· Grading Rubric for Assignment 5 — Controlling Project Perfor.docx

·
Grading Rubric for Assignment 5 — Controlling Project
Performance and Project Closure
Criteria
0Unacceptable
10Developing
20Competent
30Exemplary
1. Illustrate two (2) advantages and two (2) challenges
associated with fast tracking and provide examples based on
your own experience (not examples from the text).
Did not complete the assignment or did not illustrate two (2)
advantages and two (2) challenges associated with fast tracking
and provide examples based on your own experience (not
examples from the text); omitted key information and/or
included irrelevant information. Completed with less than 60%
accuracy, thoroughness, and logic.
Partially illustrated two (2) advantages and two (2) challenges
associated with fast tracking and provided examples based on
your own experience (not examples from the text); omitted
some key information. Completed with 60-79% accuracy,
thoroughness, and logic.
Sufficiently illustrated two (2) advantages and two (2)
challenges associated with fast tracking and provided examples
based on your own experience (not examples from the text).
Completed with 80-89% accuracy, thoroughness, and logic.
Fully illustrated two (2) advantages and two (2) challenges
associated with fast tracking and provided examples based on
your own experience (not examples from the text). Completed
with 90-100% accuracy, thoroughness, and logic.
2. Discuss both what it means and possible causes for a project
with a CPI of 1.2 and an SPI of 0.8 (include hypothetical

figures for PV, AC, and EV in your discussion).
Did not complete the assignment or did not discuss both what it
means and possible causes for a project with a CPI of 1.2 and an
SPI of 0.8; omitted key information and/or included irrelevant
information. Completed with less than 60% accuracy,
Partially discussed both what it means and possible causes for a
project with a CPI of 1.2 and an SPI of 0.8; omitted some key
information. Completed with 60-79% accuracy, thoroughness,
and logic.
Sufficiently discussed both what it means and possible causes
for a project with a CPI of 1.2 and an SPI of 0.8. Completed
with 80-89% accuracy, thoroughness, and logic.
Fully discussed both what it means and possible causes for a
project with a CPI of 1.2 and an SPI of 0.8. Completed with 90-
100% accuracy, thoroughness, and logic.
3. Discuss the benefit of effective project closure using
examples to support your answer.
Did not complete the assignment or did not discuss the benefit
of effective project closure using examples to support your
answer; omitted key information and/or included irrelevant
information. Completed with less than 60% accuracy,
Partially discussed the benefit of effective project closure using
examples to support your answer; omitted some key
information. Completed with 60-79% accuracy, thoroughness,
and logic.
Sufficiently discussed the benefit of effective project closure
using examples to support your answer. Completed with 80-89%
Fully discussed the benefit of effective project closure using
examples to support your answer. Completed with 90-100%
4. Recommend two (2) best practices concerning project closure
that would apply to almost any project.
Did not complete the assignment or did not recommend two (2)

best practices concerning project closure that would apply to
almost any project; omitted key information and/or included
irrelevant information. Completed with less than 60% accuracy,
Partially recommended two (2) best practices concerning project
closure that would apply to almost any project; omitted some
key information. Completed with 60-79% accuracy,
Sufficiently recommended two (2) best practices concerning
project closure that would apply to almost any project.
Completed with 80-89% accuracy, thoroughness, and logic.
Fully recommended two (2) best practices concerning project
closure that would apply to almost any project. Completed with
90-100% accuracy, thoroughness, and logic.
5. Clarity
Did not complete the assignment or explanations are unclear
and not organized.
(Major issues)
Explanations generally unclear and not well organized.
(Many issues)
Explanations generally clear and/or organized. (Minor issues)
Explanations very clear and well organized.
(Added helpful details)
6. Writing – Grammar, sentence structure, paragraph structure,
spelling, punctuation, APA usage.
Did not complete the assignment or had 8 or more different
errors in grammar, sentence structure, paragraph structure,
spelling, punctuation, or APA usage. (Major issues)
Had 6–7 different errors in grammar, sentence structure,
paragraph structure, spelling, punctuation, or APA usage.
(Many issues)
(Minor issues)

Holloway
Your name here
Christopher Waters
LAW 540
October 22, 2015
Canada’s Need to Take Ownersh*t of its Role in Space
Exploration
A short paper on international space law
Introduction/Issues
A frozen turd ball was ejected from our orbiting space station
and struck a foreign state’s spy satellite. The satellite was
knocked out of orbit and crashed to Earth. The foreign state
now demands reparations from us. This paper will survey the
legal regime for the use of space and states’ obligations with
respect to debris causing damage to other objects in space.
Then, this paper will analyze the current situation to assess our
options for response. This paper concludes that we should pay

reparations to the foreign state and develop technologies to
reduce our production of dangerous debris in space.
Rules
Given that humanity gained access to space relatively recently,
and only a limited number of states actually participate in space
exploration, international space law is still in its infancy.
Although states have jurisdiction over the airspace immediately
above their territory, outer space is understood as a ‘res
communis’, meaning that none of it can form part of a state’s
sovereign territory.[footnoteRef:1] The Treaty on Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
entered into force in 1967 and forms the basis of international
space law.[footnoteRef:2] 103 states, including Canada, have
ratified the treaty and another 25 states are
signatories.[footnoteRef:3] Article III notes the parties’ desires
to promote peace, security, cooperation and understanding with
regards to the use and development of space. Article VIII
specifies that states maintain jurisdiction over whatever objects
or personnel they send into space. [1: Currie, John H. et al,
International Law: Doctrine, Practice and Theory, 2nd ed
(Toronto: Irwin Law, 2014) at 466. ] [2: Treaty on Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 27
January 1967, 610 UNTS 205 (entered into force 10 October
1967) [Outer Space Treaty].] [3: Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space, Status and application of the five United
Nations treaties on outer space, UNGAOR, 54th Sess, Supp No
5, UN Doc A/AC.105/C.2/2015/CRP.8, (2015) at 10 [United
Nations treaties on outer space].]
While various other treaties exist to deal with particular aspects
of international space law, this paper’s focus is states’
obligations with regards to debris causing damage to other
objects in space. To clarify and expand this area of
international space law, the Convention on International

Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects entered into
force in 1972.[footnoteRef:4] Currently, 92 states, including
Canada, have ratified the treaty and another 21 states are
signatories.[footnoteRef:5] The treaty allows for states to bring
claims against other states to recover damages in the event that
a state’s property from outer space causes damage to another
state’s property – in outer space or on Earth. In 1978, Canada
filed a claim against the USSR under this treaty after a Soviet
satellite was damaged upon re-entry to Earth’s atmosphere and
radioactive debris was scattered across parts of northern
Canada. The USSR paid Canada $3,000,000 as
compensation.[footnoteRef:6] [4: Convention on International
Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 29 March 1972,
961 UNTS 188 (entered into force 1 September 1972) [Space
Liability Convention].] [5: United Nations treaties on outer
space, supra note 3.] [6: Currie, supra note 1 at 470.]
The Report of the Third United Nations Conference on the
Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space from 1999 laid
out an action plan developed by the UN to facilitate the creation
of an international space regime.[footnoteRef:7] Though no
such regime has been established yet, the document is a
reflection of the international community’s intentions and
attitudes towards space. The plan focuses on establishing
coordinated efforts and strategies, promoting safety measures
and procedures, and recognizing the ways present-day uses of
space will affect the international community and future
generations. [7: The Space Millennium: Vienna Declaration
on Space and Human Development, Report of the Third United
Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space, UN Doc A/CONF.184/6 (18 October 1999) at 6-19
[Vienna Declaration on Space].]
As human activity in space has increased and our understanding
of the dangers posed by accumulating space debris has
deepened, various states have endorsed guidelines to minimize

the problem. In 2008, the UN adopted the Space Debris
Mitigation Guidelines, as set out in Report of the Committee on
the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.[footnoteRef:8] These
guidelines encourage states to minimize their production of
debris and to minimize the effects of debris on the space
environment. As guidelines, they are not binding on states, but
they are nevertheless to be taken seriously. It is also worth
noting that many states have adopted similar guidelines
domestically.[footnoteRef:9] [8: Space Debris Mitigation
Guidelines, Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space, UNGAOR, 62nd Sess, Supp No 20, UN Doc
A/62/20 (2007) at 48 [Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines].]
[9: Currie, supra note 1 at 474.]
Analysis
The Outer Space Treaty makes clear that states maintain
jurisdiction over whatever objects or personnel they send into
space. From this, it follows that states also maintain
jurisdiction over whatever objects may separate or emanate
from whatever they send into space. Essentially, states should
be understood to maintain jurisdiction over whatever objects
they are responsible for sending to, or making in, space. It is
clear that Canada has jurisdiction over its orbiting space station
and the personnel aboard the station. And indeed, Canada also
has jurisdiction over the frozen turd balls that were produced
aboard and ejected from the station.
The Space Liability Convention makes clear that states are
liable for any injury they cause to other states as a by-product
of their activities in space. Under this treaty, the foreign state
can bring a claim against Canada to seek reparations for the
damage done to its spy satellite. Especially since Canada has
itself filed a claim and received compensation from the USSR
under this treaty, it would be deeply hypocritical of us to resist
the foreign state’s claim. To do so would not bode well for
Canada’s reputation as a state which acts in good faith and
honours its obligations under international law.

Even if the foreign state is not a party to the Space Liability
Convention and thus cannot use this channel of recourse, it is
still going to be in a strong position to make a claim against
Canada. Firstly, the preponderance of international space law
speaks to the importance of collaboration, sharing, and good
faith in the use of space. Though states have yet to reach
consensus about whether space development should aim to
establish a common heritage for humankind or should allow for
the commodification of space resources by particular
states,[footnoteRef:10] it seems that a minimum level of
cooperation and consideration for the safety and interests of
others is unambiguously expected. The foreign state is well-
positioned to argue that Canada’s practice of ejecting 10 kg
frozen turd balls into space is reckless; that this poses
unnecessary risks; that Canada should be held liable for the
damages it has caused as a result of engaging in this practice.
[10: Ibid at 469.]
Conclusions
Canada has jurisdiction over the ejected turd balls and is liable
under the Space Liability Convention. It seems highly unlikely
that Canada can avoid paying compensation to the foreign state
whose spy satellite we damaged. Moreover, this practice runs
contrary to the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines. As such,
Canada should endeavor to find alternate means of dealing with
waste produced space aboard the space station.
1
1. Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission,
2015 SCC 10
Suspension with pay may constitute “constructive dismissal”
Mr. Potter was the Executive Director of the New Brunswick
Legal Aid Services Commission. While the parties were

negotiating a buyout of Mr. Potter’s contract, Mr. Potter
commenced a sick leave. In response, the employer wrote to Mr.
Potter to advise him not to return to work until he was provided
further direction. In the meanwhile, Mr. Potter was suspended
with pay, and his powers were delegated to someone else. Mr.
Potter sued for constructive dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Mr. Potter, finding
that Mr. Potter had been constructively dismissed, “[i]n light of
the indefinite duration of the suspension, of the fact that the
Commission failed to act in good faith insofar as it withheld
valid business reasons from Mr. Potter, and of the
Commission’s concealed intention to have Mr. Potter
terminated.”
2. Styles v. Alberta Investment Management Company, 2015
ABQB 621
Employers owe a duty of good faith when determining Long-
Term Incentive Plan entitlements post-termination
After approximately three years of employment, Mr. Styles was
terminated on a without cause basis. Pursuant to the terms of his
employment agreement, Mr. Styles was paid three months of
salary.
However, during the course of his employment, Mr. Styles
became eligible to participate in (and did participate in) the
Defendant’s Long Term Incentive Plan. Upon termination, Mr.
Styles was advised that “[a]s per policy, no further payment on
Annual Incentive Plan (AIP) or Long Term Incentive Plan
(LTIP) will be made).”
Despite the fact that the LTIP plan required Mr. Styles to be
“actively employed” on the date that the monies were paid, Mr.
Styles sued his former employer, citing, among other things, the
fact that he had been dismissed shortly before the payout date.
Deciding in favour of Mr. Styles, the Court ordered an LTIP
payout in the amount of $444,205 as a part of Mr. Styles’
severance on the basis that the employer’s strict reliance on the
wording of the LTIP provision would violate the duty of good
faith contractual performance that it owed to Mr. Styles (as

recently established by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 2014
Bhasin v. Hrynew decision). In particular, the court held that
“[w]hen an employment contract includes a condition for the
receipt by an employee of a benefit under the contract and the
employer has the discretion, pursuant to the terms of the
contract, to frustrate the satisfaction of that condition, it
becomes even more important for that discretion to be exercised
fairly, reasonably and not arbitrarily.”
When is the exercise of "discretion" required to be
reasonable?3. O.P.T. v. Presteve Foods, 2015 HRTO 675
New high-water mark in general damages award for human
rights violations
The Applicants, O.P.T. and M.P.T. were temporary foreign
workers who had been employed by Presteve Foods for
approximately nine months. Following their termination, the
Applicants complained of several human rights violations by
Presteve Foods, contrary to the Human Rights Code.
In its decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the
“HRTO”) determined that, during the course of their
employment, the Applicants were subjected to “a persistent and
ongoing pattern of sexual solicitations and advances” by the
owner and principal of Presteve Foods, who “knew or ought
reasonably to have known that these sexual solicitations and
advances were unwelcome, particularly in light of the fact that
O.P.T [and M.P.T.] expressly resisted and rejected his
solicitations and advances on many occasions.”
Likewise, the HRTO concluded that “given that the personal
respondent was the owner and principal of the corporate
respondent at the time of the events at issue, there is no
question that he was part of the directing mind of the corporate
respondent. Accordingly, […] the corporate respondent is also
liable for all violations of [the Human Rights Code that the
HRTO has] found as against the personal respondent.”
On account of the severity of the contraventions of the Human

Rights Code, the HRTO awarded O.P.T. and M.P.T. damages for
injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect in the aggregate
amount of $200,000.
4. Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail v. Caron,
2015 QCCA 1048
Scope of duty to accommodate expanded for Quebec employers
In the course of his employment, Mr. Caron developed tennis
elbow, which required surgery. Following the injury, Mr. Caron
was assigned to a temporary position.
A few years later, Mr. Caron’s temporary position was
abolished. His employer indicated that it could not offer another
suitable or available position. Ultimately, Mr. Caron’s
employment was terminated.
On behalf of Mr. Caron, the union commenced a claim, alleging
that the employer had failed to comply with Quebec’s Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). In particular, the
union argued that Mr. Caron’s injury amounted to a handicap
and that the employer had failed to accommodate Mr. Caron to
the point of undue hardship, despite the fact that such
accommodation was not required by Quebec’s Act Respecting
Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases (the “Act”). The
administrative tribunal disagreed with the union.
However, the administrative tribunal’s decision was
subsequently overturned by both the Superior Court of Quebec
and the Quebec Court of Appeal. The argument that the Act
constitutes its own autonomous process of accommodation was
dismissed by both courts. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held
that the quasi-constitutional right to accommodation in the
workplace prescribed by the Charter constitutes a preeminent
standard that transcends the law, employment contracts, and
collective agreements.
On June 15, 2015, in Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au
travail v. Alain Caron et al. 2015 QCCA 1048, the Quebec
Court of Appeal rendered an important decision that changes the
threshold employers must meet when accommodating workplace
injuries.

The court confirmed that an employer has a duty to
accommodate an employee who has suffered an employment
injury resulting in a handicap, even where such an obligation is
not required of the employer by virtue of the Act Respecting
Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases (the “Act”).
The Commission des lésions professionnelles (“CLP”) rejected
the union’s arguments. The union then appealed that decision
via a motion for judicial review by the Superior Court of
Quebec.
5. Evans v. Avalon Ford Sales (1996) Limited, 2015 NLSCTD
100
Duty of good faith may require employers to provide employees
with “cooling-off period” to reconsider resignation: failing to
do so may constitute constructive dismissal
After being reprimanded by his employer, Mr. Evans had an
acute stress reaction. Ultimately, Mr. Evans advised the
employer “I’m done”, and placed his cell phone and keys on his
supervisor’s desk.
The next day, Mr. Evans attempted to contact his supervisor,
but was unable to speak with the supervisor directly. In any
event, the supervisor had concluded that Mr. Evans had resigned
from his position.
For the following three weeks, Mr. Evans sought medical
treatment. Thereafter, Mr. Evans provided his supervisor with a
letter explaining why he had left and indicating that his
departure had been involuntary.
In this case, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador
found that “the implied term of good faith and fair dealings
which applied to both parties and to the employment contract
required the employer to give Mr. Evans time to cool off and
reconsider”, and that the employer’s “failure to do so represents
a breach of the implied major term of good faith and fair
dealings”, “regardless of whether [Mr. Evans] involuntarily
resigned […] or voluntarily resigned but in circumstances of
confusion or uncertainty.”
On account of the employer’s breach of the duty of good faith

and fair dealings, the court held that the employer had breached
a fundamental term of the employment contract, and therefore
constructively dismissed Mr. Evans. For that reason, Mr. Evans
was awarded damages for pay in lieu of notice in the amount of
$46,201.87.
6. Michela v. St. Thomas of Villanova Catholic School, 2015
ONCA 801
Employer’s financial circumstances not relevant in determining
employee’s notice entitlements upon termination
Following Ms. Michela’s termination, she (and others)
commenced a wrongful-dismissal action against her employer, a
private school, seeking pay in lieu of reasonable notice of
termination.
On a motion for summary judgment, the employer argued that
that its financial circumstances were relevant in determining
Ms. Michela’s termination entitlements. For that reason, the
motion judge found that Ms. Michela’s reasonable notice period
was 12 months but reduced her claim for notice by half, to six
months.
However, Ms. Michela successfully appealed the decision of the
motion judge to the Ontario Court of Appeal. In its decision, the
Court of Appeal held that “the motion judge erred in
considering an employer’s financial circumstances as part of the
“character of the employment.” The court went on to observe
that “[a]n employer’s financial circumstances may well be the
reason for terminating a contract of employment - the event that
gives rise to the employee’s right to reasonable notice. But an
employer’s financial circumstances are not relevant to the
determination of reasonable notice in a particular case: they
justify neither a reduction in the notice period in bad times nor
an increase when times are good.”
Therefore, the court awarded Ms. Michela twelve months of
reasonable notice together with her costs in the amount of
$68,573.42.
7. R v Kazenelson, 2015 ONSC 3639
Supervisors can be criminally charged for criminal negligence

causing death and bodily harm
Mr. Kazenelson was a project manager for a construction
company in Toronto, Metron Construction Incorporated
(“Metron”).
Six workers employed by Metron under Mr. Kazenelson’s
supervision were working on a swing stage when it suddenly
collapsed. Only one of the six workers was attached to a lifeline
as required by both the law and industry practice.
Unfortunately, the other five workers fell more than 100 feet to
the ground. Four of them died, and the fifth sustained serious
injuries.
Although Mr. Kazenelson was aware that there were only two
lifelines available for the six workers and that only one lifeline
was in use, Mr. Kazenelson took no steps to ensure that lifelines
were available for all the workers and that the workers were
using lifelines.
Following the incident, Mr. Kazenelson was charged with four
counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of
criminal negligence causing bodily harm under section 217.1 of
the Criminal Code. In 2015, Mr. Kazenelson was convicted on
those four counts.
Since that conviction, Mr. Kazenelson has been sentenced to
three and a half years imprisonment.
8. Baroch v. Canada Cartage Diversified GP Inc., 2015 ONSC
40
Overtime class action certification
Mr. Baroch was an employee that worked as a shunter for
Canada Cartage Diversified GP Inc. (“Canada Cartage”). Mr.
Baroch brought an action against Canada Cartage alleging that,
as a matter of policy or practice, Canada Cartage did not follow
the statutory requirements for overtime in Ontario. Mr. Baroch
sought to certify his action as a class action.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified Mr. Baroch’s
action as a class action against Canada Cartage on behalf of all
the employees of Canada Cartage. Mr. Baroch was able to
satisfy the court that the requirement of commonality under the

Ontario Class Proceedings Act had been met by framing his
action around the systemic policies or practices of Canada
Cartage rather than on the individual entitlements of any one
member of the proposed class.
Ultimately, the common issues regarding the employment
agreements, the employer's policy, good faith and honesty,
negligence, unjust enrichment, aggregate damages, and punitive
damages were all certified as a part of the class action. The
proposed common issues regarding breach of the employment
agreements and remedies were not certified.
The Ontario Divisional Court has refused to grant Canada
Cartage leave to appeal the decision.
9. Silvera v. Olympia Jewellery Corp.,2015 ONSC 3760
Human rights damages award for sexual assault
Ms. Silvera was an administrative employee of Olympia Jewelry
Corp. (“Olympia”). Over the course of her employment, Ms.
Silvera was subjected to three separate serious instances of
sexual assault by her boss, Mr. Morris Bazik, and ongoing
sexual harassment. Mr. Bazik touched Ms. Silvera’s breasts on
several occasions, touched her buttocks, insisted she wear
jewelry so he could touch her, and gave her massages. Mr.
Bazik would require Ms. Silvera to stay late at work after other
employees had left for the day (which was unpaid time) and
used the time alone to assault Ms. Silvera and harass her with
questions and comments about her personal life. Ms. Silvera
began to suffer significant emotional damage as a result of this
ongoing sexual harassment.
Ms. Silvera was terminated from Olympia as a result of a leave
she was required to take for a dental emergency and unfounded
allegations of misconduct. Ms. Silvera brought an action for
damages for sexual assault, battery and harassment against
Olympia and Mr. Bazik personally following her termination.
Neither Olympia nor Mr. Bazik participated in the trial and,
consequently, their defence was struck and all of the factual

allegations pleaded in Ms. Silvera’s claim were therefore
deemed to be admitted by Olympia and Mr. Bazik.
Ultimately, the Ontario Superior Court awarded damages of
nearly $300,000 to Ms. Silvera for sexual assault, battery,
wrongful termination, and violation of her rights under the
Human Rights Code. Among other things, the damages were
intended to compensate Ms. Silvera for costs of future therapy
care and future loss of income. The court also awarded damages
of $15,000 to Ms. Silvera’s daughter pursuant to the Ontario
Family Law Act for loss of guidance, care and companionship.
10. Keenan v. Canac Kitchens Ltd., 2015 ONSC 1055
Dependent contractors are entitled to termination pay
Marilyn and Lawrence Keenan (the “Keenans”) are a husband
and wife team who carried on business under the name Keenan
Cabinetry. The Keenans worked for Canac Kitchens Ltd.
(“Canac”) for 32 and 25 years respectively, as foremen and
supervisors of installers.
The Keenans were initially employees of Canac but, in 1987,
Canac advised them that they would cease to be employees and
would become independent contractors. The Keenans continued
working for Canac until 2007 when they were both terminated
without notice as a result of a slowdown in work. While
working for Canac from 1987 to 2007, purportedly as
independent contractors, the Keenans enjoyed employee
discounts, wore shirts with Canac logos, had Canac business
cards, and were given gifts from Canac for long service. Canac
customers and installers believed the Keenans were Canac
representatives.
Following their terminations, the Keenans brought an action for
wrongful dismissal seeking pay in lieu of notice of their
termination.
In response, Canac argued that the Keenans were not entitled to
notice of termination because they were independent

contractors.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded that the
Keenans were “dependent contractors” rather than independent
contractors and, therefore, were entitled to reasonable notice of
their termination.
On account of the Keenans’ total length of service to Canac, the
court awarded each of them 26 months’ pay in lieu of notice of
their termination.
This decision has recently been upheld by the Ontario Court of
Appeal.
Assignment. Write a Case Analysis. Select one case from the
list provided. This is an individual effort – no group writing is
permitted.
Scenario. You are a departmental manager in a medium sized
firm. The CEO is reviewing and updating the firm’s policies.
The CEO has asked you to draft a Case Analysis in order to
provide policy guidance to meet the firm’s legal obligations.
Structure. Draft paper in 4 parts: Introduction, Rules, Analysis,
Conclusion.
Introduction. Set out the aim of the paper in one clear sentence.
For example: “The aim of this analysis is to provide the legal
background for the adoption of a firm-wide harassment
program”. Complete the paragraph with a short restatement of
the problem; give it context.
Rules. Set out the legal regime that guides your policy
development. Explain how the regulations govern policy
options.
Analysis. Describe the tension between the regime and the
current situation. Explain the consequences to the firm of the

outcome of the case.
Conclusion. Summarise your findings and recommend
reasonable and viable policy options for the CEO.
Layout. Introduction: 2 paragraphs at most. Rules: as much as it
takes to clearly explain the law. Analysis: the main effort – 2 to
2.5 pages. Conclusion and your recommendation: 3 to 4
paragraphs should do it. You are writing for a busy CEO, so be
concise and clear.
Volume. 4 pages maximum. At about 250 words per page in
double-spaced 12 point font and normal formatting, you will
have about 800 - 1000 words.
Marking scheme:
Style: grammar, spelling, citation style and consistency 5%
Structure: Introduction, Regime, Analysis, Conclusion 5%
Content: quality, logic, originality and sophistication
5%
Total:
15%

· Grading Rubric for Assignment 5 — Controlling Project Perfor.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to · Grading Rubric for Assignment 5 — Controlling Project Perfor.docx

Similar to · Grading Rubric for Assignment 5 — Controlling Project Perfor.docx (20)

More from oswald1horne84988

More from oswald1horne84988 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

· Grading Rubric for Assignment 5 — Controlling Project Perfor.docx