Dear Mr. Urquhart:

Thank you for pointing this out. The correct citation is 2010 ONSC 1.
The last element of the citation being a number, it can’t contain
leading zeros. This is a mistake from the Court and we have alerted them
about this. It should be corrected shortly.

Best Regards,
Frédéric Pelletier
Editor in Chief, CanLII

Thank you for you interest in the neutral citation. The way we design the neutral citation, the leading zero have no value (as in a mathematical expression), they can safely be ignored.

In one of the documents cited by Dominic (http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/Committee/JTAC/JTAC-Consolidation-of-Standards-2009-04-02-E.pdf), you can read:

[31] Use a unique number for each decision, in combination with the year and court identifier. Create a new sequence of numbers for each new year, starting with “1” on January 1st. Avoid internal separators in the number. Please note that the number is to be interpreted numerically, that is to say, “001”, “01” and “1” are the same number for the purposes of the neutral citation.

For the rest, I am pretty sure that ONSC and CanLII people will sort out the situation to let you search easily that Kitely’s decision.

Daniel.

Daniel Poulin
JTAC and Canadian Citation Committee

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc1/2010onsc1.html

If you conduct a search in the citation field with 2010 ONSC 01 you do not retrieve this case, you have to search on 2010 ONSC 1. Your blog says the cite is 2010 ONSC 01.

What is the correct citation format?

I have emailed CanLII as well.