Legal Citation with the Canadian Open Access Legal Citation Guide (the COAL Guide)

• When a case has gone through more than one court level, it may be relevant to reference the complete case history.  For more information, see section 6.8 of COAL.
• There are three possible ways to sequence a case history: by prior history, subsequent history, or prior and subsequent history. Use the most appropriate format given the circumstances.
• When citing in the order of highest to lowest court level (prior history), use the abbreviations aff'g (affirming) and rev'g (reversing).
• When citing in the order of lowest to highest court level (subsequent history), use the abbreviations aff'd (affirmed) and rev'd (reversed).
• When citing both prior and subsequent history (for example when discussing an appeal that was further appealed), follow all of the rules for prior and subsequent history above.
• Remember that each treatment signal refers back to the first decision cited.

Prior History Example

R v Carosella, 1997 CanLII 402, [1997] 1 SCR 80 (SCC), rev'g 1995 CanLII 899, 26 OR (3d) 209 (ONCA), aff'g 1994 CanLII 7562, 35 CR (4th) 301 (ONCJ (General Division)).

This case history indicates that the Supreme Court's decision reversed the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision and affirmed the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). In other words, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal but agreed with the trial court.

Subsequent History Example

R v Carosella, 1994 CanLII 7562, 35 CR (4th) 301 (ONCJ (General Division)), rev'd 1995 CanLII 899, 26 OR (3d) 209 (ONCA), aff'd 1997 CanLII 402, [1997] 1 SCR 80 (SCC).

When ordered this way, the case history indicates that the decision of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) was reversed by the Ontario Court of Appeal but affirmed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court, but the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court.

Prior and Subsequent History Example

R v Carosella, 1995 CanLII 899, 26 OR (3d) 209 (ONCA), rev'g 1994 CanLII 7562, 35 CR (4th) 301 (ONCJ (General Division)), rev'd 1997 CanLII 402, [1997] 1 SCR 80 (SCC).

When ordered this way, the case history indicates that the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision reversed the decision of the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) but that the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. In other words, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court, but then the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal.