Hello everyone,
There are some new developments we want to inform you
about. It's all good new, really. First, the CJC has unanimously
endorsed our initiative as outlined in the document we've been
circulating. Second, we are getting some financing
from the Department of Justice, and are thus able to begin
our work. More will be needed, though. So if any of you
have some ideas for sources of funding, please let us know.
We've prepared an outline for further discussion that
we want to get your reactions to. It has evolved from research
we've been able to do, including review of past and actual
proposals as to case numbering and neutral citation. We've also
talked with Lorna K. Rees-Potter, who used to be Research Director
with the Canadian Law Information Council (CLIC). Ms. Rees-Potter
is excited to see that some work is being done that really is a
continuation of what the CLIC accomplished 10 years ago in terms
of case law citation. Reading the CLIC proposal from that period,
you can see that the case naming part did catch on, regardless of
what some might have said at the time. It simply made sense.
It's also interesting to see that the CLIC's proposal for case
numbering was produced at a time when computers were becoming
ubiquitous, posing the same kind of challenge regarding data
management as we are now dealing with regarding case law
dissemination, that is of negotiating a technology curve,so to speak.
We plan to open this list to a broader audience in the
near future, probably using the list of attendees at the last CALL
conference to do so. We'd like it to work out the way it's done
for the Internet, with proposals that get discussed and redrawn
until everyone concerned more or less agrees and the necessity of
getting to use the thing is enough to deal with the last titbits
of detail or small differences. But we'll wait to consolidate the
outline bellow within our smaller group before reaching to a larger
circle. If any of you know someone interested by this, let me know
and I'll contact them to get them onboard.
Neutral case law citation standard
- draft outline for discussion
Goal : to protect the public nature of the judicial patrimony.
Identifier or descriptor? : do we want to simply identify specific
documents, or also describe them, and then with what degree of
precision?
General architecture
Principes : - from the general to the specific;
- use of existing appropriate international standards
- no redundancy;
- extensibility (either left or right of a mandatory
kernel, or "accordeon-like", inserting optional
elements at their level in the left to right
hierarchy of general to specific?);
- language (must we take it into account, and how?).
- Others?
Formalisms : - character code (ASCCI, ISO 8859/1, Unicode);
- capitals or not, mixed? (consider variety of
operating systems);
- separator (if so, which one: ",", "/", "-", etc.);
- date format (1998, 199804, 19980427?);
- style of abbreviations (first letter of each word,
other scheme?).
- Others?
Mandatory elements
Date : degree of precision (year or day?)
Tribunal identifier : is there at present a standard scheme
for the identification of tribunals?
Must the abbreviation of the official name of each
tribunal include the first level of jurisdiction
for provincial courts, or should this information,
essentially the province designator, be the object
of a different element?
Decision numbering : several options are available, each with its
advantages and implications : ordinal number in year
of publication; simple ordinal number; docket
number; file number.
Optionnal elements and specific questions
Paragraph numbering : already practized ans well accepted, but
optionnal by nature;
Reference to a note : how to write such a reference taking the
place of a paragraph number?
Juridiction : should it be the object of a specific element or be
a part of the tribunal identifier?
Country : where to insert this information in the citation and when,
given the international context of the Web?
Language code : where in the citation and would it be as useful
in the Canadian context as in the international one?
Decision qualifiers : are they required, (ex.: motion, non-
precedent, unpublished, etc.) and if so, how to
integrate them in the citation?
Subsequent version or correction of a decision : is the ABA
proposal adequate for our needs (ex.: 1996 MD 15,
modified, 1996 MD 47 ) or is there a better solution
(ex.: 1996 MD 15.1)?
Level of a tribunal in the judicial hierarchy of a country :
How to add this information wich is useful outside
of local judicial circles?
Chambers or subdivisions of a court : do we deal with this and how?
Note-up : must the original identification of the affair be
preserved in the neutral citation? If so, how should the
relation be indicated (ex. : 1996 MD 15 - 1997 SC 4) ?
Judicial district : for geographically distributed tribunals. Do
current district identificators answer the
requirements of neutral citation ? If such an information is
useful, where in the citation should it be inserted?
Quasi-judicial bodies : should they be treated like tribunals,
or their nature more clearly marked?
Previous proposals
Canadian Law Information Centre (CLIC) - Canadian Bar Association
Quicklaw
*****
We'll be eagerly awainting your comments and suggestions.
Regards to all.
--
Guy Huard huard@crdp.umontreal.ca
Editeur LexUM
Centre de Recherche en Droit Public
Universite de Montreal
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/
Tel: +1 (514) 343-7853
Fax: +1 (514) 343-7508