ca/page/find-pits-and-quarries) to learn more about active aggregate sites and designated areas.

The Yukon Geological Survey stores a significant amount of geological information gathered by exploration companies in compliance with the Quartz Mining Act. This information is primarily contained in assessment reports (AR). Since 1920, more than 8000 hardrock assessment reports have been collected, with more than 6000 of these containing geochemical data on surficial samples (e.g., soil, rock, stream sediment, and vegetation). The sheer volume and historical depth of these data provide valuable insight into the mineral potential of the Yukon. Exploration companies rely on data from ARs to search for exploration targets. To aid exploration companies, YGS has developed this database to consolidate geochemical data extracted from assessment reports. This database, the Geochemical Assessment Report Data Extracted database (GARDEd), was created by extracting and compiling data from more than 300 assessment reports. GARDEd was initially populated with data from samples within a 75 km radius of the Casino deposit to evaluate the data extraction procedures and assess the feasibility of the database. Data capture focused on recent ARs because these were available in digital format. The initial release of this database contains approximately 10% of the geochemical data from surface samples within Yukon ARs.YGS encourages users to send feedback to [geology@yukon.ca](mailto:geology@yukon.ca) to assess the usefulness of the dataset and determine how much effort should be invested to capture older, non-digital ARs.Distributed from [GeoYukon](https://mapservices.gov.yk.ca/GeoYukon/) by the [Government of Yukon](https://yukon.ca/) . Discover more digital map data and interactive maps from Yukon's digital map data collection.For more information: [geomatics.help@yukon.ca](mailto:geomatics.help@yukon.ca)

The Riparian Quality Index (IQBR) is used to assess the ecological condition of the shoreline environment. It is built from nine components that have been weighted according to their potential to perform ecological functions in terms of the protection of aquatic ecosystems.Data on shoreline quality come from benthos monitoring stations sampled between 2003 and 2023.**This third party metadata element was translated using an automated translation tool (Amazon Translate).**