[ français ]
of Comments Received on the
Dictionary of Property in Canada (LDPC) Vol. 1
conducted from May 15 to June 15, 2010)
This report summarizes the comments received and indicates
the adjustments that will be made to the next version of the LDPC Vol. 1,
which is scheduled for release in 2011. To facilitate consultation, the
information has been grouped under headings corresponding to the various
components and aspects of the LDPC.
1.2. User guide
Comments: A number of people applauded the bilingual,
aligned format of articles, and often mentioned the user-friendliness of the
With regard to the language alignment in the hard-copy
version, some people would have preferred that the French be on the left side of
the page instead of the right side in the French version of the LDPC (Vol.
1, Tome I – French/English). Others suggested putting references to
entries at the top of pages to make it easier to locate a given entry.
Adjustments: In the next
hard-copy version, the French will appear on the left in the French version of
the LDPC (Vol. 1, Tome I – French/English) instead of on the
right, though the current layout will remain for the English version (Vol. 1,
Tome II – English/French). We will therefore deviate from common practice,
whereby the English is always on the left in federal texts (to this effect, see
the format of federal statutes).
Based on lexicographic usage, the
first entry on the left-hand page will be added to the top of the page and the
last entry on the right-hand page will appear at the top of that page.
Comments: The guide was well
received. Users found that it comprehensively contains all the necessary details
on the various aspects of the dictionary. However, some users pointed out that
the user guide would benefit from being less technical in its language.
Adjustments: The guide is currently being reviewed
with the aim of making it easier to read and consult.
Comments: In general, comments on the indexes were
positive. However, the lack of page number references for each of the articles
in indexes A and C was questioned by many. It was also suggested that indexes be
printed on coloured paper to make them more visible in the hard-copy version.
Other users suggested that references to decisions cited by
articles contained in Index A appear in a separate table, similar to the list of
judgments found in Index B.
Adjustments: Page number
references will be added to both dictionary entry indexes (French/English
and English/French) in the next hard-copy version of the LDPC. The
possibility of printing the indexes on coloured paper will also be considered.
The table of judgments cited (B) will be retained, and we may
add a table of judgments cited by articles (separate from Index A).
Comments: The presentation of legal and doctrinal
sources was very well received, in terms of both the format and the availability
of these reference sources in the dictionary.
Adjustments: Minor changes may be made to the format
of the table of judgments cited, as well as to the bibliography.
Comments: Comments on article entries, also given as
translation equivalents, were generally very positive. However, some expressed
reservations with regard to the choice of certain entries. These reservations
stem mainly from the lack of in-context documentation of the lexicalization of
the chosen equivalent. Others pointed out that some equivalents diverge from the
lexical form normally used in the standardization of French Common law
vocabulary and in some Supreme Court of Canada decisions. One user pointed out
that, in some cases, the contexts did not reflect the bisystemic nature of the
Adjustments: It is important to remember that we
searched for the meaning of a definition in the corpus, and not just the
lexical form of the entry. Where there was no lexical form, a periphrase
conveying the meaning of the definition could sometimes be found in the corpus
by searching its equivalent in the other language. For example, the French entry
"opposable à tous" had "set up against anyone" and
"against the world" in English, while the form that we put forth in
the dictionary entry was "opposable to all". We could not use this
periphrase as an entry.
Several concepts defined in the
dictionary are currently being analyzed in greater detail to verify their
meaning. An analysis of their lexicalization ensued when the form in the other
language is used to search for their occurrences (e.g. the English form is
preferred for Common law concepts and the French form is preferred for Civil law
Some translation equivalents currently provided in entries
will be modified where necessary and an additional 50 entries is already
expected for the next version of the LDPC.
The bilingual corpus will soon be available online and its
collaboration platform will be equipped with a search engine. Users will then be
able to directly consult the working corpus which consists of decisions rendered
by bilingual Canadian courts (SCC, FCA and NBCA).
The possibility of posting online
tables comparing the translation equivalents provided by the LDPC and the
main legal dictionaries is also being considered.
*With regard to the choice of contexts, please see Section
Comments: The comments received on the concision and
precision of all the definitions were very positive. However, some definitions
generally “bisystemic” in nature were questioned given their level of
abstraction and the specific characteristics chosen to define these concepts.
Some of these definitions diverge from those generally proposed by the doctrine
or by other unisystemic dictionaries – while others simply contradict a usage
accepted in one system or another. Note that the definition of the concepts
"title (2)," "basis" and "human person" drew
particular attention from commenters.
A few users were puzzled that certain entries were missing
from the first volume (e.g. "indivision" and "corporation").
Others would like to see the scope of this dictionary expanded to cover other
areas of private law.
Adjustments: The validity of definitions will be
cross-checked in each of the legal systems and changes will be made as needed.
As mentioned beforehand, about 50 new entries will be added to the expanded
version of the LDPC.
We should point out that every definition pertains to the
analytical meaning of the concept and not to its meaning in accordance with the
specific legal rules that apply to it or under which it is used. Each definition
is a necessary and sufficient condition and constitutes a part of an assembled
coherent structure that explains the concept of property in each system. Reading
the definition and the semantic part enables readers to navigate through the
definitions. Therefore, a bisystemic concept will take on a Civil law or Common
law perspective based on the definitions of the concepts that are above it in
the hierarchy, that oppose it or that are given as its equivalents.
The purpose of the LDPC is to explain property as an
integrated phenomenon in both Common law and Civil law.
Comments: Several users found that the semantic part
integrated into each dictionary entry was very innovative, but that they needed
to adapt to this new approach. Many pointed out that the user guide helps users
benefit from the information in this part.
Moreover, the incorporation of graphs illustrating the
structure of these relationships in the online version of the dictionary drew
many positive comments.
Adjustments: Like the translation equivalents and
definitions, semantic relationships between concepts are currently being
carefully re-examined, as required by the addition of new entries. Details will
be given and adjustments will be made to clarify how they should be consulted.
Comments: All users stressed the relevance of this part. Many
positive comments were made on the choice of judgments for the corpus’
composition, particularly because of the Canada-wide approach adopted. However,
one comment questioned the choice of court decisions that address – only
subsidiarily – property issues within another legal context, such as
aboriginal law or criminal law.
Adjustments: The excerpts selection process is currently the
focus of complementary studies. We hope to provide readers with excerpts in each
of the legal systems for every concept defined in the dictionary.
Ideally, every entry should have a few excerpts. In some
cases, excepts were so rare that we had to choose some with no lexical form
given in the entry as a translation equivalent. Nevertheless, the choice was
still justified because the excerpts carried the meaning of the definition in
Keep in mind that the purposes of corpus excerpts are: 1. to
illustrate the meaning of the concept, 2. to show evidence of the
concept’s presence in the corpus and 3. to give an example of how the concept
is used in a judiciary context. They also show possible lexicalizations as well
as linguistic and legal uses in context.
From a legal standpoint, the excerpts help illustrate the
various factual and legal contexts in which the concept can be applied, and the
main defining characteristics emphasized by judges. Excerpts also draw attention
to the semantic relationships between concepts in terms of legal reasoning.
The online version of the LDPC will be updated twice a year,
and accordingly, each new hard-copy edition will reflect the latest online
Forty-four (44) forms were submitted on-line and by mail. On
a satisfaction scale from 1 to 5 (1 – Unsatisfactory; 2 – Somewhat
satisfactory; 3 – Satisfactory; 4 – Very satisfactory; 5 – Completely
satisfactory), the average ratings received for each question are as follows:
Question 1: The user guide was developed to briefly
present the various aspects of the Dictionary. The guide merits a rating
Question 2: The Dictionary’s bilingual format
aligns the English and French entries side by side. The selected format
merits a rating of:
Question 3: Each Dictionary entry proposes one or
more translation equivalents (e.g. droit (2) for right, etc.). After
reviewing the index of bilingual entries, the proposed equivalents merit
a rating of:
Question 4: The definitions in the Dictionary aim
to describe the concepts precisely. The definitions merit a rating of:
Question 5: The description of the semantic
relationships between the concepts of the legal systems, indicated by Cat.,
Incl., Excl., or Equiv. labels, merits a rating of:
Question 6: Most of the entries in the Dictionary
end with excerpts from judgments. With regard to the number and to the
selection of the excerpts, the Dictionary merits a rating of:
Question 7: The index provided at the end of the
Dictionary merits a rating of:
Question 8: For ease of use, the Dictionary on the
whole merits a rating of:
Important Notices | Last modified on: 2010-12-09