Revised on 20001218
Prepared for the
Canadian Judicial Council and the
Judges Technology Advisory Committee
By the Canadian Citation Committee
Editors: Daniel POULIN*,
* LexUM, CRDP, Université de Montréal
** Commonwealth Legal
Works on the Neutral citation were made possible with support from the following partners and sponsors:
Warning: This Guide may be amended from time to time. The latest version is available at the following URL: <http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/ccc-ccr/neutr/neutr.jur_en.html>.
The Canadian Citation Committee modified paragraphs 37 to 40, 44 and 45. The "§" character has been replaced by "¶" as the symbol for paragraph referencing. This decision was taken by the Canadian Citation Committee in Fall of 2000.
Section 5 has been omitted.
In 1996, a committee of the Canadian Judicial Council produced a standard for the preparation of judgments in electronic form. This standard, which recommended the numbering of paragraphs, among other things, received a warm welcome from the judiciary. The adoption of this standard has led to the establishment of a second standard for neutral, uniform case law citation. This new method of citation has three essential elements: the traditional style of cause, the core of the citation (containing the year of the decision, a court or tribunal identifier and an ordinal number attributed to the decision) as well as certain optional elements. With this new citation, for example, a court of appeal decision could be cited as follows: Smith v. Leblanc, 1998 BCCA 21. The most obvious advantage of this approach is that the court or tribunal assigns this citation at the very moment the decision is rendered. This citation is unique, complete, immediately available and permanent. This proposal is made at a time when other similar initiatives are being promoted around the world, notably in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
v The year
In Canada as elsewhere, case law citation relies essentially on the reference to judicial decisions in paper format. Until recently, this way of doing things, although imperfect, did not cause any real problems. However, the recent appearance of digital media, including CD-ROM and the Internet has revealed the limitations of the traditional approach as it creates new needs.
More and more frequently, court decisions are becoming publicly available in a few hours without bearing an official reference. The decisions become accessible only when they are published on paper many weeks, or perhaps months after they are released. Furthermore, some decisions are never published in law reports and will never have an official reference, even though they may be cited repeatedly. Since there is no common standard, new methods of citation must be introduced in order to serve the electronic publication world. In this respect, a uniform citation method for Canada has the obvious advantage of simplicity. The proposed standard would also contribute to reinforcing the public nature of Canadian case law.
This document presents the history as well as the rationale behind the proposal for a neutral citation. The standard is described in detail. A summary of its advantages concludes the document.
 Various initiatives in legal citation have been undertaken in Canada over the past 20 years. In 1994, the Judges Computer Advisory Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) began to develop a standard for preparing legal decisions. This standard sought to standardize the format of electronic documents produced by courts. This standard, adopted in May 1996, has enjoyed great success [CJC, 1996]. The vast majority of Canadian superior courts have now adopted it. It contained an embryo of a citation standard.
 Meanwhile, the American Bar Association (ABA) started to develop a neutral citation method. The ABA's objectives were numerous. Among them were: (1) an interest in developing a consistent citation mechanism for paper and electronic documents; (2) the desire to promote the development of new electronic reference tools and (3) the desire to open up the legal publishing markets in the United States. To date, eleven states have adopted the ABA's proposal and four others are presently studying the matter [ABA]. A similar initiative in Australia has led the High Court of Australia to adopt a citation standard similar to that of the ABA [HCA].
 The Canadian Judicial Council’s initiative and the proposals from abroad have had an influence in Canada. During the summer of 1997, a group of specialists met in Montreal to call for the elaboration of a neutral citation standard [APPEL]. In the fall of the same year, a large number of specialists and publishers gathered again at the invitation of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries and the Legal Research Network. They held a summit and agreed to work towards developing a neutral standard in Canada. The Canadian Citation Committee is a result of these meetings and discussions. [CALL].
 In the spring of 1998, the Canadian Citation Committee, made up of various specialists in legal information from the judiciary, academia and the publishing industry took shape. Many conference call discussions have enabled the Committee to establish the basis of the standard that was submitted for comments in winter 1999. Working documents as well as all the Committee's debates have been published on its Web site. [COMMITTEE].
 The consultation process on the proposed citation standard has generated more active support. Over sixty judges, administrators, publishers and other parties have sent detailed comments to the Committee [CONSULT]. These comments and opinions were examined by the Committee. This document is the result of a two-year process and of the contributions of a great number of practitioners in the field. It has also been improved by contributions from many people involved in the production and publication of case law.
 The absence of an official, neutral citation for case law, a citation that would emanate directly from the court, is easily explicable for someone who examines the history of law reporting. In fact, about five centuries ago, individuals external to the courts - independents - took charge of the transcription, editing and, finally, publication of court decisions. Over time, this role was transformed into what we know today; that is, an industry specialized in publishing high quality reports and databases. Both the origin and the evolution of this industry should justify its pre-eminent place in legal publishing.
 The introduction of computers has considerably changed this picture. The courts now take charge of their own decisions. Many courts even publish directly on the Internet. Nevertheless, if we take into account traditional citation methods, the Canadian judiciary does not have a citation method that would permit it to name, in an official and permanent way, to decisions that are published in this way.
 The availability of a unique, permanent citation for judicial decisions at the same time as courts make them publicly accessible would greatly simplify the development of electronic research tools. In fact, this addition to the traditional mode of citation becomes crucial as electronic media are becoming increasingly important as core research sources for jurists. It is increasingly common to find Canadian decisions on the Internet, for example, a few weeks or even months before they can be obtained in a printed collections of case law. During this interval, the publishers of research tools do not have access to a definitive mode of citation, except perhaps through indirect reference to the court’s stapled document. As the weight of electronic media continues to grow, it is important, and in the best interests of the Canadian legal community and the general public, to have a citation method that will reflect this development.
 The traditional citation method for case law derives from the use of various printed collections. These collections have acquired great prestige throughout the years and have served the Canadian legal community quite well. However, from an author’s point of view, it is convenient to cite a legal reference without having to first make sure - or presume - that the reader will have access to the same report. From the reader’s point of view, a neutral citation will permit him or her to access a specific reference without necessarily having to turn to the same document that the author used. In fact, the standard should permit one to cite case law the same way that we cite legislation. When referring to a statute, an author will not take the trouble to specify the particular work to which he or she referred; but simply cite the paragraph, title, and date of the statute to which the reader should be referred. The present standard offers the same ease of reference with respect to case law.
 The citation standard will help to consolidate the public nature of case law and reinforce the legal publishing industry in Canada. Indeed, it contributes to the establishment of the public nature of Canadian jurisprudence by assuring that public documents from the courts may be cited in a neutral way. Furthermore, the standard contributes to solidifying the Canadian legal publishing industry. Effectively, it reinforces competition and will favour the harmonious development and compatibility of future electronic research tools. In the Canadian legal publishing industry, no one will have a monopoly on citation methods and everyone will be able to compete. Therefore the standard allows access to excellent research tools at an affordable cost.
 The proposed citation standard has three essential elements: (1) the style of cause, (2) the core of the citation with the year, the tribunal identifier and the ordinal number, and, (3) some optional elements which can be added in order to increase readability and precision. The description of the standard contains certain pieces of information in order to allow the linguistic definition of a decision.
 The neutral citation aims to permit the permanent identification of a judicial decision independently of its mode of publication, be it paper or electronic. It has no descriptive elements pertaining to the hierarchical level or to the internal structure of the institutions concerned.
 The court or tribunal assigns the neutral citation when it renders the decision. For the purpose of the standard, the word "tribunal" designates judicial as well as quasi-judicial or administrative institutions.
 The different elements constituting the core of the citation are organized from the general to the specific.
 The style of cause is expressed using the ISO Latin character set, [ISO 8859-1]. Thus, this set of characters permits the use of accented characters as well as letters that have other diacritic signs.
 The core of the citation will use a more limited set of characters, that is the ISO/IEC standard [ISO-646]. The result of this use is that accented characters – letters that contain diacritic signs – are not available for the expression of the tribunal identifier codes. As a result, the core of the citation can be used to designate file names in association with present computer systems.
 The elements of the core of the citation are not case-sensitive. This means that upper- and lower-case letters can be used without distinction in order to favour readability, but they cannot be used to distinguish two citations because they have the same value.
 The citation standard uses the traditional style of cause. The style of cause appears first, before the core of the citation. The citation standard does not specify the form of the style of cause. Their preparation may be supported by the existing guides [McGill, CLIC]. More work will be required to develop a national standard in this respect.
 The year of the decision constitutes the first element of the core of the citation. Four digits denote the year. For the purpose of the neutral citation, the year is designated as the one in which the decision is rendered by the court or, exceptionally, if the date of the decision is fixed later, the year it is entered in the court register.
 The second element of the core citation is the tribunal identifier. In the citation, this identifier immediately follows the information relating to the year of the decision. With respect to the tribunal identifier, the standard limits itself to suggesting a size and a method of attribution as well as the treatment of the bilingual dimension of certain institutions.
 Tribunal identifiers should not have more than eight characters. Longer identifiers remain possible but it seems more appropriate to avoid them in order to simplify the use of the standard.
 Tribunal identifiers are assigned by the judicial authorities of each jurisdiction. With the exception of the federal jurisdiction, the tribunal identifiers have a prefix of two characters that correspond to the two-letter code attributed to the jurisdiction by an international standard [ISO-3166-2], that is, QC, ON and so on. To this prefix we add a specific suffix corresponding to each institution that produces case law in the jurisdiction.
 In the case of bilingual courts or tribunals, such as federal tribunals, the identifier codes can be distinct or identical for both languages.
 The tribunal identifier codes must be distinct for French and English in case of courts or tribunals that systematically produce their decisions in both official languages. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada will be identified by the identifier codes, "CSC" and "SCC" in order to denote the French and English contexts.
 A single tribunal identifier code can be used in cases where the decisions are not systematically published in both official languages. For example, we can refer to the case of the numerous federal tribunals, such as the appeal courts of the provinces: BCCA, ONCA and QCCA. However, the standard does not impose the use of a unique code. Two codes, or even more (for Nunavut, for example), can be used if the jurisdiction’s authorities believe it is appropriate or if the natural acronym of the tribunal’s name suggests it. That is the case, for example, of the Queen’s Bench Court of New Brunswick, in French "Cour du banc de la reine du Nouveau Brunswick", where the codes for the court could be "NBQB" and "NBBR".
 If official names of tribunals are not adequate for direct development of distinct identifier codes but decisions are systematically published in more than one language, the standard allows identifier codes to be produced with the use of the suffixes "E" and "F". For example, the identifier codes for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, in French the "Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes" will be: "CRTCE" and "CRTCF". They will be used to designate the English and French versions when citing decisions. (See Appendix 1: Proposal for Tribunal Identifiers.)
 In cases where tribunals systematically produce their decisions in both official languages, the citation of one of the texts will base itself on the use of the appropriate linguistic version of the tribunal identifier code. Thus, for the Supreme Court of Canada, the citation of English and French versions of a decisions would be as follows:
Smith v. Gagnon, 1999 SCC 150 For the English text.
Smith c. Gagnon, 1999 CSC 150 For the French text.
 In cases of tribunals, bilingual or not, that generally produce their decisions in one language and occasionally in the other, the citation will use the usual identifier code of the tribunal without trying to define the language of the decision.
Example for the Appeal Court for British Columbia:
Smith v. Jones, 1999 BCCA 150 For the English text.
Tremblay c. Gagnon, 1999 BCCA 151 For the French text.
Example for the Appeal Court of Quebec:
Smith v. Jones, 1999 QCCA 140 For the English text.
Tremblay c. Gagnon, 1999 QCCA 141 For the French text.
 When tribunals have two identifier codes but do not systematically produce their decisions in both languages, such as in the numerous federal tribunals, both identifier codes will be equal. The citation permits the use of one or the other.
Example for the Queen’s Bench Court of New Brunswick:
Smith v. Gagnon, 1999 NBBR 150 For a French, English or multilingual text.
Smith v. Gagnon, 1999 NBQB 150 For a French, English or multilingual text.
 Furthermore, in the case of courts and tribunals that are not systematically producing their decisions in more than one official language, when it is required, the indication of the language can be noted by adding "E" or "F" to the tribunal identifier code.
Example for the "Tribunal des droits de la personne du Québec":
M.L. c. Maison des jeunes, 1999 QCTDP 141 For the French text.
M.L. c. Maison des jeunes, 1999 QCTDPE 141 For the English text.
 The ordinal number of the decision is the third element of the core of the neutral citation. The number has no internal separators. Tribunals assign these ordinal numbers. The ordinal number should come from a unique sequence, starting at "one" (1) on January 1st of each year for each tribunal or set of tribunals sharing a common identifier.
 For practical reasons, a tribunal may use an existing internal numerical code with a continuous sequence from year to year if this code designates only decisions rendered. It is however recommended that a numerical code based on annual series be adopted as soon as practical.
 For administrative reasons, in the case of complex tribunals sharing a common identifier, the ordinal number may be of fixed length and have a numerical prefix in order to simplify the local attribution of the ordinal numbers. The resulting ordinal number must nevertheless avoid any kind of internal separator and must appear as a unique number.
 An oral decision that is published after the judgment is handed down from the bench should be assigned the next available ordinal number for the year in which it was rendered.
 All judgments produced by a court should be numbered. This objective will be met only as it becomes feasible for each tribunal.
 The citation standard permits the designation of paragraphs and notes in order to increase citation precision. Paragraph numbers used are those applied in accordance with the "Standards for the Preparation, Distribution and Citation of Canadian Judgments in Electronic Form" of the Canadian Judicial Council [CJC].
 Reference to a paragraph is introduced by "¶". If the "¶" is not available, the string "para" may be used instead. Three cases can be distinguished.
 Reference to only one paragraph is possible by the use of "¶" and the number of the cited paragraph. For example, 1998 QCTDP 23 ¶ 21
 Reference to a sequence of paragraphs is indicated by the use of "¶" and the number of the first paragraph separated from the number of the last paragraph by a hyphen. For example, the expression "¶ 33-35" designates the paragraphs 33, 34 and 35.
 Reference to non-consecutive paragraphs relies on the preceding notions. It is possible to combine both proposed forms by separating them with commas. Thus, the expression "¶ 33-35, 39, 45-47" designates the paragraphs 33, 34, 35, the paragraph 39 and the paragraphs 45, 46 and 47.
 Reference to notes of a decision is introduced by the string "note". Reference to particular notes follows the same scheme as that for paragraphs.
 In the context of the current growth of global information systems, the standard will eventually provide for the insertion of some type of country identifier. It remains to be seen how this code will be added to the citation, and what form it will take.
 Until an international standard is available, the recommended use of the Canadian neutral reference in external jurisdictions is to add the ISO country code for Canada "CAN" at the beginning of the core of the citation [ISO-3166-1].
 At the core of the citation are the year of the decision, the tribunal identifier and the ordinal number of the decision. For example, application of the standard to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, could result in the following:
1998 BCCA 11
With the style of cause as well as paragraph numbers, we obtain the following reference:
Fong c. Gill, 1998 BCCA 11 ¶ 4
 The relationship between this new citation and the uses of the Canadian case law citation as described by the Caparros and Goulet scheme [CAPA, p. 170] is as follows:
|[Style of cause]||Year||[Volume]||Report||[Series]||Doc. No.||Page||Jurisdiction|
|Green v. Staz||(1969)||3||D.L.R.||(3d)||358||(B.C.S.C.)|
|Green v. Staz||1969||BCSC||11||¶22|
|1st part - Indication||3rd part|
 It is strongly recommended to tribunals to insert the neutral citation in the header of the decision file itself when preparing the file for publication. This approach guarantees the availability of the neutral citation for all other subsequent treatments and uses.
 The benefits of the new citation will become apparent when members of the legal community start using it. It will seem convenient to many to use first the more traditional citations of official reports and other resources from legal publishers. Thus, the neutral citation will appear as a parallel citation.
v Increases freedom of choice in the selection of research tools;
v Promotes judicial independence by creating a public method of citing judicial decisions;
v Makes it easier for courts to publish on the Web.
v Creates an official citation for recent or unpublished decisions;
v Simplifies the implementation of internal or public information systems;
v Simplifies and enables the management and the rationalization of law libraries.
v Facilitates reference to recent decisions;
v Increases freedom of choice in the selection of research tools;
v Promises to increase the availability of high quality electronic reference systems;
v Fosters the opening of the market, heightens competition and so contributes to controlling legal costs.
[ABA] American Bar Association, Legal Technology Resource Centre - Uniform Citation Standards, See: http://www.abanet.org/citation
[APPEL] Declaration for the Elaboration of a Case Citation Standard, Montreal, August 11th, 1997, See: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/citation/en/archives/declaration.html
[CALL] Canadian Association of Law Libraries, Conference "THE OFFICIAL VERSION" - A National Summit To Solve the Problems of Authenticating, Preserving and Citing Legal Information in Digital Form, November 20-22, 1997, Sheraton Hotel, Toronto, See: http://www.callacbd.ca/summit
[CAPA] E. Caparros and J. Goulet, La documentation juridique : références et abréviations, Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec, 1973.
[CJC] Canadian Judicial Council, Judges Computer Advisory Committee, "Standards for the Preparation, Distribution and Citation of Canadian Judgments in Electronic Form"", May 1996, see: http://www.integeractif.com/standards.htm and http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca
[CLIC] Canadian Legal Information Centre, Standards for Case Identification, Ottawa, 1985.
[COMMITTEE] Web site of the Canadian Citation Committee, See: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/citation/en/
[CONSULT] Comments on the Neutral Citation Standard for Case Law, http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/citation/comments/
[HCA] High Court of Australia, "Paragraph Numbers in High Court of Australia Judgments and the use of "Medium Neutral" Citations", See: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/short.htm.
[ISO-646] International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 646:1991, Information technology -- ISO 7-bit coded character set for information interchange. See: or http://macnash.admin.uottawa.ca/nash/datamove/dmd00.htm
[ISO-3166-1] International Organization for Standardization, ISO/DIS 3166-1 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Par 1: Country codes. See: http://www.iso.ch/cate/d24591.html
[ISO-3166-2] International Organization for Standardization, ISO/DIS 3166-2 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 2: Country subdivision code. See: http://www.iso.ch/cate/d8349.html
[ISO 8859-1] International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998, Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 1.
[MCGILL] McGill Law Journal, Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation, 4th edition, , Carswell, 1998.
The following list of codes is intended soley as an illustration of tribunal identifier codes. Paragraph  of the standard specifies that these identifier codes will be determined by the judiciary authorities of each Canadian jurisdiction. We do not wish to anticipate codes that will ultimately be attributed by the Canadian judiciary authorities.
vFor the Supreme Court of Canada:
Smith c. Gagnon, 1999 CSC 23 Cour suprême du Canada (French)
Smith v. Gagnon, 1999 SCC 23 Supreme Court of Canada (English)
vFor other federal courts and tribunals:
Smith c. Gagnon, 1999 CFA 23 Cour fédérale d’appel du Canada (French)
Smith v. Gagnon, 1999 FCA 23 Federal Court of Appeal of Canada (English)
Smith c. Gagnon, 1999 CFC 23 Cour fédérale du Canada (French)
Smith v. Gagnon, 1999 FCC 23 Federal Court of Canada (English)
vFor Canadian superior courts (Appeal courts and provincial superior courts):
Côté c. Gagnon, 1999 BCCA 23 Cour d’appel pour la Colombie Britannique (French)
Smith v. Jones, 1999 BCCA 24 Court of Appeal for British Columbia (English)
Côté c. Gagnon, 1999 ONCA 23 Cour d’appel de l’Ontario (French)
Smith v. Jones, 1999 ONCA 23 Court of Appeal of Ontario (English)
Smith c. Jones, 1999 NBBR 150 Cour du banc de la reine du Nouveau Brunswick (French, English or Multilingual)
Smith v. Jones, 1999 NBQB 150 New Brunswick Court Queen's Bench (French, English or Multilingual)
Smith c. Gagnon, 1999 QCCA 23 Cour d’appel du Québec (French)
Smith v. Gagnon, 1999 QCCA 23 Québec’s Court of Appeal (English)
vFor provincial courts and tribunals:
Smith v. Jones, 1999 BCPC 23 British Columbia Provincial Court (English)
Smith v. Jones, 1999 NBSM 114 New Brunswick Small Claims Court (English)
Côté c. Gagnon, 1999 QCCQ 33 Cour du Québec (French)
Smith v. Jones, 1999 QCCQ 21 Cour du Québec (English)
Smith v. Jones, 1999 QCTDP 21 Tribunal des droit du la personne (du Québec) (English)
vFor administrative, municipal and other courts and tribunals:
Smith c. Jones, 1999 QCMMTL 21 Cour municipale de Montréal (du Québec) (French)
|Diane BOURQUE||Executive Director, Federation of Law Societies of Canada|
|Daniel BOYER||Wainwright Civil Law Librarian, faculty of Law, McGill University, Canadian Association of Law Libraries|
|Edna BREWSTER||Executive Assistant to Chief Justice, Chief Librarian, Saskatchewan Queen's Bench|
|Maria CECE||Manager, Judicial Library Services, Ontario Courts Judges' Library|
|Martin FELSKY||Chairman, Legal Research Network and Technical Adviser Member, Judges Computer Advisory Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council|
|Diane HANSON||Librarian, Law Society of New Brunswick|
|Guy HUARD||Editor (1995-1998), LexUM, Université de Montréal|
|Jennifer JORDAN||Registrar, Court of Appeal of British Columbia|
|Patrick (Rick) LEECH||Manager, Provincial Court Libraries, Alberta Justice|
|Denis LE MAY||Law Librarian, Uniersité Laval and former President of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries|
|Denis MARSHALL||Head Law Librarian, William R. Lederman, Queen's University; Former President of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries and Member, Judges Computer Advisory Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council|
|Bruno MÉNARD||LexUM, CRDP, Université de Montréal (Secretary, Canadian Citation Committee)|
|Micheline MONPETIT||Senior Editor, Société québécoise d'informatique juridique (SOQUIJ)|
|Daniel POULIN||Professor, LexUM (CRDP) and Member, Judges Computer Advisory Committee of Canadian Judicial Council (Co-ordinator, Canadian Citation Committee)|
|Ruth RINTOUL||Editor in Chief, QL Systems|
The Canadian Citation Committee wishes to thank those who sent us comments during our spring 1999 consultation phase. Aside from the names that follow, we received about thirty other comments. We are very grateful to those that wished to stay anonymous as well as to the others.
ASSURANCE AUTOMOBILE DU QUÉBEC (SOCIÉTÉ) — ATKINSON, Logan, Carleton University —BATIOT, J.L., Chief Judge, Provincial Court of Nova Scotia — BEAUDOIN, Gérald-A., Judge — BERGERON, Jean-Guy, Dean, University of Sherbrooke — BRASSARD, Pierre, Housing Management of Quebec — BRISSON, Jean-Maurice, Law Faculty, University of Montréal — CHRISTIE, Donald H., Chief Judge, Tax Court of Canada — COMMISSAIRE GÉNÉRAL DU TRAVAIL (BUREAU DU), Québec — DUCLOS, Dominique, Notary Chamber of Quebec — EDGAR, Allen, Office of the Chief Judge, Ontario Court Provincial Division — FINKBEINER, Douglas E., The Law Society of Manitoba — HUSSAIN, Azimuddin, Editor-in- chief of the 45th volume of the McGill Law Journal — JULIUS, A. Isaac, Chief Justice, Federal Court of Canada — KROMKAMP, John H., Senior Legal Officer, Court of Appeal of Ontario — LEMIEUX, Lyse, Chief Justice, Cour supérieure du Québec — MARQUIS, Claude, Editor, Supreme Court of Canada — McCALLUM, Margaret, University of New Brunswick — McGILL LAW JOURNAL — MacDONALD, Michael, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Nova Scotia — McKAY-PANOS, Linda, Alberta Civil Liberties, Reseach Centre, University of Calgary — NEWFOUNDLAND Supreme court, Trial Division — OLIPHANT, Jeff, Associate Chief Justice, Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba — PANNETON, Yves, Director, Juridical Services Montréal- CSST — PARSONS, Mary Jane, Nova Scotia Depatment of Justice— REID, Hubert, Wilson & Lafleur Ltée — RODIE, Marlene, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal — WELLS, Clyde, Justice, Court of Appeal of Newfoundland.