Printing SCC/Lexum Site Html Judgments – Caution!!!

I’ve stumbled across what seems to be the continuation of an old feature? bug? in the accuracy of the print out-put when printing the html copy from the web. I’ve seen it once. I haven’t tested it on other cases on the SCC site.

It’s the old problem of printing html documents with the print job not corresponding to what was on the screen. 

It’s the problem of indentations in the text, as it appears on the screen – markng quotations rather than using quote marks – vanishing when the job is printed, so one loses track of what was the quotation and what’s part of the new reasons. 

 For example, go to the SCC site and look at R v Henry 2005 SCC 76, paras 54 and 55. What one sees, in part, is this (I’ve deleted some of the spacing after the para numbers)

54 From time to time there have been statements of some members of this Court that have been taken to suggest that other courts are bound by this Court’s considered ruling on a point of law, even a point not strictly necessary to the conclusion. Most famously, in Sellars v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527, at p. 529, Chouinard J. resolved an issue respecting jury instructions by reference to an earlier decision of this Court and said:

. . . this is the interpretation that must prevail. 

As it does from time to time, the Court has thus ruled on the point, although it was not absolutely necessary to do so in order to dispose of the appeal.

55 This statement was perfectly understandable in context. So far as Chouinard J. was concerned, the Court of which he was a member had ruled on the point, and he proposed to be consistent and follow it. ….

 

This is accurate. However, what one gets when printing – I’ve reproduced it at the office and at home and on a number of printers, is this – note what happens to the quotation from Sellars

54 From time to time there have been statements of some members of this Court that have been taken to suggest that other courts are bound by this Court’s considered ruling on a point of law, even a point not strictly necessary to the conclusion. Most famously, in Sellars v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527, at p. 529, Chouinard J. resolved an issue respecting jury instructions by reference to an earlier decision of this Court and said:

. . . this is the interpretation that must prevail. 

As it does from time to time, the Court has thus ruled on the point, although it was not absolutely necessary to do so in order to dispose of the appeal.

55 This statement was perfectly understandable in context. So far as Chouinard J. ….

as if the quotation in para 54 was only the “this the interpretation …”
The problem doesn’t manifest (so far) in the CanLII html version. And it’s not in the PDF version.

 

Comments are closed.