Robert W. Buckingham Applicant And: Law Society of newfoundland v. Labrador, 2022 NLSC 37

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : Buckingham v. Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador , 2022 NLSC 37 Date : March 10, 2022 Docket : 202101G2711 Between: Robert W. Buckingham Applicant And: Law Society of newfoundland and Labrador Respondent Before: Justice Daniel M. Boone Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Date of Hearing: February 25, 2022

Summary: The Law Society Complaints Authorization Committee issued a letter of counsel to a lawyer as a result of remarks the lawyer made in media interviews concerning the death of his client in prison. The Court found that the Committee decision did not respond to the factual record and the legal context and quashed the decision. Appearances: John D. Brooks, Q.C. Appearing on behalf of the Applicant

Aimee N. Rowe Appearing on behalf of the Respondent Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 ; Martin v. Law Society (Newfoundland & Labrador) , 2010 NLTD(G) 186; Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada , [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 310, 2017 CarswellOnt 1199 (S.C.C.) STATUTES CONSIDERED: Law Society Act, 1999 , S.N.L. 1999, c. L-9.1 RULES CONSIDERED: Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 , S.N.L. 1986, c. 42, Sch.

D REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Boone, J. : INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Robert Buckingham, a lawyer and a member of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, applies for judicial review of a decision of the Complaints Authorization Committee (CAC) that resulted in his being issued a letter of counsel or caution regarding his conduct. BACKGROUND The Death of Buckingham’s Client, Jonathan Henoche [ 2 ] Buckingham was retained by Jonathan Henoche to defend him against a charge of first degree murder. Henoche was remanded to Her Majesty’s Penitentiary in St. John’s to await trial. He died in the Penitentiary on November 6, 2019.

Media Coverage of Henoche’s Death [ 3 ] The circumstances of Henoche’s death became a matter of news and controversy in the public and in the media as soon as it was first reported, as would be expected whenever a prisoner dies in custody. Media and public attention was intensified by the fact that his was the third death in the prison system within a short time. [ 4 ] Local media reported on Henoche’s death.

The day following his death, The Telegram reported that: Henoche was found dead in a segregation unit cell at Her Majesty’s Penitentiary not long after an intense altercation with corrections officers…[that] reportedly started when Henoche made contact with a female corrections officer’s arm, and that led to a “smack-for- smack” fight between corrections officers and Henoche. Shortly after, multiple staff members swarmed the unit. A source told The Telegram said there was so much blood in the area, an outside agency had to be called in to clean it up.

Two corrections officers- a woman and a man- were sent to the medical unit, while Henoche was handcuffed behind his back and brought to segregation, the source said. Once in segregation, Henoche was reportedly kicking corrections officers, which prompted them to put iron leg restraints on him. When they checked on him five minutes later, the source said, he wasn’t breathing. Medical staff tried to revive him, administering CPR for about 40 minutes, but couldn’t revive him. The province’s justice system confirmed that police are investigating. [ 5 ] The same Telegram

article reported that Buckingham was angry about the leaks of information and the “self-serving comments” from the Penitentiary. [ 6 ] On the same day as the Telegram

article was published, the Canadian Press reported that Buckingham was calling for a public inquiry. The Canadian Press also reported that Jerry Earle, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Public Employees (NAPE), the union for the correctional officers, said that Henoche had assaulted two correctional officers and more officers responded, but he was not sure of the number “involved.” In another media interview, Earle stated that correctional officers had “acted appropriately.”

Buckingham Interviewed by the Media [ 7 ] Buckingham gave two lengthy interviews with local radio in the period shortly after these initial reports. The primary thrust of Buckingham’s comments in both interviews was that the province ought to call a public inquiry into the circumstances of Henoche’s death.

During the first interview, with CBC Radio, which lasted 12.5 minutes, the following exchange occurred between Buckingham and journalist Krissy Holmes: Krissy Holmes: There’s so many story lines that have emerged from this story I mean the bigger picture that he is the third prisoner to die inside HMP since August 2017-five people inside the province’s corrections system in a little over two years.

Bob Buckingham: He’s the first one appears to have died at the hands of a correctional officer. [ 8 ] The second interview was with journalist Fred Hutton of VOCM, lasted for 6.5 minutes, and included the following exchange: Fred Hutton: Mr. Buckingham, what do you know about how…how your client died? Bob Buckingham: I know more than what I can say. And so, unlike…unlike the…the leak that came out of the penitentiary the other day, which was obscene, and unusual, and then, the comments by…by Mr. Earle that there… there exists a videotape, you know, I’m not going to get into that.

That’s…that’s speculation, and to…to what I know, other than, you know, there…that appears to be different from the other deaths at the...at the penitentiary, and at the Women’s Correctional Centre. This appears to be at the…at the hands of…of the correctional officers. Fred Hutton: Well…and, again, this is before any of this has been investigated…but, the other cases, the other deaths you’re talking about, were suicides, right? You’re saying that this wasn’t that case…that’s not the case here. Bob Buckingham: Doesn’t appear to be suicide. It…it…it’s interesting.

My antenna went up as soon as this happened, because, you know, I was in…I was in court on another matter, and I get a…I get a note that there’s a leak that comes out of the penitentiary, that… advising that … there was an incident with a male and a female; a correctional officer. Now, where the heck did that come from, and why did that come out? Were there any such leaks when the…in the deaths of the other…the other inmates, as to what may have happened in those cases? No; nothing. And so, that sent off my antenna. I said ‘Look, you know, somebody is leaking something here.

Somebody wants to be, you know, proactive in getting a message out…out here.’ And, it was…and, if it came…if it was institutional, its unacceptable, and, if it came from individuals in there, I have real concerns about…about that, as well. And the…then, for NAPE to come out and say…you know, to make a comment, as they did, and then to say everybody else should…should retract, is just two-faced.

NAPE Complains about Buckingham’s Interview Responses [ 9 ] On November 14, 2019, NAPE complained to the Law Society about Buckingham’s statements in the media, in particular, his statement that he knew “more than I can say” when asked about the circumstances of Henoche’s death; and his statements that Henoche’s death did not appear to be a suicide and appeared to be at the hands of correctional officers.

NAPE alleged that by making these comments, Buckingham was in breach of the Code of Professional Conduct , s. 5.6-1, which requires that a lawyer must encourage public respect for, and try to improve, the administration of justice. The complaint went on: In our view, Mr. Buckingham’s comments that the death of his client was “at the hands of the correctional officers” draws the conclusion that correctional officers were the cause of the death.

In the absence of any findings, evidence or pending charges, this statement was an irresponsible allegation which weakens public confidence in the criminal justice system, including the role of NAPE Correctional Officers at HMP. Listeners to those radio programmes likely gave more weight and credibility to Mr. Buckingham’s statements by virtue of his profession. We note that the Supreme Court of Canada has recently discussed how lawyers must establish a proper evidentiary foundation when making serious allegations. Buckingham Responds to the Complaint [ 10 ] Buckingham responded to the complaint.

He noted the information that had been reported by the media prior to his interviews. He said that his concerns in speaking to the press were to correct the impression left by Earle that Henoche had been the “author of his death” and to call for a public inquiry. In responding to the particular allegations of NAPE, he said: 22. In his November 9, 2019 letter to the Law Society Complainant Henley claims my comments that my client’s death was “at the hands of correctional officers” draws the conclusion that correctional officers were the cause of the death. This is correct.

That was my comment, that was the conclusion to be drawn. My information came directly from the comments made by NAPE President Earle to the press. He provided great detail with respect to the involvement of the prison staff. He put his own self-serving opinion on it. 23. The fact is NAPE President Earle in his public statements was clear there were initially two correctional officers involved and other correctional officers swarmed Mr. Henoche. Mr. Henoche later died. There was an evidentiary basis for my statement. His comments and other information I garnered formed the basis of my analysis and position.

The CAC [ 11 ] The discipline process in the Law Society Act, 1999 , S.N.L. 1999, c. L-9.1 , is similar to that for most legislation governing regulated professions. An allegation of professional misconduct is first reviewed by the Vice-President, who is required to investigate and consider whether the complaint can be resolved summarily. If unable to resolve the matter, the Vice-President refers the allegation to the CAC. [ 12 ] The CAC may refer the allegation back to the Vice-President for further investigation or attempt at resolution; or conduct an

investigation, including by requiring the lawyer to appear before it. If the CAC is of the opinion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the lawyer has done something worthy of sanction, then the CAC can dismiss the allegation by notice to the complainant and the lawyer.

If, on the other hand, the CAC is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lawyer has done something deserving of sanction, then it may do any or all of the following: counsel or caution the lawyer; instruct the vice-president to file the complaint and refer it to a disciplinary tribunal; make an application for custodianship of the lawyer’s practice; and suspend or restrict the lawyer’s license to practice. [ 13 ] The Act provides a right of appeal to this Court to a person whose allegation is dismissed.

But, the Act does not provide for right of appeal for a lawyer who has been cautioned or counselled. [ 14 ] A letter of caution or counsel from the CAC essentially says to the lawyer that they engaged in professional misconduct, and that they should watch themselves in the future. But there are other consequences to a letter of counsel or caution. The Law Society Rules provide that the CAC must notify the complainant. in writing, of its finding, and that the Law Society must notify its members of the circumstances that led to the counsel or caution, although without identifying the member.

In a case such as this one, however, the identity of the member would be obvious. The Law Society must also provide the provincial or federal Crown with records of such matters in the event that the lawyer is being considered for a judicial appointment. The CAC Issued a Letter of Counsel to Buckingham [ 15 ] The CAC reviewed the material supplied by NAPE and Buckingham. It issued a letter of counsel to Buckingham.

It is that decision that Buckingham asks this Court to review and quash. [ 16 ] The letter of counsel said as follows: On the basis of the information on file, the Committee is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that you have engaged in conduct deserving of sanction. As a result, the allegation which has been made against you shall be considered as constituting a Complaint in accordance with s. 45(3) of the Act . It is permissible for lawyers to give public statements.

The Committee noted that while the allegation referenced numerous comments made by you in your public statements, the Committee is of the opinion that only the following portions of your public statements rose to the level of conduct deserving of sanction. Bob Buckingham: I know more than what I can say. And so unlike…unlike the…the leak that came out of the penitentiary the other day, which was obscene, and unusual, and then the comments by…by Mr. Earle that there exists a videotape, you know, I’m not going to get into that.

That’s…that’s speculation, and to…to what I know, other than, you know, there…that appears to be different from the other deaths at the...at the penitentiary, and at the Women’s Correctional Centre. This appears to be at the…at the hands of…of the correctional officers. Bob Buckingham: He’s the first one appears to have died at the hands of correctional officers. The Committee noted that at the time you gave these two public statements, the evidence to support them did not exist.

The record demonstrated that you provided these statements on November 8, 2019 and that the death was ruled a homicide in December 2019. … The Committee has opined that there are reasonable grounds to believe that your public comments on VOCM radio and CBC radio are not compliant with the standard of conduct contemplated by the Code of Professional Conduct … As a result, in accordance with s. 45(3) (

a) of the Act , the Committee has decided to issue a counsel to you. Counsel is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary at p. 352 to mean “advice or assistance.” The Committee specifically counsels you that, in the future, you should be mindful of the factual basis on which you can support your statements. Buckingham asks this Court to Quash the CAC Decision [ 17 ] The Law Society agrees with Buckingham that, although he does not have a statutory right to appeal from the decision of the CAC, he can nevertheless ask this Court to review and quash it in accordance with principles of administrative law.

Buckingham says that the reasons provided by the CAC were insufficient and its decision unreasonable; the Law Society says that, considering that the CAC only has investigatory and screening powers and that it is not an adjudicative tribunal, its reasons were sufficient and its decision reasonable. [ 18 ] I have decided that the reasons of the CAC were insufficient and its decision unreasonable and that it should be quashed and referred back to the CAC. ISSUES [ 19 ] The parties agree that this Court has jurisdiction to review the CAC decision.

They also agree that the standard the Court should apply in conducting the review is reasonableness. They disagree about whether the CAC was required to give reasons for its decision and, if so, the extent of reasons required. I will resolve that disagreement not as a separate issue but in the course of applying the reasonableness standard. Therefore, I must resolve the following issues in order to decide this matter: 1. Was the decision of the CAC reasonable? 2. If not, what is the remedy for this unreasonable decision? ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Was the decision of the CAC reasonable? The Standard of Reasonableness [20] When this Court is asked to review the decision of an administrative decision maker it will, in most circumstances, apply astandard of reasonableness.

That standard recognizes that statutory administrative decision makers have been delegated responsibility bythe legislature to make decisions within a defined sphere, and the Court ought to respect that delegation by showing deference to thosedecisions, so long as they are reasonable. [21] A reasonable decision of an administrative decision maker is one in which the outcome is “transparent, intelligible, andjustified”: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, at para. 15. A reasonable decision is one that theparties can comprehend, even though they might disagree with it.

Therefore, read in light of the institutional context, it must followlogically from the facts in the record and the legal rules that apply to the matter. The Sufficiency of Reasons [22] The primary factor in assessing the reasonableness of the CAC decision is the context in which it was made. In some contexts,decision makers are required only to provide a binary answer in the form of the proverbial mere thumbs-up or thumbs-down and that willstill clearly justify its decision; in other cases, detailed reasoning is required.

There is a spectrum between those two extremes alongwhich a particular decision maker’s obligations may fall depending on the legal and functional context in which the decision is made. [23] The Law Society says that the CAC is an investigative, non-adjudicative body, fulfilling only a screening function designed tofilter out obviously unsupported allegations, and that its decisions have only minimal impact on the lawyers against whom allegations ofmisconduct are made.

Therefore, the argument goes, the CAC is only required to provide minimal justification for its decisions. [24] The Law Society notes that the CAC was cognizant that its role did not include making a final decision about Buckingham’sconduct, and that its decision informed the parties of that. The CAC decision quoted the decision of Orsborn CJ in Martin v.

Law Society(Newfoundland & Labrador), 2010 NLTD(G) 186: 16 The function of the Complaints Authorization Committee is not to make a final determination of guilt, but rather to form anopinion on whether reasonable grounds exist to conclude that the member has engaged in conduct worthy of sanction. [25] The Law Society argued that the CAC is not even explicitly required by the Act to provide any reasons for its decisions, and inMartin, Orsborn CJ said, at paragraph 22, that he was “not prepared to read such a requirement into a detailed and comprehensivestatutory regime.” [26] The Law Society says that the absence of a requirement to give reasons at all is an important factor in assessing thereasonableness of the decision that the CAC did give. [27] I note that the view expressed by Orsborn CJ in Martin was extraneous to his decision, as in that case the CAC did givereasons.

Also, in that case he was considering a decision of a CAC to dismiss a complaint. In this case, the decision was to counsel orcaution Buckingham. It is difficult to conceive of how an effective caution or counsel could be provided without reasons, as the reasonswould be inherent in the words of counsel or caution. [28] Whether and to what extent reasons are required is a contextual matter that depends upon consideration of several factors.

InVavilov, the Supreme Court described the requisite analysis: 77 It is well established that, as a matter of procedural fairness, reasons are not required for all administrative decisions. The duty ofprocedural fairness in administrative law is "eminently variable", inherently flexible and context-specific: Knight v. Indian Head SchoolDivision No. 19, (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653 (S.C.C.) , at p. 682; Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship &Immigration), (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (S.C.C.) , at paras. 22-23; Moreau-Bérubé , at paras. 74-75; Dunsmuir , atpara. 79.

Where a particular administrative decision-making context gives rise to a duty of procedural fairness, the specific proceduralrequirements that the duty imposes are determined with reference to all of the circumstances: Baker , at para. 21. In Baker , this Court setout a non-exhaustive list of factors that inform the content of the duty of procedural fairness in a particular case, one aspect of which iswhether written reasons are required.

Those factors include: (1) the nature of the decision being made and the process followed inmaking it; (2) the nature of the statutory scheme; (3) the importance of the decision to the individual or individuals affected; (4) thelegitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision; and (5) the choices of procedure made by the administrative decisionmaker itself: Baker , at paras. 23-27; see also Congrégation des Témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine c. Lafontaine(Municipalité), 2004 SCC 48, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650 (S.C.C.) , at para. 5.

Cases in which written reasons tend to be required include thosein which the decision-making process gives the parties participatory rights, an adverse decision would have a significant impact on anindividual or there is a right of appeal: Baker , at para. 43; D. J. M. Brown and the Hon. J. M. Evans, with the assistance of D.Fairlie, Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (loose-leaf), vol. 3, at p. 12-54. [29] In the case of a CAC decision to issue a counsel or caution, the following factors are of particular importance.

First, the CACis empowered to conduct an investigation and to require the lawyer to appear before it, and required to formulate a position as to whetherreasonable grounds do or do not exist to believe misconduct has occurred. It would be impossible to judge the sufficiency ofinvestigation or the reasonableness of belief without some explanation. [30] Second, the issuance of a counsel or caution to a lawyer is a matter with significant consequences. The judgment ofprofessional peers that a lawyer has committed misconduct is, even in the absence of financial or other direct sanction, a punishment ofsignificance.

The technical anonymization in publication of the outcome is of no particular help to avoid the stigma of the finding in asmall legal community. The fact that a record of counsel or caution is a consideration in the judicial appointment process highlights thesignificance of such a disposition.

[ 31 ] Third, the disciplinary process not only provides participatory rights, but mandates that a lawyer subject of a complaint respond to it. In this case, Buckingham retained counsel who submitted a nine-page response on his behalf. A lawyer who responds to and denies a complaint would anticipate that a CAC, made up of two of his peers and a lay bencher, would not reject that response without an explanation. [ 32 ] For those reasons, a CAC that issues a counsel or caution should provide reasons for that disposition.

The Reasonableness of the CAC Decision: A reasonable decision must be justified by reference to the facts. [ 33 ] The determination that the CAC was required to provide reasons for its decision is only one step in the consideration as to whether its decision was reasonable. [ 34 ] The essence of the CAC decision in this case was that, although a lawyer may give a public statement, Buckingham did not have reasonable grounds for the statements that he made to the public through the media.

The only reasons offered for this conclusion were: The Committee noted that at the time you gave these two public statements, the evidence to support them did not exist. The record demonstrated that you provided these statements on November 8, 2019 and that the death was ruled a homicide in December 2019. [ 35 ] In Vavilov , the Supreme Court said: 127 The principles of justification and transparency require that an administrative decision maker's reasons meaningfully account for the central issues and concerns raised by the parties.

The principle that the individual or individuals affected by a decision should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly underlies the duty of procedural fairness and is rooted in the right to be heard: Baker , at para. 28 .

The concept of responsive reasons is inherently bound up with this principle, because reasons are the primary mechanism by which decision makers demonstrate that they have actually listened to the parties. 128 Reviewing courts cannot expect administrative decision makers to "respond to every argument or line of possible analysis" ( Newfoundland Nurses , at para. 25), or to "make an explicit finding on each constituent element, however subordinate, leading to its final conclusion" (para 16).

To impose such expectations would have a paralyzing effect on the proper functioning of administrative bodies and would needlessly compromise important values such as efficiency and access to justice. However, a decision maker's failure to meaningfully grapple with key issues or central arguments raised by the parties may call into question whether the decision maker was actually alert and sensitive to the matter before it.

In addition to assuring parties that their concerns have been heard, the process of drafting reasons with care and attention can alert the decision maker to inadvertent gaps and other flaws in its reasoning: Baker , at para. 39 . [ 36 ] Buckingham, through his counsel, provided a lengthy response to the allegation made against him. In numerous paragraphs of that response, Buckingham’s counsel set out the facts that Buckingham said had provided him with the reason to believe his statement that it appeared that Henoche died at the hands of corrections officers.

In essence, Buckingham said that his belief was informed by the statements made to the media by NAPE President Earle and by the sourced reports in the press. [ 37 ] However, the CAC decision did not engage in any meaningful way with Buckingham’s assertion that he had a reasonable belief in the truth of what he said, nor with the fact that Buckingham’s statements were not presented as definitive conclusions as to what had occurred but as support for his position that an inquiry should be called. The CAC decision was not in any way responsive to the key factual issues and arguments raised by Buckingham.

It was not justified by reference to essential aspects of the record and it was not, therefore, reasonable. The Reasonableness of the CAC Decision: A reasonable decision must be justified by reference to the law [ 38 ] The CAC decision noted that a lawyer may speak publicly on a matter of controversy. However, the rules of professional conduct do constrain the content of a lawyer’s statements. [ 39 ] The only such constraint that the CAC considered was the requirement that the lawyer have a reasonable basis for the factual assertions made in a public forum. [ 40 ] The Supreme Court of Canada, in Groia v.

Law Society of Upper Canada , [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 310, 2017 CarswellOnt 1199 (S.C.C.) , has recently addressed the bounds of permissible speech that constrain lawyers speaking in public about matters in which they are involved.

This case was obliquely referenced by NAPE in its complaint, but not mentioned by the CAC. [ 41 ] In Groia , the Supreme Court was considering discipline resulting from statements made by a lawyer in court, but noted that the same rules apply to out-of-court statements. [ 42 ] The Supreme Court held that the determination as to whether public statements by a lawyer cross the line into incivility and professional misconduct requires a context-specific balancing of several factors: • what the lawyer said; • whether the lawyer spoke in good faith and with a reasonable basis for what was said; and • the manner and frequency of the statements. [ 43 ] The Supreme Court said at paragraph 119 that the fact that the subject of criticism is part of the justice system does not preclude the criticism, noting that: “Reasonable criticism advances the interests of justice by holding other players accountable.” [ 44 ] The Court also noted that the duty to practice with civility is not the lawyer’s only ethical obligation and that, at paragraph 71,

“standards of civility cannot compromise the lawyer’s duty of resolute advocacy.” It goes without saying that the duty of resolute advocacy is highest when the need is most acute, because the lawyer is speaking on behalf of someone who otherwise would not have a public voice, or who has attracted public condemnation notwithstanding the presumption of innocence. [ 45 ] In this case, Buckingham’s response to the Law Society relied upon all of these factors.

He noted that Henoche was dead, did not have another obvious advocate, and that, although presumed innocent, he was in prison for a crime publicly reported as heinous. The justice system was, quite understandably, reluctant to tell the public what had happened until an investigation was complete. The biggest union in the Province was speaking to the press on behalf of the correctional officers.

Buckingham felt that it was his duty to speak for Henoche. [ 46 ] Buckingham also noted that his remarks that were the subject of the complaint ought to be considered in context as brief comments in response to specific questions contrasting Henoche’s death with deaths of other prisoners, and in the course of much longer interviews during which Buckingham was advocating for a public inquiry to investigate the cause of Henoche’s death. [ 47 ] However, the CAC decision did not demonstrate that it was alive to the requirement to balance the reasonable-basis factor with any of these other contextual considerations.

It is not possible to tell if the outcome would have been different if it had taken those other factors into account. Consequently, the CAC did not justify the outcome by reference to the legal constraints imposed on its decision- making, and its decision is therefore unreasonable.

Issue 2: If the CAC decision was unreasonable, what is the remedy? [ 48 ] In Vavilov , the Supreme Court noted that the usual remedy for an unreasonable decision is to quash the decision and remit the matter back to the original decision maker, with the benefit of the Court’s reasons (although the decision maker may come to the same or a different conclusion after reconsideration). The Court noted that such a result is in keeping with recognition that the legislature has entrusted the matter to the administrative body and not to the Court. [ 49 ] I see no reason to depart from that usual remedy in this case.

Indeed, it is important that issues such as those raised here receive the benefit of full contextual consideration by the professional governing body. [ 50 ] The decision of the CAC to issue a letter of counsel, and the letter of counsel, are quashed and the matter remitted to the CAC for reconsideration. [ 51 ] Buckingham is entitled to his costs taxed on Column III of the Scale of Costs in the Appendix of Rule 55 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 , S.N.L. 1986, c. 42, Sch. D . _____________________________ Daniel M. Boone Justice