[{"source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","description":"CALL member Dominique Garingan , Library Manager in the Calgary office of Parlee McLaws LLP, recently wrote an article on \" The Singular They: Gender Inclusivity in Canadian Legal Writing and Style Guides \" . It originally appeared on the website Notes Between Us on June 22, 2022 . It is reprinted here with permission. Language is a product of culture, and it is known that the English language lacks a singular pronoun that signifies the non-specific   he   or   she . Although at times unintentional, this singularity versus plurality of pronouns, coupled with gendered indicators, has helped entrench the binary perceptions of gender found in writing which we are now seeking to change.  The Department of Justice of Canada recently provided a   series of guidelines   on the use of gender-neutral language in a legislative context. These guidelines include as a recommendation the use of the singular   they   and its other grammatical forms ( them ,   themselves , and   their ) to refer to indefinite pronouns and singular nouns 1 . In addition, dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary ( definition 2 | blog ), the Canadian Oxford Dictionary ( definition 3 ), the Cambridge Dictionary ( definition ) and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary ( definition | blog ) have acknowledged both the acceptability – and, for some, the controversy – of the singular   they. While there seems to be a growing acceptance towards gender inclusive and non-binary pronouns, this post seeks to explore an increasingly acknowledged yet still seemingly paradoxical entity in legal writing:   the singular   they . This post briefly investigates the use and acceptance or lack thereof of   they   as a singular pronoun through a review of a limited sample of Canadian legal research, writing, and style guides accessible to the writer. Although current writing practices on gender inclusivity may have since changed since the publication of these titles, this post hopes to assist writers, researchers, librarians, and information professionals by providing a non-exhaustive point-in-time review of Canadian legal writing references and help facilitate a turning point in the journey towards greater inclusivity in legal writing. The Literature Reviewed (in Reverse Order of Publication) Edward Berry,   Writing Reasons: A Handbook for Judges , 5th ed (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2020).  In the sample of guides reviewed,   Writing Reasons   seemed to provide the most inclusive perspective in its instruction. It was somewhat refreshing to see a writing handbook for judges as being the most progressive in its recommendations, albeit also the most recently published. The guide contains a section entitled   Prejudicial Language   and provides a checklist for more inclusive strategies. (p 114-115) “Invite the parties to define their own identity” is first on the list. As an example, Berry notes that some people may prefer the gender neutral   Mx.   to   Mr.   or   Ms . “Be wary of personal pronouns” is also listed. Here, Berry states that those who don’t identify as male or female may prefer   they . Berry notes the acceptance of   they   as a singular pronoun. However, the","id":3241470,"titre":"CALL Member Article: Gender Inclusivity in Canadian Legal Writing and Style Guides","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12854401","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:48 +0100"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:47 +0100","titre":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries Intervention in Upcoming Supreme Court of Canada Copyright Case","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12242053","id":3241460,"description":"By: Susannah Tredwell , Manager of Library Services at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP and James Bachmann , Instructional Librarian, Law Library, University of British Columbia Since 1988, when CALL/ACBD’s Copyright Committee was first set up, CALL/ACBD has advocated for its members' interests in the area of copyright. While the primary focus of CALL/ACBD’s copyright advocacy over the last few years has been on Crown copyright and primary law, CALL/ACBD has also made submissions about such areas as fair dealing and licencing. CALL/ACBD sees this work as not only supporting the needs of its members but also as serving the interests of access to justice as a whole. Continuing this work, on January 18, 2022 CALL/ACBD, along with Library Futures Institute, will act as an intervener in the Supreme Court of Canada case Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, et al. v. Entertainment Software Association, et al.   Kim Nayyer, CALL/ACBD’s President, and Robert Janes of JFK Law   will be representing CALL/ACBD and Library Futures. This case addresses the question of how the concepts of “communication to the public by telecommunication” and “making available on demand” as used in the Copyright Act should be understood. The outcome of this case has the potential to significantly impact various library activities, including controlled digital lending and possibly even the simple use of hyperlinks, particularly in light of the limited scope of current library and education exceptions in the Copyright Act . CALL/ACBD's submitted that the court refrain from broadly construing the terms “making available” and “Communication to the Public by Telecommunication” and that s. 2.4(1.1) of the act (\"Communication to the public by telecommunication\")   does not need to be understood as creating a new right.   You can find CALL/ACBD’s intervener's factum at https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39418/FM050_Intervener_Canadian-Association-Law-Libraries-et-al.pdf . The other factums in this case are available at https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39418 .  CALL/ACBD has acted as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada on two other occasions. In Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc. , which looked at Crown copyright, CALL/ACBD submitted   that “s. 12 Crown copyright does not extend to primary sources of law”. In York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency  (\"Access Copyright\"), CALL/ACBD submitted   that the SCC “should resist the temptation to modify or clarify the existing fair dealing test” stating that the existing test “is a flexible multifactorial test that allows libraries (and other institutions) to tailor access and appropriate copying policies that consider all relevant circumstances.” CALL/ACBD also made submissions to the 2018 review of the Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42: one general submission   and