Minutes of the October 17, 2008 Meeting

Attendees: Linda Cleveland-Thompson, Michael Cowle, Louise Hamel, Anne Van Iderstine, Jennifer Jordan, Rick Leech, Michèle Lesage, Grace Mackness, Frédéric Pelletier, Alisa Posesorski, Daniel Poulin, Ruth Rintoul and Elizabeth M.A. Turgeon.

The teleconference is chaired by Frédéric Pelletier. It begins at 13:00 EDT.

Agenda:

• 1. Final version of the consolidation
• 2. Best practices for decisions distribution

The notes for these minutes are taken by Ruth Rintoul and Frédéric Pelletier.

***

Just before the meeting, Frédéric circulated 2 documents in which he proposed amendments according to comments and suggestions made so far:

• The Uniform Preparation, Citation and naming of Canadian Decisions
• Best Practices for the Distribution of Decisions

The Uniform Preparation, Citation and naming of Canadian Decisions document will be discussed first.

Case naming rules: general short section vs detailed appendix

The first item discussed relates to a request from Kate Welsh from Alberta (forwarded by Rick) that the Case Naming section be removed from the main document and restricted to the Appendix.

• Frédéric: Not in agreement with this request. There are some courts and tribunals who will use only the general guidelines in the main document, and they will never use the detailed guidelines in the Appendix.
• Rick suggests that we could have frequent links from the general guidelines to the Appendix so that readers do not overlook the more detailed rules.

Consensus: A new par. [11] will first direct readers to the Appendix with an hyperlink. Cross references will be added at the end of each general paragraph, linking to as many specific Appendix Rules as necessary.

Proposed wording changes

Proposed changes to paras. 7, 13, 19, 40, 50, 51, 54, 64, 70, 74, 77 and 80 were all accepted as well as other minors changes.

Examples at para. 18

In the example "The Banker and the Bandit Limited", the "The" is retained without explanation other than "Omit extraneous information." Moreover, there is no illustration for the retention of the abbreviated "Corp."

Consensus::

• Keep the Banker and Bandit example, but link readers to the Appendix for the explanation of why "The" is retained.
• Change the Canada Post example so that the name contains an abbreviated "Corp.". The revised example will illustrate both the removal of "The", and the retention of "Corp."

List of Canadian courts and tribunal identifiers - para. 24

Discussion re the utility of providing a complete list of Canadian court and tribunal Identifiers.

Consensus: Rather than provide a complete list in our new document, we will link to an existing list prepared by Frédéric and updated in 2006, which contains sample citations for each identifier. This list will be updated again and we will save the work of having to update two lists.

Variety of labels - paras. 48 and 52

Discussion re variety of labels for publication ban and correction notices, at paragraph 48 and 52. Rick had suggested fewer labels and a requirement that Courts use them. Frédéric suggested that the only requirement is: if a jurisdiction uses labels other than labels suggested in our standards, they should use their own labels consistently. CanLII and other publishers can easily adjust their programs to handle alternate wording.

Consensus: Alternative labels are acceptable. The only requirement is that they be used consistently.

Case History labels and contents - para. 54

Anne proposes that Case History information should be optional information rather than required information, since it would not be possible for some courts to comply. Jennifer expresses a concern about the provision of parallel citations. Frédéric points out that the expression "where possible" is already present in the standard.

Consensus: Case History information is important for better circulation of judicial information especially for researchers, for publishers who operate case citators, and for court staff who create case names. The Committee's role is to state these requirements in strong language so that courts and tribunals are aware of them. Including these requirements in the standards will encourage courts to move towards these goals.

Citations to legislation - para. 64

Anne and others point out the numerous difficulties associated with providing this information accurately. Michèle suggests that many decisions have incorrect legislative references and that the CCC should address this problem in the standards.

Consensus: The role of the CCC is to advise courts of the needs of researchers and publishers and to encourage them to strive to meet those needs. The CCC is aware that not all courts can comply in the short term.

How to handle translations - para. 71

Alisa expresses a concern that information on how to handle translations was found in two or more sections in the standards, and that connecting them in some way was important. Ruth offered to study the matter and make a suggestion.

Adding a language qualifier to the filename - para. 78

Consensus: Rick's suggestion to remove the last sentence in the paragraph is approved. Since this is a significant change, Frédéric agrees that it would be added to the list of Changes at the beginning of the document.

Rule on preservation

A concern is raised by Michèle about the preservation of decisions, in situations where judges retire and all of their files are deleted, or when judicial assistants perform a file clean-up and decisions are deleted. Frederic proposes to include this issue within the distribution section in a next version of the consolidation.

***

This concludes the first item on our agenda. Changes will be made to the consolidation and re-circulated for final review. We will have to hold another meeting to address the second item: Best practices for decisions distribution.

The meeting ended at 14:25 EDT.