The present document aims at answering frequently asked questions to the Canadian citation committee by judges and court personnel, pertaining to the implementation of the Canadian Guide to the Uniform Preparation of Judgments (the “Guide”), since it was approved by the Canadian Judicial Council on September 2002. The answers provided here are meant to clarify and offer specifications to the rules outlined in the Guide. The questions and answers have been organized following the general structure of the Guide.

---

---

1.  Scope and application

1.  To which judgments should the Guide be applied?

The Guide could apply to any decision prepared in an electronic format, whether this decision is rendered by a judicial, administrative or arbitration body. The term “judgment” is used in the Guide for reasons of concision and must be interpreted in the broadest sense.

Generally, all written and motivated judgments should be prepared and distributed according to the standards put forward in the Guide, including transcriptions of judgments delivered orally. However, a court may choose not to apply the Guide to certain types of judgments, such as, for instance, judgments on motions that are entered only in the court record of the hearing, to which the limited value as precedents do not justify their integration to the preparation and distribution processes applicable to other judgments.

2.  Can the Guide be partially implemented?

Yes. On the one hand, a court might prefer not to adopt some standards provided for in the Guide. On the other hand, taking into account the amount of rules contained in the Guide, it may prove difficult for a court to implement the Guide in only one step. Certain standards may apply immediately, while others may require technical or regulatory modifications to the judgment preparation processes.

Either way, even a partial or progressive implementation of the Guide improves the technical quality of documents and the efficiency of their public distribution.

2.  Hardware and software

3.  What software should be used for the preparation of judgments?

Most word processing applications allow for compliance to the Guide. The most commonly used applications for preparing judgments in Canada are Microsoft Word and Corel WordPerfect.

The use of a template document allows for streamlining the electronic preparation of judgments while making documents more uniform. The Canadian Citation Committee provides such templates to Canadian courts at <http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ccc-ccr/guide/templ>.

4.  In which file format should judgments be distributed to the public?

Any industry-standard text format can be used to distribute judgments. However, taking into account the specific needs of the various recipients of judgments, that is, case law publishers, law professionals and the general public, is recommended.

·  Publishers of case law need a document that can be easily edited and converted to other formats without losing the formatting of the text. For these recipients, distributing the judgment in its native word processing format, usually Word or WordPerfect, is recommended. In this case, the court and the publishers will put security mechanisms in place to avoid the distribution and dissemination of documents containing hidden metadata (further explanations can be found in The preparation of documents for electronic distribution, online at <http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ccc-ccr/guide/docs/distribution_fr.html>).

·  Law professionals and members of the public need a document that faithfully reflects the visual appearance of the original document. For these recipients, the PDF format is recommended, because of the stability provided with regard to the appearance of the document, no matter what the display media. It is now easy to convert a document into PDF with Word or WordPerfect applications.

Please also note that courts posting their judgments on their Websites should offer documents not only in PDF format, but also in HTML, which has many advantages with regard to browsing, full text searching capacities and interoperability.

3.  File naming and management

5.  Are the standards regarding files applicable to a court's internal file management?

No, not necessarily. The file naming and management standards apply to files that are publicly distributed, in order to provide a means for their recipients – law professionals, legal publishers or other interested persons – to receive and manage these files according to known and accepted protocols.

Internally, courts might choose to apply any file naming and management method that best fits their needs. For instance, when a minor correction must be brought to a judgment before it has been publicly distributed, the file may be corrected without being named differently.

6.  Why and how to zero-fill a filename?

The Guide gives courts the option of zero-filling the number that corresponds to the sequence number of the neutral citation in the filename. This technique allows for easier sorting of files in the ascending or descending order of their sequence number in electronic directories.

For instance, here are three judgments for which the core of citation is respectively 2002 ONCA 4, 2002 ONCA 551 and 2002 ONCA 2456. Without zero-filling, these files are sorted in the following order in most electronic directories:

·  2002onca2456.wpd

·  2002onca4.wpd

·  2002onca551.wpd

By adding as many zeros as it takes to obtain a fixed length sequence number for all decisions rendered in a given year, these files will be easily sorted in ascending or descending order:

·  2002onca0004.wpd

·  2002onca0551.wpd

·  2002onca2456.wpd

7.  Can a filename be longer than 8 characters?

In the past, operation systems did not allow for filenames longer than 8 characters for the name and 3 characters for the extension. Modern operating systems support filenames containing dozens of characters, so this is not a problem anymore. Applications using the former limit should be updated.

8.  Is the dot (.) the only separator allowed for the addition of a suffix to the filename?

No. Despite the systematic use in the Guide of the dot in the rules and examples pertaining to forming suffixes that denote a language or a correction to the judgment (e.g. 2002fct43.cor1.html), a court may choose the hyphen (-) or the underscore (_) character as separator in the filename. However, the only character allowed by the industry for separating the file name from the file extension remains the dot (e.g. 2002fct43_cor1.html).

9.  How to treat supplementary reasons (or “Addenda”)?

Among courts in several Canadian jurisdictions, issuing an “addendum”, also called “supplementary reasons”, is frequent. These reasons pertain to questions that were not addressed in the decision on the merits of the case, such as for, instance, the costs. This type of document is considered a new judgment, and it is assigned a new neutral citation.

It is possible to establish a link between the judgment on the merits and the supplementary reasons by adding an additional data element in the heading of the addendum (see ¶ 83 of the Guide). For example, an addendum might contain the phrase “See also: 2003 ONSC 34”, where “See also:” is a standard label and “2003 ONSC 34” is the core of citation for the main judgment.

10.  How to make corrections to a distributed judgment?

Among Canadian courts, there is a wide variety of ways of making corrections to a judgment after its initial version has been distributed to the public. The Guide, at section 3.5, aims at the uniformity of these practices, while allowing courts to choose among many options.

The first thing for a court to decide for a court is whether corrections will be distributed as errata (or corrigenda) or as corrected judgments (or corrected decisions, according to the court’s choice).

An erratum, also called corrigendum, is a document stating one or many corrections made to a judgment that was initially distributed. It is meant to be read with the initial judgment, however, without replacing it. The filename of the distributed erratum is the same as the initial judgment, with the addition of the sufffix “err1” for the first erratum, “err2” for the second, and so on. The content of the erratum is left to the discretion of the court.

A corrected judgment is a new version of the judgment intended to replace the initial judgment. The corrected judgment might contain the erratum described in the preceding paragraph (see ¶ 58 of the Guide for how to append the erratum to the judgment). The name of the distributed file is the same as the initial judgment, with the addition of the suffix “cor1” for the first corrected judgment, “cor2” for the second, and so on. The corrected judgment contains a correction notice which should indicate the way corrections were brought (see section 7.9 of the Guide and question 22, below). Corrections may be made in various different ways, according to the court’s choice among the following options:

·  Option 1 : Corrections are made in the text of the initial judgment, and no erratum is appended to the document;

·  Option 2 : Corrections are made in the text of the initial judgment, and the erratum is appended to the document at the end of the reasons.

·  Option 3 : The text of the initial judgment is reproduced as is without corrections, and the erratum is appended to the document at the end of the reasons.

It is highly recommended that among these various options, courts choose the one that is best adapted to practices and rules applicable to the preparation of their judgments, and to exclude any other option in order to simplify their internal workflow processes.

11.  Why add a suffix to the filename of a corrected judgment?

The main purpose of adding the suffix “cor1” to the filename of a corrected judgment is to alert recipients, namely case law publishers, that this file contains corrections made to a previously distributed judgment.

Whenever a corrected file is distributed, it is not self-evident for the recipients that this file should replace a previously distributed file. By bearing a different and significant name, the corrected file will be identified as such and its recipients can be alerted without having to compare the content of the files.

Courts distributing theirs judgments on the Web do not usually add a suffix to the name of posted files, even after having corrected them, in order to avoid modifications to URL addresses. In these cases, clearly warning users of the Web site that downloaded files should be updated shortly before any use, is recommended.

12.  How to treat different versions of judgments?

Whenever the court renders a judgment, the judgment can be written and then edited or redacted before public distribution, thus generating many versions of the same judgment. A version distributed at a certain time might then be replaced later by another version. Here are two possible situations :

·  A judgment is rendered orally from the bench with written reasons to follow. The transcript of the oral decision is distributed. Several weeks later, the written reasons are released by the court and this new version of the judgment is distributed.

·  A judgment is rendered with written reasons, but is subject to a publication ban. A redacted version of this judgment is prepared and distributed by the court. Several weeks later, the publication ban is either lifted or has expired, and the court chooses to distribute the original version of the judgment.

In such cases, the file that is distributed first is named after the core of its neutral citation, as if it was the original or definitive version of the judgment. Whenever another version of the judgment is issued, it is distributed as if it was a corrected judgment. The file is named with a suffix denoting the correction, and a correction notice explaining the situation is inserted at the top of the judgment.

4.  Text structure and format

13.  Why is it so important to avoid using full caps to format names?

Some courts and tribunals currently type the names of parties in the full style of cause completely in upper case lettering, as shown in the following example:

BETWEEN:

MDM CAPITAL INC.,

appellant

- and -

ARTHUR MACMILLAN and PAUL DE LA MARE

respondents

The Guide recommends proper capitalization for names of individuals and corporations. Using full caps to display these names may cause problems for readers or editors wanting to reproduce them in a context where it would not be appropriate to use full caps. For instance, a corporate name may contain an acronym or a term in which only certain letters should be typed in uppercase. In such cases, it may be impossible to find out what is the proper capitalization as there are many possibilities:

·  MDM Capital or MdM capital or ... – acronyms, logotypes or other terms in a corporate name;

·  MacMillan ou Macmillan – surnames containing a prefix;

·  De la Mare ou de La Mare ou De La Mare – surnames with particles.

With regard to terms that are not names of parties, it is generally not a problem typing them in full caps. For instance, putting the name of the court in full caps at the beginning of each judgment, or putting labels in full caps in order to make data elements easily recognizable in the heading of each judgment, (e.g. “BETWEEN:” or “CORAM:”) is not a problem.

5.  Word processing features and tools

14.  How to make the use of proper word processing features easier?

Word processing applications allow for customizing many aspects of the judgment preparation environment. It is possible, for instance, to set the application to add special buttons in the toolbars or to automatically create predefined formatting styles and keyboard shortcuts.

Document templates containing customized features and tools may be used in order to make the task of preparing judgment files easier for judges and court personnel and to obtain a more uniform result. To create and manage such templates, court administrators should rely on the expertise of office automation specialists.

The Canadian Citation Committee makes document templates available to Canadian courts, at <http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ccc-ccr/guide/guide.temp_en.html>. These templates may be adapted to specific needs of judges and court staff in charge of preparing judgments.

15.  How to ensure that files are distributed without hidden metadata?

The workstations of persons who prepare judgments should be configured in order to avoid the insertion of hidden metadata, as described in the paper entitled The Preparation of Documents for Electronic Distribution, available at <http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ccc-ccr/guide/docs/distribution_fr.html>. Moreover, putting in place processes to systematically clean each file before distribution is recommended.

In short, here are the main metadata to look for in a file before its distribution, and how to remove them:

·  For WordPerfect files:

i.  Properties (Author, Typist, ...): delete the information and save the file;

ii.  Undo/Redo History: deactivate and save the file;

iii.  Revision Marks: insert or delete each annotation and save the file;

·  For Word files:

i.  Properties (Author, Company, ...): delete the information and save the file;

ii.  Allow fast saves: deactivate and save the file;

iii.  Change marks: accept or reject each change and save the file.

In the course of the year 2003, the Canadian Judicial Council contacted each major Canadian case law publisher regarding the problem of hidden metadata in electronically distributed judgments. These publishers have stated that they undertook security measures to reduce the risk of disseminating documents containing such unwanted information.

Warning: the mere conversion of a Word or WordPerfect file to HTML or PDF format removes much hidden metadata, but some remain, namely the name of the author and the date of creation or modification of the document. More importantly, under certain circumstances, revision (WordPerfect) or change (Word) marks may also remain in the document.

6.  Judgment structure and content

16.  Can the data element labels differ from than those provided for in the Guide?

“Labels”, which are standard terms placed before each data element in a judgment, help readers quickly identify this information. It would be preferable that all Canadian courts use the same labels, but what matters most is the consistency of labels used in all judgments rendered by a court.

It is very likely that some labels provided for in the Guide will not be convenient for all decision-making bodies. For instance, an arbitrary tribunal might choose to use the label “Panel:” before the name of the adjudicator instead of “Devant:” or “Coram:” as provided for in the Guide. Similarly, the label for the corrected judgment notice might be “revised decision:” instead of “Corrected Judgment:” as provided for in the Guide.

7.  Mandatory elements

17.  Can the order of mandatory elements differ from the one provided for in the Guide?

The order in which the data elements appear in the header of the judgment aims at making it easier to read data elements that are deemed essential for the identification of the judgment. This order has been determined in accordance with the most widespread practices among Canadian courts and tribunals.

If the order of the mandatory elements prescribed in the Guide cannot be implemented for any reason, such as, for instance, if implementation requires regulatory modifications deemed too important by the court, these elements may appear in a different order. What matters most with regard to data elements is their presence in the header of the judgment and the standardization of the labels placed before each element.

18.  Can the name of court be inserted as an image in the judgment?

Yes, the name of the court may be inserted as an image, since the court's name might appear on the court’s coat of arms or logotype, but in such cases it is highly recommended to add the name of court as text before or after this image. If the name of the court is not included as text in the judgment, this essential element of information is not machine-readable for the purposes of indexation by search engines and accessibility for the visual impaired.

19.  How should the short style of cause (or “Case name”) be prepared?

The short style of cause is an element of the neutral citation that may be created by the courts, but the current rules applied by Canadian publishers lack uniformity. The Canadian Citation Committee is currently working on a new common standard based on the Standards for Case Identification, which was revised for the last time by the Canadian Legal Information Center in 1990.

20.  What should the publication restriction notice contain?

The restriction on publication notice aims at specifying the scope of the law or the Court order prohibiting the publication of certain pieces of information contained in a judgment. It allows for the media and other judicial information providers to inform the public while complying to the Law. An explicit notice allows publishers of case law to redact judgments in order to suppress some information before publication.

The notice should, whenever possible, contain the following information:

·  A mention of the existence of any applicable court order or statutory provision which restricts its lawful publication;

·  A short description of the nature or type of information that should not be published, according to the court order or statute, namely the quality of persons whose identity must remain confidential;

·  The moment the restriction expires, if such determination is possible;

·  The fact that the distributed version complies with the restriction, if that is the case.

Here are a few examples of publication restriction notices in various contexts:

Restriction on publication: By Court order under the Criminal Code, s. 486(3), there is a ban on publishing information that may identify the persons described in this judgment as “the witness” and “the complainant”. This judgment complies with the Court order.

Restriction on publication: By Court order under the Criminal Code, s. 486(3), there is a ban on publishing information that may identify the complainant. However, in the present case the complainant has requested that the full name of the accused be published despite the fact that considering the circumstances of this case this information may identify the said complainant.

Restriction on publication: By Court order filed February 14, 2000, the Court file in this action is sealed. The sealing order does not affect the within decision, which may be fully published.

Restriction on publication: Please note that the Youth Criminal Justice Act, s. 110(1), which prohibits the publication of any information that may identify a person as having been dealt with under this act, applies to this judgment.

Restriction on publication: The publication ban pursuant to the Young Offenders Act, s. 17, expired when the charges were stayed on December 17, 2001.

Restriction on publication: The restriction ordered by the Judge and described in Paragraph 10 expired on June 18, 2002. This judgment may now be published.

21.  What should the correction notice contains?

The correction notice aims at informing the media and other judicial information providers that the distributed document is a correction, as well as to how the corrections were made to the decision, that is, either by way of a corrected judgment or by way of a corrigendum appended to the judgment.

Here are a few examples of correction notices describing various ways of making corrections to a judgment (see Question 10, above, for a description of the possible options):

Corrected judgment: Corrections have been made to this judgment on November 25, 2002. The present corrected judgment replaces the initial judgment.

Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was filed on November 25, 2002. The corrections have been made to the text of the initial judgment and the text of the corrigendum is appended at the end of the reasons.

Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was filed on November 25, 2002. The text of the corrigendum is appended at the end of the reasons of the initial judgment, which is reproduced here without corrections.

8.  Optional elements

22.  In which order should multiple opinions be presented?

In the Guide, the question of the order of multiple opinions is left to the Court's discretion. However, as a suggestion, good readability of multiple opinions may be improved by the following guidelines.

The opinion of the majority, which also should contain the facts of the case, comes first.

To be followed by, as the case may be, concurring opinions. Between two concurring opinions, the one closer to the majority comes first.

Then to be followed by, as the case may be, dissenting opinions. Between two dissenting opinions, the one closer to the majority comes first.

The opinion of the Chief Justice has precedence only as a tie breaker between two opinions, after the above criteria has been applied.