ࡱ>  NPABCDEFGHIJKLM)` dbjbjUU 7??=&& & & & & & & : 8 ,: z"VA7d?4?AAAAAAth|A& C"CCA& & -VIIIC& & ?IC?II^& & ; ڦEh+ l07XGX;X& ;CCICCCCCAAICCCCCCC: : d $: : : : : & & & & & &  LAW 325: CONFLICT OF LAWS PROFESSOR EDINGER FALL 2013 Prepared by: VERONICA MANSKI TABLE OF CONTENTS  TOC \o "1-4" \h \z \u  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923625" A. SOME GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS  PAGEREF _Toc373923625 \h 7  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923626" 1. Characterization: Substance and Procedure  PAGEREF _Toc373923626 \h 7  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923627" Tolofson v Jensen, [1994] SCC provides modern approach to characterization of rules as substance or procedure ( preference against classifying as procedural/in favour of forum. Procedural rules: those necessary to make the court run smoothly (ie. rules of evidence). If forum finds CoL is LC, then apply limitation period of LC (LP is substantive).  PAGEREF _Toc373923627 \h 7  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923628" Intl Assn. v. Hamza (1995) Alta CA Capacity to sue/legal status is procedural, but determined according to laws of an orgs home jurisdiction  PAGEREF _Toc373923628 \h 8  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923629" Success International Inc. v. EEI, 1995 Ont Gen Div Example of application of forum procedural rule capacity to sue of corp, failure to register. Also attempt by Def to characterize cause of action in a different way.  PAGEREF _Toc373923629 \h 8  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923630" 2. Exclusionary Rules (Penal, Revenue, Other Public Law, Inconsistent w/ public policy)  PAGEREF _Toc373923630 \h 8  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923631" Penal  PAGEREF _Toc373923631 \h 9  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923632" Huntington v. Attril, [1893] (PC Ontario) R&E case. Is foreign law penal in nature? Case defines penal, and provides approach for determining if a given law is penal in nature.  PAGEREF _Toc373923632 \h 9  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923633" Revenue  PAGEREF _Toc373923633 \h 9  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923634" USA v harden, 1963 SCC [Authority for exclusionary rule for revenue laws]  PAGEREF _Toc373923634 \h 9  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923635" Stringam v Dubois (1992) AB CA Example of indirect enforcement of US revenue (tax) law.  PAGEREF _Toc373923635 \h 9  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923636" Public Policy  PAGEREF _Toc373923636 \h 10  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923637" Society of Lloyds v. Meinzer (2001), Ont CA in order for a law to fall into public policy exemption, it must relate to fundamental values (ie. principle of justice, good morals/ethics, or some deep rooted tradition of the forum). Is it morally repugnant? Narrowly construed, rarely applied.  PAGEREF _Toc373923637 \h 10  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923638" Kuwait Airways Corp., v. Iraqi Airways Co., [2002] Eng HL Forum public policy/values are always changing, not fixed. Case shows how to deal with foreign rule that violates intl law.  PAGEREF _Toc373923638 \h 11  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923639" Other Public Law  PAGEREF _Toc373923639 \h 11  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923640" Iran v Baracat Galleries, 2007 E CA [whether the law is an assertion of a sovereign state right]  PAGEREF _Toc373923640 \h 11  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923641" United States v. Ivey, (1995) Ont. Gen Div other public law exists as an exclusionary category, but its ambiguous, narrow and difficult to apply. Law will not be enforced if its an exercise of foreign govts sovereign authority over property beyond its territory.  PAGEREF _Toc373923641 \h 11  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923642" 3. Domicile and Residence  PAGEREF _Toc373923642 \h 12  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923643" Domicile  PAGEREF _Toc373923643 \h 12  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923644" Bell v Kennedy, 1868 HL old English case regarding how court approaches determining someones domicile at point in time  PAGEREF _Toc373923644 \h 13  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923645" Agulian v Cyganik, [2006] Eng CA *domicile* standard of proof is clear and unequivocal intention to reside indefinitely; in assessing intent, have to consider whole of persons life/circs; easier to show a change from DC-DC than to show a change from DO-DC  PAGEREF _Toc373923645 \h 13  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923646" Re Urquhart Estate (1990) Ont HC *domicile* Its possible to keep D.C. in a place so long as you had no intention to abandon it permanently  PAGEREF _Toc373923646 \h 13  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923647" National Trust Company Ltd. v Ebro, [1954] Ont HC Rule for determining domicile of corporation: wherever it was incorporated. Law of the domicile is going to govern the internal corporate law of that entity. Can be different place than Centre of Main Interest  PAGEREF _Toc373923647 \h 13  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923648" Residence  PAGEREF _Toc373923648 \h 14  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923649" Chan v Chow (2001 BCCA) *habitual residence* = some period of residence + some settled purpose; cant acquire on arrival. Question of fact.  PAGEREF _Toc373923649 \h 14  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923650" Mark v Mark (2005 Eng HL) *HR and OR are statutory concepts that are interchangeable; meaning can vary with purpose or use; person may be HR in more than one place  PAGEREF _Toc373923650 \h 14  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923651" Adderson v Adderson (1987) Alta CA *habitual residence* cites Eng case on settled purpose; HR refers to quality of residence, duration may be a factor depending on the circs.  PAGEREF _Toc373923651 \h 14  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923652" B. JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM  PAGEREF _Toc373923652 \h 15  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923653" 1. Jurisdiction: JS and TC  PAGEREF _Toc373923653 \h 15  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923654" a. The Constitutional Standard  PAGEREF _Toc373923654 \h 15  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923655" Morguard v. De Savoye (1990) SCC R&E case. Creates a constl standard requiring that courts restrain jurisdiction to actions where there is a R&SC b/w the action and the place; and requiring R&E of actions where there was a R&SC. CL grounds for jurisdiction continue  PAGEREF _Toc373923655 \h 15  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923656" b. Parties within the Jurisdiction  PAGEREF _Toc373923656 \h 15  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923657" Jurisdiction easily met under CL (mere transient presence or submission in the jurisdiction) [Maharanee of Baroda 1972 CA], however s. 3 CJPTA requires ordinary residence  PAGEREF _Toc373923657 \h 15  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923658" c. Parties outside the Jurisdiction (Service ex juris)  PAGEREF _Toc373923658 \h 16  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923659" Moran v. Pyle National Ltd. (1973) SCC *JS case* First time SCC talks about R&SC. Case defines the place of commission of a tort wrt careless manufacture. General rule for establishing JS in tort cases the place in which the damage occurred (s. 10(g) CJPTA))  PAGEREF _Toc373923659 \h 16  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923660" Muscutt v. Courcelles, 2002 Ont CA *Not good law, but important for explaining Van Breda* case sets out factors Ont court should consider in deciding whether to assume jurisdiction (In Stanway, the BCCA put Muscutt to rest in BC, saying that approach had been eclipsed by the factors in CJPTA, s. 10 which create a rebuttable presumption)  PAGEREF _Toc373923660 \h 16  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923661" Spar Aerospace Ltd. v American Mobile Satellite Corp, 2002 SCC Damage is enough to ground jurisdiction in CL provinces, broad jurisdiction rules are constrained by fnc/discretion decision (which is based on R&SC in Morguard); satisfies constl reqts. Also stated in dicta that damage in the province should satisfy R&SC as well  PAGEREF _Toc373923661 \h 16  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923662" Coutu v. Gauthier, 2006 NBCA 16 declines to follow Muscutt b/c that case overlaps JS and FC analysis. Only first factor from Muscutt (connection b/w forum and action) is relevant to JS analysis. Important to have certainty in jurisdiction rules. Where damage occurred is a sufficient R&SC connection to satisfy Morguard.  PAGEREF _Toc373923662 \h 17  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923663" Stanway v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc, 2009 BCCA (post CJPTA enactment) Prior approach (ie. Muscutt) has no application in BC eclipsed by enactment of CJPTA. S. 10 creates mandatory, rebuttable presumption.  PAGEREF _Toc373923663 \h 17  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923664" Club Resorts v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC helps us understand where the floor is for establishing jurisdiction - connection cannot be weak or hypothetical. Traditional bases for jurisdiction still valid, but mere presence of P isnt sufficient for taking jurisdiction need connection. SCC endorses approach taken by BC in CJPTA and CL approach before Muscutt. Provs jurisdiction rules dont have to be uniform.  PAGEREF _Toc373923664 \h 17  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923665" d. Material Facts and Evidence supporting Jurisdiction  PAGEREF _Toc373923665 \h 18  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923666" AG Armeno Mines and Minerals v. Newmont Gold, 2000 BCCA P must show it had a good arguable case for court to take jurisdiction. P or D can produce evidence in support/against  PAGEREF _Toc373923666 \h 18  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923667" MTU Maintenance Canada Ltd. v Kuehne & Nagel, 2007 BCCA 552 To allow the court to find it has TC, you have to put the necessary facts (supporting TC) in your statement of claim, supported by affidavit evidence.  PAGEREF _Toc373923667 \h 18  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923668" 2. Discretion: Stays and Anti-Suit Injunctions (ASIs)  PAGEREF _Toc373923668 \h 19  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923669" a. The English Principles  PAGEREF _Toc373923669 \h 19  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923670" Spiliada Maritime Corp. v Cansulex Ltd., 1987 HL *leading case, binding authority in Eng and Cda** STAYS. Principle: In deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction, court must identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the ends of the parties and for the ends of justice. Burdens on parties are diff. than in Canada.  PAGEREF _Toc373923670 \h 20  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923671" Aerospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak, [1987] PC Test for granting ASI: 1) is this court most appropriate forum (FC/Spiliada principle), and 2) would continuing foreign proceedings be oppressive and vexatious. Exercise caution! Court will not grant ASI if it would deprive P of advantage in foreign forum of which it would be unjust to deprive him.  PAGEREF _Toc373923671 \h 20  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923672" Airbus v. Patel et al., 1999 HL Ability to grant ASI requires jurisdiction over the parties, and over the cause of action!  PAGEREF _Toc373923672 \h 20  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923673" b. Canadian Principles  PAGEREF _Toc373923673 \h 21  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923674" Amchem Products Inc. v BC (WCB), 1993 SCC *Frequently cited for stays, FC and discretion (ASIs arent applied very often). Draws on the English authorities. Provides steps/rule for deciding ASI issue. Major modification of burden of proof: always on D  PAGEREF _Toc373923674 \h 21  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923675" Young v. Tyco Intl of Canada Ltd., 2008 ONCA Case provides list of factors courts generally consider in deciding fnc. Case provides three principles related to fnc motions. 1) Standard to displace Ps choice of forum is high, 2) balancing of factors should achieve justice and efficiency, 3) Prudential approach to fact finding at this stage accept Ps facts if reasonable and supported.  PAGEREF _Toc373923675 \h 22  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923676" Teck Cominco v. Lloyds, 2007 BCCA Helpful analysis of how CJPTA works. S. 11 codifies the CL, provides non-exhaustive list of relevant factors court should consider in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction. References and approves of SCCs approach to parallel proceedings in Amchem (judicial review of other court).  PAGEREF _Toc373923676 \h 22  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923677" Teck Cominco v. Lloyds, 2009 SCC SCC says s. 11 not ousted when other court has decided it is the most appropriate forum (declines to stay). This is not conclusive but should be given great weight by domestic court. S. 11 is a complete codification of CL, governs discretion.  PAGEREF _Toc373923677 \h 23  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923678" Van Breda, 2012 SCC fnc confirms burden is always on the D, but muddles rule principle behind exercise of jurisdiction (LeBel says if you take JS you ordinarily should retain jurisdiction). This is inconsistent with the CL approach.  PAGEREF _Toc373923678 \h 23  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923679" c. Jurisdiction Selecting Clauses  PAGEREF _Toc373923679 \h 23  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923680" ECU Line v. Pompey, 2003 SCC Where it appears K is breached, court tends to still uphold JSC allow jurisdiction whose law applies determine if theres been a fundamental breach. SCC decides to follow Eng line of cases, creates order and fairness consistent with Morguard. Presence of JSC is a factor to consider at discretion stage in deciding whether to issue stay. Burden is on P (contrary to Amchem). Problematic in BC?  PAGEREF _Toc373923680 \h 24  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923681" Momentous.ca Corp v. Canadian American Assocn of Professional Baseball, 2012 SCC Edinger: this case screws things up. Court however seems to conclude that Pompey was correct.  PAGEREF _Toc373923681 \h 24  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923682" C. CLASS ACTIONS  PAGEREF _Toc373923682 \h 25  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923683" Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp., 2000 BCCA CA will take a flexible approach to jurisdiction in class proceedings; not apply rigid test. Out-of province Ps should be allowed to opt into class proceedings in BC bc common issue gives them a R&SC; and allowing this coincides with order and fairness in Morguard.  PAGEREF _Toc373923683 \h 25  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923684" Ward v. Canada, 2007 MBCA 123 Traditional CL bases for jurisdiction continue to operate. In assessing fnc, look at normal factors AND juridical advantage.  PAGEREF _Toc373923684 \h 26  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923685" D. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF IN PERSONAM JUDGMENTS (PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY)  PAGEREF _Toc373923685 \h 26  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923686" 1. Pecuniary Judgments: Common Law  PAGEREF _Toc373923686 \h 27  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923687" a. Final and Conclusive  PAGEREF _Toc373923687 \h 27  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923688" Nouvion v Freeman (1889), HL [meaning of final and conclusive for CL R&E of foreign judgments]  PAGEREF _Toc373923688 \h 27  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923689" b. Jurisdiction in the International Sense (Presence, Submission and R&SC)  PAGEREF _Toc373923689 \h 27  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923690" Forbes v. Simmons (1914) Alberta SC - mere physical present is sufficient to give crt jurisdiction  PAGEREF _Toc373923690 \h 27  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923691" First Natl Bank of Houston v. Houston E&C, 1990 BCCA [Submission is objectively determined; can submit without intention, or on bad legal advice, unless lawyer acted completely w/o authority]  PAGEREF _Toc373923691 \h 28  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923692" Clinton v. Ford (1982) Ont CA [involuntary submission? can protest foreign court taking jurisdiction and object to property seizure, but cant defend on the merits]  PAGEREF _Toc373923692 \h 28  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923693" Mid-Ohio v. Tri-K Investments (1995) BCCA Did case change the CL or interpret BCSC rule at that time? If it changed CL, then D has not submitted if he only makes JS and fnc arguments. If case was interpretation of BCSC rule, then new BC SC civil rule 21-8(5) prevails (cant argue fnc)  PAGEREF _Toc373923693 \h 28  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923694" Morguard Investments v. De Savoye, (1990) SCC supports R&E of Cnd judgments provided there was a R&SC b/w the action and the originating province; traditional CL basis for jurisdiction continue  PAGEREF _Toc373923694 \h 29  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923695" Beals v Saldanha, 2003 SCC R&E did FL have jurisdiction in an intl sense? SCC extends Morguard/R&SC to foreign judgments; makes R&SC the only test for finding jurisdiction for R&E of foreign judgments (traditional CL bases N/A). R&SC for foreign judgments requires higher connection (substantial/significant, vs minimal connection for Cnd judgments).  PAGEREF _Toc373923695 \h 29  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923696" Braintech v Kostiuk, 1991 BCCA Court adopts American R&E principle for deciding R&SC not met when corp has mere transitory presence, vs purposeful commercial activity in that place  PAGEREF _Toc373923696 \h 30  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923697" 2. Non-Pecuniary Judgments: Common Law  PAGEREF _Toc373923697 \h 30  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923698" Pro Swing Inc v. Elta Golf Inc., 2006 SCC Foreign equitable orders are now eligible for R&E, but must be sufficiently clear and specific and not penal in nature  PAGEREF _Toc373923698 \h 30  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923699" 3. Defences to R&E: The exclusionary rules, fraud, and breach of natural justice  PAGEREF _Toc373923699 \h 31  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923700" Beals v Saldhana, 2003 SCC Sets out the traditional CL defences: fraud, breach of natural justice, contrary to forum public policy defences arent exhaustive.  PAGEREF _Toc373923700 \h 31  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923701" 4. R&E of Class Actions  PAGEREF _Toc373923701 \h 31  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923702" Currie v MacDonalds Restaurants, 2005 Ont CA whether Cnd crt should R&E a foreign class action judgment. Depends on 1) jurisdiction (R&SC), 2) adequate representation of non-residents, and 3) procedural fairness (adequate notice). Breach of NJ can impact R&E.  PAGEREF _Toc373923702 \h 31  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923703" Canada Post v. Lepine, 2009 SCC - Notice is critical. Notice has to be in the right places so the intended recipients will see it, receive it, and will actually be able to understand it.  PAGEREF _Toc373923703 \h 32  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923704" Meeking v Cash Store Inc., 2013 MBCA [raising national settlement as a defence]  PAGEREF _Toc373923704 \h 32  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923705" 5. Statutory Regimes for R&E  PAGEREF _Toc373923705 \h 33  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923706" a. Judgment and Orders  PAGEREF _Toc373923706 \h 33  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923707" 1. Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act limited to Canadian judgments (but not every prov has enacted it); applies to pecuniary, NP (equitable) and possibly in-rem orders. Eliminates some CL defences. Built in LP.  PAGEREF _Toc373923707 \h 33  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923708" Court Order Enforcement Act, Part II requires that BC have entered into agmt w/ other jurisdiction (**Reciprocal**); All Cnd provinces except QC have enacted this. Strict 30 day period for judgment debtor to object (30 days). All defences available.  PAGEREF _Toc373923708 \h 34  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923709" Central Guaranty Trust v De Luca, 1995 NWTR (SC) Example of case where limitation period in COEA determined outcome of the case (allows P to register judgment against D), despite defences available and despite courts effort to read in Morguard. Dont expect original judgment will have jurisdiction based on R&SC.  PAGEREF _Toc373923709 \h 34  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923710" Re Carrick Estates and Young (1987), Sask CA (COEA may require more than transient presence; Sask CA agreed that BC judgment served to person transiently in BC should not be registered based on statutory language)  PAGEREF _Toc373923710 \h 35  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923711" Owen v Rocketinfo Inc., 2008 BCCA 502 [disallowed chaining of judgments for registration under COEA; can only register original judgments]  PAGEREF _Toc373923711 \h 35  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923712" b. Arbitral Awards  PAGEREF _Toc373923712 \h 35  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923713" Shreter v. Gasmac Inc. (1992) Ont Gen Div Enforcement of a foreign arbitration award based on provl statute; case highlights statutory defences available to D to prevent R&E, as well as CL defences (Breach of NJ or contrary to forum public policy could apply)  PAGEREF _Toc373923713 \h 35  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923714" E. JURISDICTION AND R&E: IN REM ACTIONS  PAGEREF _Toc373923714 \h 36  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923715" Hogg v. Provincial Tax Commissioner, 1941 Sask CA Process: where is property located? 2) Foreign (not forum) characterization of property as moveable or immoveable. BC law characterizes mortgages as immoveables.  PAGEREF _Toc373923715 \h 36  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923716" British South Africa Co v. Companhia de Mocambique, 1893 Eng HL domestic court has no jurisdiction over actions concerning title or trespass to foreign land.  PAGEREF _Toc373923716 \h 37  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923717" Hesperides Hotels Ltd. v Muftizade, 1979 Eng HL HL refuses to reargue Mocambique. Court has no jurisdiction to hear an action re: title to immoveables (even framed differently)  PAGEREF _Toc373923717 \h 37  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923718" Lucas Film v Ainsworth, 2011 UKSC [UKSC refused to extend Mocambique to IP claims/foreign breach of copyright]  PAGEREF _Toc373923718 \h 37  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923719" Godley v Coles, 1988 Ont Div Crt Mocambique should be restricted to its facts (where title to land is in dispute); shouldnt preclude other (ie. tort) actions that relate to foreign immoveable property (ie. where some damage has occurred unclear what some means.)  PAGEREF _Toc373923719 \h 38  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923720" Exceptions to Mocambique rule per Dicey  PAGEREF _Toc373923720 \h 38  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923721" Ward v. Coffin, 1972 NBSC App Div highlights contract exception to Mocambique rule.  PAGEREF _Toc373923721 \h 38  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923722" Duke v Andler, 1932 SCC Cnd courts arent going to R&E foreign in rem actions dealing with local immoveable property (Mocambique)  PAGEREF _Toc373923722 \h 38  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923723" F. CHOICE OF LAW  PAGEREF _Toc373923723 \h 39  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923724" 1. Renvoi and the Incidental Question  PAGEREF _Toc373923724 \h 40  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923725" Taxanowska v Taxanowski, 1957 Eng Example where Eng Crt employed partial renvoi to try to uphold (validity) a marriage.  PAGEREF _Toc373923725 \h 40  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923726" Re Annesley, 1926 Eng Ch early example of total renvoi/foreign court theory. Renvoi is alive and well in succession  PAGEREF _Toc373923726 \h 41  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923727" Neilson v. OPC Ltd, 2005 HC Australia New juridical category for renvoi: torts. Thus if a tort occurred in a foreign jurisdiction, have to look to see what that jurisdiction would do.  PAGEREF _Toc373923727 \h 41  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923728" Scwebel v Ungar, 1965 SCC Case contained an incidental question  PAGEREF _Toc373923728 \h 42  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923729" 2. Marriage  PAGEREF _Toc373923729 \h 42  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923730" Brook v Brook (1891) HL Changed traditional CL rule re: validity of marriage. Distinguishes b/w formal validity (governed by law of the place of celebration) and essential validity.  PAGEREF _Toc373923730 \h 43  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923731" Canada v Narwal, [1990] FCA Example where court applies intended matrimonial home test (in spirit) to essential validity of the marriage (to find it valid despite affinity issues in Eng/India)  PAGEREF _Toc373923731 \h 43  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923732" Sangha v Mander, [1985] BCSC Court canvases all the possible CoL rules re essential validity of marriage (regarding impotence)  PAGEREF _Toc373923732 \h 44  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923733" Vervaeke v. Smith, 1982 HL raises validity issue regarding consent to marry (sham marriages)  PAGEREF _Toc373923733 \h 44  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923734" 3. Torts  PAGEREF _Toc373923734 \h 45  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923735" Tolofson v Jensen, 1994 SCC Tort CoL rule law of the place where the tort occurred (lex loci delicti). International exceptions may warrant an exemption; in such case law of forum to apply.  PAGEREF _Toc373923735 \h 45  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923736" Somers v. Fournier, 2000 Ont CA Intl exception requires intl facts and that an injustice would occur if exemption (from lex loci delicti) was not applied. Characterization of costs, etc.  PAGEREF _Toc373923736 \h 45  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923737" Editions Ecosociete v Banro, 2012 SCC court says T v J left room for creation of exceptions (to lex loci delicti) for particular torts (ie. defamation). Suggests place of most substantial harm to the reputation as CoL rule for defamation.  PAGEREF _Toc373923737 \h 46  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923738" 4. Contracts  PAGEREF _Toc373923738 \h 46  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923739" a. The Proper Law  PAGEREF _Toc373923739 \h 47  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923740" Vita Foods v Unus Shipping, [1939] PC on appeal from Canada How to determine proper law of the k, how to deal with express CoL clauses; how to deal with other laws incorporated by reference; how to deal with illegality argument (what laws are relevant?)  PAGEREF _Toc373923740 \h 47  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923741" Richardson International v Chikhacheva, 2002 FCA Case provides factors which are relevant to determining proper law based on subjective intention of parties (No CoL clause)  PAGEREF _Toc373923741 \h 47  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923742" Imperial Life Assurance v Colmenares (1967) SCC In determining proper law, where K was made is not determinative. Proper law of the K is determined by considering K as a whole, in light of all circs surrounding it, applying the law with which it appears to have the closest and most substantial connection  PAGEREF _Toc373923742 \h 48  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923743" Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v. Kuwait Insurance, 1984 Eng HL Distinguishes b/w subjectively implied and objectively ascertained proper law  PAGEREF _Toc373923743 \h 48  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923744" b. Exceptions to application of proper law: Formation, Formalities and Illegality (rules of mandatory application)  PAGEREF _Toc373923744 \h 49  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923745" Mackender v. Feldia AG, 1967 Eng QB CA Formation is there a K? forum law applies. Issue of illegality.  PAGEREF _Toc373923745 \h 49  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923746" Greenshields Inc. v Johnson (1981) AB QB K did not meet formality of forum law (where K was entered into). AB is jurisdiction w/ alternative reference rule; K is valid per proper law of K (Ontario). QB characterized formality as law of substance, and applied proper law of K (ont) finding K valid.  PAGEREF _Toc373923746 \h 50  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923747" Avenue Properties, 1986 BCCA in deciding most appropriate forum, court considers strong juridical advantage P gets in BC b/c of law of mandatory application (governing real estate Ks), which would render K illegal/unenforceable.  PAGEREF _Toc373923747 \h 51  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923748" Pearson v Boliden, 2002 BCCA Any misrepresentation in a securities prospectus is governed by the law of the province regulating it, which has constl jurisdiction. Court decides appropriate CoL rule by engaging with statutory interpretation.  PAGEREF _Toc373923748 \h 51  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923749" Gillespie Management Corp v. Terrace Properties, 1989 BCCA Illegality by the lex loci salutionus (law of the place of performance) is relevant, and may be a good defence. Where we have a similar law, we better enforce their law (holding K unenforceable, so dont enforce it).  PAGEREF _Toc373923749 \h 52  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923750" 5. Unjust Enrichment  PAGEREF _Toc373923750 \h 52  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923751" Christopher v. Zimmerman (2000) BCCA Adopts Dicey rule regarding Unj Enrichment  PAGEREF _Toc373923751 \h 53  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923752" Minera Aquiline Argentina SA v. IMA Exploration Inc, 2006 BCSC (affd 2007 BCCA) Can use principled approach to decide which rule in Dicey applies in a given case law of the place w/ the closets and most real connection  PAGEREF _Toc373923752 \h 53  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923753" Exhibit 1: CJPTA  PAGEREF _Toc373923753 \h 54  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923754" s. 3 (Factors for establishing TC); 6 (residual discretion); 10 (Factors for establishing R&SC); 11 (discretion as to the exercise of TC)  PAGEREF _Toc373923754 \h 54  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923755" Exhibit 2: BC Supreme Court Civil Rules  PAGEREF _Toc373923755 \h 55  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc373923756" Rules 4-5 (Service Outside BC), Rule 19-4 (Transfer of Proceedings from Foreign Courts), and Rule 21-8 (Jurisdictional Disputes)  PAGEREF _Toc373923756 \h 55  A. SOME GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Characterization: Substance and Procedure Characterization important issue to think about, at all points in the case. Can affect whether court has jurisdiction, whether it is FC, what law applies, etc.) Each cause of action (torts, contracts, etc.) has different choice of law rules. You engage in characterization by choosing your causes of action, and in deciding whether a given rule is substantive or procedural 3 stages in a conflicts case: 1) jurisdiction (JS/TC + FNC) 2) trial on the merits/choice of law 3) where judgment can be recognized/enforced Important terminology Forum place where the action is commenced lex fori law of the forum (conflicts rules and substantive law) Conspiracy of silence: neither side raises any conflicts issues Lex causae law of another jurisdiction selected by choice of law rule Important to keep in mind Lex fori characterization of a legal problem governs (FORUM CHARACTERIZATION (except for classifying property as moveable or immoveable (Hogg)) Imagine you have a lex fori rule and a lex causae rule, it may turn out there are 4 possible characterization combinations. You have to be (make the judge) alert of all the possibilities. Applies?Lex fori characterizes rules asApplies?Lex causae characterizes rule as:XProceduralProceduralSubstantiveXsubstantiveneitherSubstantiveneitherProceduralbothproceduralBothsubstantiveEvery jurisdiction has its own procedural rules. Forum NEVER applies lex causae procedural rules. The point is you have to think it through and argue for one of the top two combinations bottom two dont work Tolofson v Jensen provides the modern approach for characterizing a rule as substantive vs procedural. One rule that often varies between jurisdictions is limitation periods. Tolofson v Jensen, [1994] SCC provides modern approach to characterization of rules as substance or procedure ( preference against classifying as procedural/in favour of forum. Procedural rules: those necessary to make the court run smoothly (ie. rules of evidence). If forum finds CoL is LC, then apply limitation period of LC (LP is substantive). F: Motor vehicle accident occurred in Sask, b/w Mr. Jensen (Sask resident) and Mr. Tolofson plus his 12yr old son Kim (both BC residents) 8 years later Kim has attained age of majority and brings an action in BC in negligence (tort). Limitation period had expired in Sask and BC allowed him to sue based in simple negligence (while in Sask had to sue for gross negligence) If you classify BC limitation period as procedural, and SK limitation period as procedural, BC applies its own procedural rules. I: How should we characterize limitation periods? SCC, LaForest: Choice of law rules are too forum centric; we should be applying LC more often. Adopted a lex situs rule: when theres a tort action, any CL court in Canada has to apply the lex situs the law of the place where the tort occurred. In this case, there was no doubt the tort occurred in Sk, so Sk law should apply. For Kim Tolofson it meant that if the lex situs is the lex causae then he has to establish gross negligence on the part of his father. Does the SK limitation period apply? BC was the forum where the action was started so BC procedural laws should apply. Is LP procedural? Change approach, and be prepared to apply more of the LC. LaForest 1) reclassifies limitation periods generally, and 2) gives us a new approach to classification: We should have a bias against classifying in our favour. If in doubt do not classify a rule/law as procedural. Do not prefer LF to LC. Only characterize those rules as procedural that we need to make the court run smoothly. ( Always apply the Lex Causae limitation periods. If the merits should be decided by a foreign LC then we should apply their limitation period. Next two cases: Both cases involve application of a forum procedural rule. Theres no characterization problem. Issue relates to who has capacity to sue and be sued. In both cases the argument is that the plaintiff in the action has no standing to sue, because there has been a failure to comply with a relevant forum procedural rule. Intl Assn. v. Hamza (1995) Alta CA Capacity to sue/legal status is procedural, but determined according to laws of an orgs home jurisdictionF: Husband/wife getting divorce; matrimonial dispute over property. Husband sheltered assets in Swiss organization. Wife sought division of property. Swiss organization sought a declaration from Alta court that neither wife nor husband had legal or equitable interest in the assets (that it owns all the property). Org is a society incorporated in Switzerland; its not a corporation or natural person. Wife sought to strike orgs action on basis that it lacked the legal status to sue in AB. I: what constitutes status to sue in Alberta? Alta CA: The CA considers the application of its own forum procedural rule and recognized it didnt give the org standing to sue in AB But capacity to sue/legal status/legal personality has to be determined according to foreign LC law in the orgs home jurisdiction. The law supports granting of status in cases where the entity in question is recognized as a legal or juridical person by the laws of its home jurisdiction, in the sense of having status to sue. The principle of comity of nations appears to further strengthen that position Thus the court examined Swiss law. Under that law, the society has status/capacity to sue and be sued. Success International Inc. v. EEI, 1995 Ont Gen Div Example of application of forum procedural rule capacity to sue of corp, failure to register. Also attempt by Def to characterize cause of action in a different way. F: NY corp (Success International) contracts with Ontario corp (EEI). NY corp invokes arbitration clause in K. Arbitration orders OntCorp to modify the packaging operations, but it fails to comply. NY corp commences action in Ontario to get a court order enforcing arbitral order, but OntCorp tries to defend by saying NY corp didnt register as carrying on business in Ontario. Court agrees that NY corp failed to register; sanction for failing to register was that provincial legislation constrained the status of the unregistered corp to sue (not an absolute, but barred party from bringing an action wrt a K). Registration is rule of procedure, so we apply our own law, and thus NYCorp should have no standing to enforce the arbitral order. Issue: plaintiffs standing to sue Ability of foreign corporations to sue in Ontario where their corporate status in Ontario is in doubt Meaning of carrying on business in Ontario according to Extra Provincial Corporations Act, RSO 1990 (EPCA) Court: NYCorp attempted to reclassify cause of action argued it isnt a K action or in connection with a K, but rather an action to enforce an arbitration award. FAIL, court didnt buy it. Success also tried to argue they werent carrying on business in Ontario, only conducting one commercial transaction in Ontario, but FAIL court didnt buy it (they had extensive operations in Ontario). Court finds they ought to have registered, and thus they didnt have capacity to sue. Success case is an example of an application of forum procedural rule. Interpretation of that rule. Its of interest from the perspective of characterization, b/c of the attempt to characterize the cause of action. 2. Exclusionary Rules (Penal, Revenue, Other Public Law, Inconsistent w/ public policy) Relevant to: choice of law and R&E Characterizing a given rule allows you to determine if exclusionary rules apply Exclusionary rules (from Dicey) Rule 3 English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action For the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue, or other public law of a foreign state Rule 2 English courts will note enforce or recognize a right, power, capacity, disability or legal relationship arising under the law of a foreign country, if the enforcement or recognition of such . would be inconsistent with the public policy of England Rules phrased in English terms but apply equally in BC and other Canadian provinces ( Penal and revenue rules, pretty easy to apply, neither comes up very often. Revenue laws are occasionally attempted to be enforced indirectly, but those cases are limited. Public policy is the type of rule that gets invoked and applied over and over again. Cases where it has been successful is few in number, but its frequently invoked. Pretty high standard. Other public law gets invoked but its rarely applied, you have to be desperate. Penal Huntington v. Attril, [1893] (PC Ontario) R&E case. Is foreign law penal in nature? Case defines penal, and provides approach for determining if a given law is penal in nature. F: NY plaintiff (Huntington) sues Ontario resident (Attril) for debt based on NY statute. Ont Def says NY statute is penal, cant be applied in Ontario court. Ontario court says no, the NY provision making director/officers J&S liable for material misrepresentations are protective and remedial in nature, not penal. I: whether the foreign law was penal, and whether that would prevent it from being enforced in an Ontario court Lord Watson: Correct approach is forum characterization of the lex causae rule whether its penal Why? We want internal consistency we want similar types of laws to be treated in the same way by the forum, ie. to be considered penal or not in the forum. Meaning of Penal ( Very ambiguous What is the correct definition of penal? Its really meant to distinguish civil rights from criminal wrongs Proper test for excluding enforcement of penal laws abroad: in order to come within the scope of the rule, a proceeding must be in the nature of a suit in favour of the state whose law has been infringed, including judgments for such penalties. How do you decide if a given rule falls within the forum definition of penal? Look at the whole of the law. Consider how NY would characterize it (LC characterization), however not bound by LC characterization. The statutory rule in question states the penalty is recoverable in the name of the people of the state of N.Y. by the D.A. Imposes a penalty heavy liability on directors But its civil in nature its providing a remedy to creditors whose rights have been injured by the companys officers not enforceable by the state or the public. The provisions are protective. Court finds that the enactments are conditions upon which the Legislature permits associations to trade and are an implied term of every K b/w the corporation and its creditors NOT PENAL Therefore Ontario court will R&E the judgment. Revenue Revenue = tax ( we dont want to enforce another states revenue laws Theres rarely doubt whether something is or isnt a revenue law - includes all forms of taxation, all forms of government. Leading Canadian case on revenue laws is the USA v Harden USA v harden, 1963 SCC [Authority for exclusionary rule for revenue laws] Canadian court was asked to enforce California judgment. SCC: we dont enforce anyone elses revenue laws. This is clearly a tax law, just because you call it a settlement its not the correct characterization. Case: pretty close example of direct enforcement Case is Canadian authority for the exclusionary rule for revenue laws. Indirect enforcement cases are more problematic, as in Stringam v Dubois Stringam v Dubois (1992) AB CA Example of indirect enforcement of US revenue (tax) law. F: testator domiciled in Arizona leaves a farm in AB to her niece. Executor wants to sell the farm to pay apportioned share of US estate tax. She opposes this and asks AB court to convey the farm to her. I: Would selling the farm be indirect enforcement of a foreign tax law? Alta CA: What is the nature or substance of the proceedings? AB court found it is the indirect enforcement of the tax laws of the US, thus the rule against enforcement should be applied. Property should be conveyed to niece, free and clear. Additionally, case law supports that the administrator is only to pay those debts, taxes and duties which the law mandates, the law being of the forum. In this case there is no AB law requiring the administrator pay the US taxes Edinger: Case may have been decided differently if the executor had already paid the estate tax and was seeking reimbursement (as in Re Reid, 1970 BCCA) . The point of this case is not that this is the result that will always occur; its an example of a difficult indirect claim. It reviews the relevant cases (including some BC cases that have gone the other way  Public Policy Both cases, Lloyds and Kuwait, are authority for public policy as an exclusionary rule Public Policy is something we cant define precisely. In order to be excluded, law must relate to fundamental values of the forum values that are ethical or moral (Lloyds, Kuwait). Its got to be a moral law that turns the stomach of the court. It has to be something we cant stand. (Kuwait) Its narrowly construed, and rarely applied (Lloyds) Rule should only be exercised exceptionally, where to do otherwise would affront basic principles of justice and fairness (Kuwait) Its not enough to say the foreign law is contrary to forum public policy ( have to show what public policy its contrary to what moral values Its a very open ended exclusionary rule, its worth trying. But if youre defending against it, you have to hold the other side to a high standard. Kuwait case shows us how to deal with a foreign rule that violates intl law. Note, we tend to recognize confiscatory laws but the problem with Kuwait was the confiscation took place when Iraq invaded Kuwait (rather than confiscation of assets in a countrys own bounds) Society of Lloyds v. Meinzer (2001), Ont CA in order for a law to fall into public policy exemption, it must relate to fundamental values (ie. principle of justice, good morals/ethics, or some deep rooted tradition of the forum). Is it morally repugnant? Narrowly construed, rarely applied.Facts: Ontario residents entered into investment K with English company Lloyds, in England. K had clauses stipulating England for choice of forum and CoL. Ontario residents brought action to have K rescinded on the basis of fraud. Ontario stayed action so it could be heard in England. Lloyds obtained judgment in England against Ontario investors and applied for R&E of judgments in Ontario. The Ontario investors argued R&E should be denied on the basis that it would violate Ontario public policy to enforce a judgment obtained in the UK, that would have failed if brought in Ontario b/c Lloyds traded securities in Ontario in breach of statutory requirements (per the Securities Act, which mandates minimum disclosure requirements). Ont CA: What is public policy? It is reflected in the total body of constitutional, statutory and case law of the forum; reflects the local sense of justice and public welfare. When should R&E of a foreign law be denied? The fact that foreign law differs from lex fori is not enough The matter must relate to fundamental values (ie. principle of justice, conception of good morals/ethics, or some deep rooted tradition of the forum) The trend in jurisprudence is that the public policy exemption is to be narrowly construed and rarely applied The issue here is whether to enforce judgments when the party seeking enforcement acknowledged breaching the Ontario Securities Act prospectus requirement. Is it morally repugnant? Should the concept of public policy be broadened to encompass a breach of this nature? Prospectus requirement is fundamentally important for the orderly, fair and reliable operation of our financial markets. Thus condoning a break of this obligation would be contrary to the public policy of Ontario. However, cant exactly view the requirement as a moral imperative but in considering whether it falls within fundamental values and essential principles of justice, court says protection of our capital markets and public investors is a fundamental value. But whether enforcement of the UK judgments should be denied depends on whether enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of Ontario by considering the historical and factual context of the proceedings which led to the granting of the judgment, and where there are competing public policy imperatives, whether overall, registration would be contrary to public policy. The court also considered an earlier Ontario decision regarding choice of forum for another Lloyds law suit. The court found that the court did not consider, as a factor, that the UK judgment could not be R&E in Ontario as contrary to public policy. That earlier case determined that it would not be contrary to the public policy of Ontario to enforce a judgment which may have condoned a breach of the Securities Act The court also considered the principles of international comity. Various cases have heard similar issues and agreed that the English courts should hear and decide the matter, and should be enforced in each jurisdiction. It would create chaos if some investors were allowed to rescind their contracts. Conclusion: The result reached in the English courts is a sensible one. In that context, our public policy of enforcing the rules of comity where justice, necessity and convenience all favour enforcement, outweighs the concerns we might otherwise have where there has been a breach of the prospectus requirement of the Securities Act. Kuwait Airways Corp., v. Iraqi Airways Co., [2002] Eng HL Forum public policy/values are always changing, not fixed. Case shows how to deal with foreign rule that violates intl law.F: Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and took various assets, including 10 commercial airplanes belonging to Kuwait Airways Corp (KAC). Iraq enacted a law/resolution to dissolve KAC and transfer ownership into Iraqi Airways Co (IAC). Later the UN ordered Iraq out of Kuwait. In 1991, KAC took legal action against IAC in England, seeking damages (tort action for conversion). HL applies conflicts rule relevant to torts. KAC had to meet double actionability/double-barrel test that IACs acts were civilly actionable under the law of the country where they occurred (Iraq), and if they had occurred in England. IAC argued that KAC couldnt meet first part of test because resolution was a law in Iraq. KAC countered that the English courts should disregard the resolution as contrary to forum public policy. Court: KAC argues that public policy requires the English court to disregard the resolution passed by Iraq. Court reiterates that it can exclude foreign law in exceptional circs where it would lead to a result contrary to public policy, that is if it would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition. Rule should only be exercised exceptionally, where to do otherwise would affront basic principles of justice and fairness The question in this case is whether the Iraqi resolution is of this character. On the one hand, it called for seizure of another countrys assets, in flagrant violation of international law (per UN). Eng courts should have regard to the content of intl law in deciding whether to recognize a foreign law. On the other hand, breach of intl law by a state should not be ground for refusing to recognize a foreign degree. Its not the place of foreign courts to adjudicate on the legality/validity/acceptability of acts by (foreign) govt. Should the English court, as a matter of public policy, decline to recognize Iraqs resolution? The court finds that it should decline to recognize it because In judging the foreign law (resolution) against contemporary standards and established rules of intl law, Iraqs invasion into Kuwait and seizure of assets was clearly not acceptable by todays standards. It would cause deep concern to the world wide community of nations Enforcement would be contrary to Englands obligations under the UN Charter Other Public Law Iran v Baracat Galleries, 2007 E CA [whether the law is an assertion of a sovereign state right] Other public law defence was raised CA traces history of it from Dicey, and suggests that examples of other public law would be exchange control legislation and export controls. Its really got to be the state acting. The question is whether the law is an assertion of a sovereign state right United States v. Ivey, (1995) Ont. Gen Div other public law exists as an exclusionary category, but its ambiguous, narrow and difficult to apply. Law will not be enforced if its an exercise of foreign govts sovereign authority over property beyond its territory.F: USA asks Ontario to enforce Michigan judgment for costs of environmental remediation. Def tried various defences: US court lacked personal jurisdiction, the judgment was based on a penal, revenue or other public law of a foreign state, breach of natural justice, and contrary to public policy. I: Should Ont decline R&E of the judgments b/c the laws were penal, revenue or other public law in nature, or because it would be contrary to the public policy of Ontario? Court: Penal? Court cites Huntington v. Attrill for meaning of penal and finds rule in question creates a reimbursement obligation. Its restitutionary in nature, wrt to the environment. Revenue? Not a taxation scheme its a reimbursement for costs Other public law? Case doesnt offer much about definition or scope. The court says it is a category that exists. Its very narrow and very ambiguous. The general rule relates to the idea that laws will not be enforced if they involve an exercise by a government of its sovereign authority over property beyond its territory The court notes that Canadian authority on the issue is sparse The court rejects the defendants public law argument because in this case the US is not trying to exercise jurisdiction over Canadian property. This case does not fall within the circs of previously established cases. This is not a case where the public law defence/exception should be expanded. Court comments that comity is highly important. Given the prevalence of regulatory schemes aimed at envtl protection and control in North America, considerations of comity strongly favour enforcement Natural Justice? Defendants argue they werent allowed to participate in the legal process that found them liable. Court finds that the legislations purpose was to deal with matters of urgency and the defendants didnt avail themselves of the actual procedural protections that were in place. Contrary to Public policy? (Not smart to raise this when forum has the same public policy) This argument fails because 1) it was already mostly dealt with under natural justice argument, and 2) the public policy defence is rarely applied; it is construed narrowly; no authority provided to support its application here Ontario legislation has almost same legislation as US so not contrary to forum public policy. All of the defences failed and the court enforced the judgment. 3. Domicile and Residence Relevant to jurisdiction and CoL, and occasionally used for R&E Reflects connection b/w the person (natural or corporate) and a jurisdiction. CL uses domicile, civil law insists on nationality. Each connecting factor of domicile and nationality have obvious weaknesses. We want uniform conflicts rules. The UN comes up with conventions that they want countries to sign on to. They want the conflicts rules to be uniform. The compromise that the Hague conventions tend to come up with, and is making its way into our provincial statutes, is habitual residence its a cross between the two. The law is in a state of flux. We have old traditional CL and civil law. Weve got more countries signing onto Hague conventions. Weve got provincial legislation which uses different connecting factors in different statutes. We will cover domicile, habitual residence, domicile of corporation, and ordinary residence (no case on this one). Domicile Domicile is the traditional CL connecting factor for many CoL rules. BC legislature like other provincial legislatures hasnt changed much by way of CoL rules (exception is Family Law Act) Domicile has various deficiencies can be domiciled in a place youve never been, or not acquire domicile in a place youve lived for a very long time For most CoL rules, youll have to establish domicile at a particular point of time. Everybody has a domicile at every point in time (In Canada, at any point in time we have two federal and provincial domicile) Apart from federal citizens, the CL says you can only have one domicile at a time Three kinds of domicile: Domicile of origin C.L. says D.O. is the domicile you acquire at the moment of your birth Permanent in C.L.; cant abandon it Its the domicile/place of your father (for legitimate children) at the moment of your birth (not necessarily the place he physically was) It can revive if you abandon a D.C. (Bell v. Kennedy) Domicile of dependency For children, it tracks the domicile of your father until you reach the age of majority. Historically applied to married women and tracked domicile of husband. Not every jurisdiction in the world allows married women to determine own domicile (this was overruled in BC in 1985, but Canada hasnt legislated it). Domicile of choice when a person reaches the age of majority, the person is capable of acquiring a D.C. Can abandon an old D.C. without acquiring a new one, but difficult to do. Necessary state of mind is narrowly defined (in Urquhart). Probably need to leave the D.C. with an intention never to return (to live); intention to abandon DC permanently (Urquhart). May be enough to leave with an absence of a positive intention to return. Its a bit unclear in the cases whether it has to be an intention to never return, or if the absence of a positive intention to return is enough. Dicey: A person abandons a D.C. in a country by ceasing to reside there and by ceasing to intend to reside there permanently or indefinitely (in Urquhart). its easier to show a change from D.C. to D.C. than it is to show a change from D.O. to D.C.(Agulian). In order to establish domicile, you must have concurrently/at the same point in time: Physical presence/presence ( very easy to establish Coupled with intent to stay indefinitely; necessary state of mind ( more difficult to establish clear and unequivocal intention to reside indefinitely (Agulian) Can be met if you arrive at a place and want to remain there (advantage is it can be instantly acquired) Necessary intent is also defined as the absence of a positive intention (ie. to leave) in the event of a clearly foreseen and reasonably anticipated contingency (ie. Law school is ending but you lack a positive intention to stay) Have to examine every circumstance of that persons life. (Agulian) Standard of proof required: its a civil standard/burden. The burden of proof is always on the party who is asserting that there has been a change of domicile (Agulian) There have been some attempts to modernize concept of domicile Eliminate revival of D.O. To create presumptions about domicile so its easier to establish domicile (except this hasnt happened in BC except domicile of dependency for women) Bell v Kennedy, 1868 HL old English case regarding how court approaches determining someones domicile at point in timeFacts: Mrs. Bs daughter Mrs. K seeks a variation of her mothers will following her death. Prior to Mrs. Bs death, she had lived with husband for ~20yrs in Jamaica. Had recently moved back to Scotland following political changes in Jamaica. Unclear what couples intention was regarding how long they would live in Scotland. Issue: Key issue was where mother was domiciled on her death this would determine CoL governing succession and property. At that time, women still subject to Domicile of Dependency so where was her husband domiciled on her death? Court: Court considers evidence of Mr. B regarding frame of mind/intention re: where to live at time of wifes death. Court also considers his life and history - Mr. B was born in Jamaica (D.O.). After that his parents sent him to Scotland to be educated; attained age of majority. He acquired capacity to acquire D.C. He then goes home to Jamaica from 1823-1837 he lived in Jamaica. He left Jamaica in 1837 for political reasons, and went back to Scotland. He was debating where to go when his wife died. He hadnt yet settled in Scotland as of the date of death. HL finds D.O. revived and Jamaica was his domicile, even though he had capacity to acquire D.C.. He hadnt yet acquired a D.C. Conclusion: Mrs. Bs estate will be governed by the law of Jamaica, b/c thats where she was domiciled at the time of death. Agulian v Cyganik, [2006] Eng CA *domicile* standard of proof is clear and unequivocal intention to reside indefinitely; in assessing intent, have to consider whole of persons life/circs; easier to show a change from DC-DC than to show a change from DO-DCFacts: testator dies in London - 6.5M estate. Leaves partner of 2 years (Cyganik) 50k through his will. She challenges the will and seeks a variation. He was born in Cyprus but worked in England for 43 years. Issue: Was the testator domiciled in England at death? Did he intend to reside permanently or indefinitely in England. Held: Deputy judge erred by focusing on the end of the testator's life and underestimating Cyprus enduring strength as DoO. Wife failed to discharge the burden of proof on her to show testators clear and unequivocal intention to reside in England indefinitely or permanently. Key facts: He had never really left Cyprus behind had an ex wife and daughter there, would take visits there you need to consider the whole of the deceaseds life to determine if he ever freely formed the intent to make his home permanently and indefinitely in England Court says its easier to show a change from D.C. to D.C. than it is to show a change from D.O. to D.C. so a slightly more difficult task here for his partner Shear longevity of residence in a particular jurisdiction is never enough. Have to establish person had formed an intention to stay Re Urquhart Estate (1990) Ont HC *domicile* Its possible to keep D.C. in a place so long as you had no intention to abandon it permanentlyFacts: Testator lived with spouse for 6 years, died with $80k estate left to his son. Partner sought variation. Issue: Where was the testator domiciled at the date of his death? Did testator permanently abandon D.C., and D.O. revived? Court: Testator had moved around a lot for work. It appeared he did establish D.C. in Ontario in 1980, but afterwards moved to Washington and Florida. However these moves did not establish an intention to abandon Ontario permanently. He never lost his D.C. in Ontario. Important rules in Dicey: Rule 7: An existing domicile is presumed to continue until it is proved that a new domicile has been acquired Rule 13(1): A person abandons a D.C. in a country by ceasing to reside there and by ceasing to intend to reside there permanently or indefinitely and not otherwise. Case provides authority for intent necessary to establish abandonment of a D.C. Ontario H.C. leans toward narrower definition of intent left with intention never to return? Ultimately in examining the evidence of Mr. Us life the only continuing connection was with a friend in Ontario where he maintained a room in his home. They decided he had never abandoned his D.C. in Ontario. It continued through all his moves in American jurisdictions. Conclusion: Ontario law applied and his wife was able to bring an application for variation. National Trust Company Ltd. v Ebro, [1954] Ont HC Rule for determining domicile of corporation: wherever it was incorporated. Law of the domicile is going to govern the internal corporate law of that entity. Can be different place than Centre of Main Interest Residence  Presence Habitual R. Domicile Ordinary R. Habitual and ordinary residence are very hard to distinguish theyre pretty much interchangeable (Mark v Mark) BC legislature uses them both Residence is thought of as being more factual than domicile; doesnt rely on state of mind, dont have to establish intent Is starting to be a connecting factor for jurisdiction/CoL for statutes CL will probably never adopt residence Ordinary Residence Used in the Court Jurisdictions and Proceeding Transfer Act (CJPTA) for jurisdiction purposes Dont have a case giving a good interpretation of OR under the CJPTA Habitual residence Used in the Family Law Act, for Jurisdiction and choice of law Adderson, 1987 AB: HR refers to quality of residence, duration may be a factor depending on the circs. Chan v Chow, 2001 BCCA HR = some period of residence + some settled purpose. Cant acquire it on arrival Mark v Mark is a 2005 HL case HR and OR are interchangeable, statutory concepts; meaning depends on their use and purpose; person can be HR in more than one place Its the place you make your home for the time being We have been using HR in BC for child abduction purposes under the FRA so we have CA cases defining HR for that purpose for some time Chan v Chow (2001 BCCA) *habitual residence* = some period of residence + some settled purpose; cant acquire on arrival. Question of fact.1) The question of habitual residence is a question of fact to be decided by reference to all the circs of the case 2) HR can be established by residing in a place for an appreciable period of time with a settle purpose Cant acquire HR on arrival And there must be a degree of settled purpose. The purpose may be one; or there may be several. It may be specific or general. All that the law requires is that there is a settled purpose. This is not to say that the [person] intends to stay where he is indefinitely; indeed, his purpose, while settled, may be for a limited period. Education, business or profession, employment, health, family, or merely love of the place spring to mind as common reasons for a choice of regular abode. And there may well be many others. All that is necessary is that the purpose of living where one does has a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled. 3) a childs HR is tied to the HR of his or her custodian Mark v Mark (2005 Eng HL) *HR and OR are statutory concepts that are interchangeable; meaning can vary with purpose or use; person may be HR in more than one placeFacts: 3rd wife in a polygamous marriage decides to divorce her husband in England. Her husband objects. She has to be able to provide HR or domicile in England to bring the application. Problem is shes there illegally b/c her visa expired I: Can person have HR or domicile if theyre there illegally? HL says yes, thats okay, dont have to be there legally to establish HR or domicile. 1) HR and OR are interchangeable concepts. Trying to distinguish the two is difficult, dont do it. Know which variety you have to establish, but the circs to prove either is virtually interchangeable. 2) HR and OR are statutory concepts, can have different meanings depending on the purpose or use. (different from domicile which is CL and the meaning doesnt vary) 3) a person may be HR in more than one place (ie. Snowbird), or you may have no HR at all. Adderson v Adderson (1987) Alta CA *habitual residence* cites Eng case on settled purpose; HR refers to quality of residence, duration may be a factor depending on the circs.Facts: Jurisdiction of Alta QB over matrimonial division of property statutorily permitted when the last joint habitual residence of the parties was in Alberta. Husband says no, last jhr was Hawaii. Held: Court says forget it, husband never acquired necessary ties to Hawaii. They wanted to, but never did. They had two short stays, one with friends. Wife found work but husband never did. Daughter was enrolled in school there. Wife might have acquired residence, but husband never did, so no jhr in Hawaii. B. JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM 1. Jurisdiction: JS and TC In personam against a person (either natural or legal) In CL, jurisdiction of decision refers to two components (that must be met for BC court to take jurisdiction): Jurisdiction simpliciter or territorial competence (these are the same in BC but in some provinces they use one or the other term); and discretion / forum (non) conveniens: exercised to decide the most appropriate forum for the action In CL, broad jurisdiction rules are constrained by the exercise of discretion ability to stay or grant ASI Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein Represents traditional English CL position about jurisdiction as a right (requiring presence or submission of def) Mere transient presence is sufficient for CL jurisdiction. In BC we adopted English CL. We followed English model for service ex juris, as did all the Canadian CL provinces until the mid 70s. Someone decided we should abolish reqt to obtain permission to serve ex juris, and create a list of circs that allow P to serve w/o leave (as of right). D can object, and then there will be a hearing to decide forum for the action. It caused mass confusion that took many years to sort out. From 1976 in BC until 2006, we had our rules for service ex juris in the rules of court Rule 13 1990 Morguard decision establishes the constitutional standard: R&SC Didnt get much sense of what this means until Muscutt in 2002. 2006, in an effort to implement Morguard which nobody understood, we repealed Rule 13 and enacted CJPTA It is the exclusive location in BC of our jurisdiction rules Morguard v De Savoye It was not a jurisdiction case, it was a R&E case. But Mr. Justice La Forest just wanted to open things up a little bit. SCC didnt say what R&SC meant. Has refused leave to appeal to relevant cases since that time. Case created a new CL rule for R&E for judgments in Canada, and for taking jurisdiction ( R&SC BUT LaForest kept hinting there were constl overtones, he did this for constitutional reasons Also confirmed that traditional bases for jurisdiction continue (presence or submission) CJPTA: S. 3: BC Court has TC if D is plaintiff in another action, submission, agreement with JSC=BC, D is ordinarily resident in BC, or R&SC b/w BC and cause of action/facts S. 6: residual discretion of BC court to find it has TC otherwise S. 10: factors to consider in deciding whether there is a R&SC BC Supreme Court Rules Rule 4-5 (1) can serve on Def outside BC w/o leave in any of the circs in s. 10 CJPTA; (3) otherwise application for leave is necessary Rule 21-8 (1) party whose been served can apply to strike out claim or to dismiss/stay the proceeding on grounds that court doesnt have jurisdiction a. The Constitutional Standard Morguard v. De Savoye (1990) SCC R&E case. Creates a constl standard requiring that courts restrain jurisdiction to actions where there is a R&SC b/w the action and the place; and requiring R&E of actions where there was a R&SC. CL grounds for jurisdiction continueF: De Savoye was resident in AB and guarantor of a property in AB. Theres a default on the mortgage, De Savoyes get called on the guarantee. Sale of property insufficient to satisfy the debt. Morguard obtains a pecuniary (in personam) judgment against DS for the deficiency. But before the action had commenced in AB, DS had moved to BC. DS didnt participate in AB proceedings (wasnt present, didnt submit) Morguard pursues R&E of AB judgment in BC. There was a hope, bc BC courts had shown some reciprocity. I: At SCC, the only issue is whether BC should R&E the AB judgment on the basis of reciprocity. SCC: chose not to adopt reciprocity as another basis of R&E of foreign judgments. Instead, LaForest (unanimous court) expanded the CL rules for R&E of other Canadian judgments. Canadian court must R&E a judgment arising from another province provided that there was a Real and Substantial Connection (b/w the action and the province). The originating court should exercise properly restrained jurisdiction. Recognizing court will find there was proper restraint by other court when there was a R&S connection between the action and that province. Case also confirms that transient presence and submission are acceptable grounds for taking jurisdictionb. Parties within the Jurisdiction Jurisdiction easily met under CL (mere transient presence or submission in the jurisdiction) [Maharanee of Baroda 1972 CA], however s. 3 CJPTA requires ordinary residencec. Parties outside the Jurisdiction (Service ex juris) Morguard, together with Hunt, creates a constitutional standard (federal) Requiring that for both R&E and assumption of JS that there be a R&SC between the case and the province. Every province in Canada, incl. Quebec, had rules for P to serve on a defendant out of province (ex juris). Morguard had a consequential effect on service ex juris and the rules permitting it. When discussing rules for serving ex juris, we start with Moran v Pyle (predates Morguard, but LaForest relies on this case as authority for R&SC). JS for torts: Tort committed in the place where damage occurred (Moran v Pyle) While Morguard has been rejected in other jurisdictions, Moran v Pyle hasnt (though it hasnt been accepted either) Moran v. Pyle National Ltd. (1973) SCC *JS case* First time SCC talks about R&SC. Case defines the place of commission of a tort wrt careless manufacture. General rule for establishing JS in tort cases the place in which the damage occurred (s. 10(g) CJPTA))Facts: Electrician working in Sask was electrified when attempting to change a lightbulb, manufactured by Pyle National in Ontario. Pyle conducts no business in Sask. Statute limits cases to torts committed in the province (unless by special leave). Issue: was the alleged tort committed within the province of Sask? SCC: SCC abandons arbitrary rules for locating a tort, for purposes of jurisdiction, from historical caselaw. If the essence of a tort is the injury or wrong, a paramount factor in determining situs (place of the tort) must be the place of the invasion of ones right to bodily security Where in substance did this cause of action arise? Case hints at R&SC as a possible appropriate test Court provides the following rule for deciding jurisdiction in a case of careless manufacture: where a foreign D carelessly manufactures a product in a foreign jurisdiction which enters into the normal channels of trade, and he knows or ought to know both that as a result of his carelessness a consumer may be injured, and it is reasonably foreseeable that the product would be used/consumed where the P used/consumed it, then the forum in which the P suffered damage is entitled to exercise jurisdiction over that foreign D The initial part of the rule relates to careless manufacture, but the last statement can apply more generally for establishing jurisdiction. Case has been used in products liabilities cases, and also in other torts cases. Courts in Ontario have said the place in which the damage occurred is enough to grant service ex juris. Damage was construed widely. This rule does not intend to establish exclusive jurisdiction Muscutt v. Courcelles, 2002 Ont CA *Not good law, but important for explaining Van Breda* case sets out factors Ont court should consider in deciding whether to assume jurisdiction (In Stanway, the BCCA put Muscutt to rest in BC, saying that approach had been eclipsed by the factors in CJPTA, s. 10 which create a rebuttable presumption)Facts: Muscutt was a passenger in a motorvehicle accident. Driver caused accident in AB. He went back to ON to recover. Court: OCA tried to understand Morguard and what SCC meant by R&SC OCA decided that in order to implement Morguard more factors than the rule for service ex juris had to be considered Court provided 8 facts that should be considered in deciding whether to assume jurisdiction What court did is move many of the considerations involved in the exercise of discretion (FNC) into JS. WRONG This case became the bible in Ont it was religiously followed by the courts. Courts effectively considered the same factors in deciding JS as FC, and would make the decision up front eventhough they didnt say they were deciding FC. Spar Aerospace Ltd. v American Mobile Satellite Corp, 2002 SCC Damage is enough to ground jurisdiction in CL provinces, broad jurisdiction rules are constrained by fnc/discretion decision (which is based on R&SC in Morguard); satisfies constl reqts. Also stated in dicta that damage in the province should satisfy R&SC as wellFacts: Quebec case appealed up to SCC; civil code jurisdiction rules and discretion were similar to CL. Quebec branch of Spar Aerospace, P, entered into K to build component for satellite and felt they manufactured satellite perfectly. Theres damage to the satellite during testing. P doesnt take responsibility for it; doesnt get paid in full. P sues for payment in QC, D wasnt present in QC. Rule for service ex juris allowed P to bring an action against an out-of-province D on the basis that damage occurred in QC. SCC (Lebel) SCC revisited constl issues raised in Morguard. SCC held that damage is enough to establish jurisdiction (doesnt have to be substantial damage). (Edinger: hallelujah) In Canada weve got broad rules for jurisdiction any damage will suffice but we constrain that by exercising discretion, through fnc. (diff. than civil law which has narrow rules for establishing jurisdiction b/c no discretion) Lebel then goes on to consider Morguard and the constl question. He says even if I were applying the Morguard due process component directly, I would still find Quebec has JS. In other words, damage in Quebec satisfies Morguards R&SC. In Edingers opinion, Spar Aerospace is applicable in CL Canada b/c LeBel dealt with Morguard in the context of the civil law rule, which is equivalent to the CL service ex juris rules. However, nothing changed in Ontario they kept on Muscutting. Coutu v. Gauthier, 2006 NBCA 16 declines to follow Muscutt b/c that case overlaps JS and FC analysis. Only first factor from Muscutt (connection b/w forum and action) is relevant to JS analysis. Important to have certainty in jurisdiction rules. Where damage occurred is a sufficient R&SC connection to satisfy Morguard.Facts: Single car motorvehicle accident occurs in Ont. Driver is ordinarily resident in QC. Passenger, who dies, Mr. Coutu, is ordinarily resident in NB. Widow wants to bring an action in NB where she lives. D objects to NB having and taking jurisdiction said NB was not most appropriate forum for the action. TJ applied Muscutt and found they had jurisdiction. NBCA reaches same result. Court: Court said jurisdiction could be found on basis that damage was in NB. We need order and certainty for JS. A plaintiff has to be able to predict whether the court has JS under its rules. Looking at Muscutt, only the first factor is relevant for JS: The connection b/w the forum and the action Problem with Muscutt is theres overlap between JS and FC analysis. JS and FC are separate issues. NBCA finds that damage in NB is a sufficient R&SC connection to satisfy Morguard, and quotes Spar Aerospace. NBCA declines to follow Muscutt.CJPTA is enacted b/w Coutu and Stanway Stanway v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc, 2009 BCCA (post CJPTA enactment) Prior approach (ie. Muscutt) has no application in BC eclipsed by enactment of CJPTA. S. 10 creates mandatory, rebuttable presumption.Facts: Tort class action. P is a BC resident. She developed breast cancer, allegedly as a result of taking drugs manufactured by the Def companies. Defendants are in the US alleged to be in joint partnership. P alleges negligence in a variety of ways. American defendants contest the TC of BC courts. TJ applied Muscutt factors and found BC court had TC. Court: BCCA agrees that BC has jurisdiction in this action and applies Moran v Pyle to locate the tort in BC (to meet R&SC under CJPTA s. 10(g), R&SC meets s. 3 test for TC). Court discusses TJs use of Muscutt in BC. Says this was incorrect. The prior approach has been eclipsed by the enactment of CJPTA. CJPTA s. 10 creates a mandatory, rebuttable presumption. Any reliance on Muscutt factors as a guide to determining jurisdiction came to an end. No application in BC  Club Resorts v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC helps us understand where the floor is for establishing jurisdiction - connection cannot be weak or hypothetical. Traditional bases for jurisdiction still valid, but mere presence of P isnt sufficient for taking jurisdiction need connection. SCC endorses approach taken by BC in CJPTA and CL approach before Muscutt. Provs jurisdiction rules dont have to be uniform.Facts: two Ontario couples both went down to Cuba to vacation, separately. In each case, there was an accident in Cuba. In one case, man drowns scuba-diving. Widow brings action in Ontario against Ontario defendant and Cuba defendants. In the other case, equipment collapses on Mrs. Van Breda and she becomes parapalegic. First couple brings K action in Ont relying on damage in Ont. Ds object to jurisdiction of Ont courts. They lose, Ont finds they do have jurisdiction and are forum conveniens. Ds appeal to OCA. They argue that Muscutt shouldnt be applied requires a panel of five (including Sharp who wrote the Muscutt decision). OCA agrees to modify Muscutt (Edinger: the cure was worse than the disease) SCC: Edinger: case makes her bloodpressure rise. Lebel wrote the decision for a 7 judge panel. Lebel is an eminent civil law specialist, but not good for CL. He treats the civil law as the model code. He does, in the end, reject the Muscutt case and the OCAs modification and he brings Ont in line with NB and BC. Lebel first says constl R&SC standard is separate/distinct from the conflicts R&SC standard Edinger: lebel doesnt really tell us anything He traces the development of R&SC. The test suggests that the connection b/w a state and dispute cannot be weak or hypothetical; it would cast doubt on legitimacy of states exercise of power over the parties [32] He makes two important statements about conflicts: The rules governing the jurisdiction of each province dont have to be uniform. We dont have to have a single body of jurisdictional rules. Every province can have its own rules. He clarifies Unifund v ICBC, and confirms that we need CoL rules b/c we need certainty. He then goes on to talk about conflicts rules in Ontario R&SC test does not oust traditional, CL bases for jurisdiction presence and submission. However, order is very important so we need presumptive factors. The presence of the plaintiff alone is never a sufficient factor for establishing jurisdiction. There needs to be some connection b/w the plaintiff and the cause of action. Then comes up with presumptive factors that are relevant to the Van Breda case. He goes to CJPTA and refers to fact that: D is domiciled or resident in the province; D carries on business in the province; the tort was committed in the province; and K connected with the dispute was made in the province. SCC endorses approach taken by BC in the CJPTA and the approach that was employed in all the CL provinces before Muscutt. JS/TC list of circumstances. If plaintiff can establish that facts fall within the circs that is sufficient. Of course breadth of the jurisdictional rules can be modified by discretion. He really gives us a Quebec version of FNC, so we can ignore it. The case has been followed in Ontario, and all other provinces are going back to rules of court. SCC found Ontario was more appropriate forum. SCC reserved judgment on forum of necessity, rationale behind s. 6 CJPTA. Have no cases on this d. Material Facts and Evidence supporting Jurisdiction How do you establish that your case fits into one of the rules in the CJPTA?? Court decides whether it has jurisdiction before the trial, prior to any fact finding at trial In BC, you have to establish TC using your notice of civil claim and affidavit evidence P doesnt have to seek leave to serve ex juris, but must satisfy court of 3 elements: JS/TC Whether P has a good arguable case (AG Armeno Mines) FC / discretion BC Supreme Court Civil Rules: Rule 21-8 allows Def to challenge jurisdiction or ask court for stay, so facts in your claim need to support TC of BC courts and FC. Rule 21-8 (1)(a) allows D to object where Ps claim does not allege facts that, if true, would establish that the court has jurisdiction ( relates to issue raised in MTU Maintenance Rule 4-5 if an application is required (b/c circumstances dont fall w/in s. 10 CJPTA), then application to serve outside BC must be supported by affidavit evidence Next two cases deal with how to establish JS and a good arguable case. And they are both required for TC. AG Armeno Mines and Minerals v. Newmont Gold, 2000 BCCA P must show it had a good arguable case for court to take jurisdiction. P or D can produce evidence in support/againstFacts: P brought action in BC, sought to add D to the action. D objected to BC having jurisdiction. BCCA is able to establish jurisdiction on basis that there was a R&SC b/w the cause and BC (tort committed in BC). But D argues that Ps claim is tenuous D produces evidence showing they werent liable. P fails to challenge the evidence or produce any of their own evidence. BCCA It wouldve been permissible for P to produce affidavit evidence in support of its case where D had produced evidence showing its a tenuous case. Court must decide whether P has a good arguable case triable issue on the facts, a serious question MTU Maintenance Canada Ltd. v Kuehne & Nagel, 2007 BCCA 552 To allow the court to find it has TC, you have to put the necessary facts (supporting TC) in your statement of claim, supported by affidavit evidence.F: P is suing D using 3 diff. sections of s. 10 CJPTA: Contracts, tort, and carrying on business in BC. American company says BC doesnt have TC. TJ said they do. Case goes to appeal. CA: D is correct BC court doesnt have TC because they dont have any basis for finding they have TC. Neither the statement of claim nor the affidavit contained any facts upon which TC could be said to exist under 10(e), (g) or (h). They say you have to put the facts in. If youre trying to establish that the case falls within one of the sections in the CJPTA, you have to include material facts that support courts TC in the statement of claim, supported by affidavit evidence. 2. Discretion: Stays and Anti-Suit Injunctions (ASIs) Every Canadian court exercises discretion if we have jurisdiction but we choose not to exercise it, then the court grants a stay In every case, the procedures to be followed for objecting to the jurisdiction are contained in each provs rules of court In BC Rule 21-8 you use this if youre representing a foreign defendant Key issues: Proper formulation of principles governing discretion Process what factors do we consider in exercising discretion Quantum and burden of proof on who does it rest and what must they prove? Courts have discretion can be exercised in two forms of relief 1) (most common) issue an order staying the local proceedings 2) (more controversial) an injunction which prohibits a party from commencing or continuing proceedings somewhere else ( anti-suit injunction (AmChem Products is the leading Canadian case, Aerospatiale is the leading UK case) in personam order not popular with foreign courts a. The English Principles Proper Formulation of Principles Governing Discretion In terms of service ex juris Forum conveniens has never really changed In England, burden of proof was on the P, who wanted to serve a D ex juris, that 1) the cause of action fell within the rule, 2) that there was a good arguable case, and 3) that England was the most appropriate forum for the action. In terms of service within England Up until 1974 Eng had jurisdiction as of right if P could serve D in the jurisdiction (present or resident). D could always object (fnc) but Englands exercise of discretion was very narrow essentially only for abuse of process. 1970s Formulation/expansion of discretion (to take jurisdiction or stay proceedings) Atlantic Star case: HL agreed to modify abuse of process test, but only in a small way. Abuse of process test (requiring oppression and vexation) still stands (same formulation), but HL came up with new meaning for oppression and vexation. This didnt work in practice. There were a series of big cases dealing with discretion after this. HL kept making small changes and eventually abandoned using oppression and vexation. Spiliada Maritime Corp. v Cansulex Ltd., 1987 HL. **Continues to be the leading English case on discretion, recognized as authoritative/binding in Canada** Established main principle to be followed exercise of jurisdiction should be decided by taking to account which forum is suitable for the ends of the parties and for the ends of justice. Service ex juris burden of proof always on P. Service as of right burden is on D to show Eng is FNC and to show which forum is FC. In exercising its discretion, a court can not only issue a stay of its own proceedings, but it can also be persuaded to issue an anti-suit injunction to prohibit a party from entering or continuing an action somewhere else in the world (Aerospatiale, and Patel cases). Its a more aggressive remedy Even though injunction is directed to a party overwhom English court has jurisdiction, theres an indirect effect on the other forums proeedings. In Spiliada, English court found it was the most appropriate forum for the action What was the critical consideration/factor? Cambridgeshire factor. There was a juridical advantage in England because solicitors already had experience from litigating for the other ship. In order to grant an ASI in England, court must find 1) it is the most appropriate forum (FC/Spiliada principle; Aerospatiale), and 2) allowing the foreign proceedings to continue would be oppressive and vexatious (Aerospatiale), and 3) court must have jurisdiction over both the parties and the cause of action (Patel). Court will not grant ASI if it would deprive P of advantage in foreign forum of which it would be unjust to deprive him. (Aerospatiale) it ought to be significantly more difficult to persuade a court to issue an ASI than a stay of its own proceedings (Aerospatiale) Spiliada Maritime Corp. v Cansulex Ltd., 1987 HL *leading case, binding authority in Eng and Cda** STAYS. Principle: In deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction, court must identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the ends of the parties and for the ends of justice. Burdens on parties are diff. than in Canada. Facts: Cansulex is a BC Corp, business of loading sulphur onto boats. Sulphur got wet before being put in the boats, caused damage. Spiliada is one of the boats damaged. Owner was a Liberian corporation, sued Cansulex. The managers of the Spiliada were located in England. The ship was chartered to an Indian company and it was intending to carry the sulphur from Vancouver to India. The Charter party had a London arbitration clause which brought the case to UK. There were also bills of lading (another K) and they had a CoL clause selecting English law. So English court felt they could take jurisdiction, for service ex juris. Issue: The question was whether Eng Court should exercise that jurisdiction? Cansulex had applied for a stay; Spiliada had to convince the English court that it was forum conveniens. HL: Lord Goff decided discretion issue once and for all. Established Scottish principle, which he had tried to introduce in Atlantic Star. Principle: In deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction, the court must identify the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the ends of the parties and for the ends of justice. The object of FNC is to find the most appropriate forum. The diff. b/w service ex juris (rule, Good arguable case, and FC) and service w/in England (fnc) is in relation to the burden of proof/persuasion: For service ex juris Burden of Proof remains on the P throughout (on ex parte application, on persuasion, when D objects). Eng is taking exorbitant jurisdiction so burden is on P to establish 3 elements are met For service w/I England (service as of right) B.O.P. is on the D to show both that Eng is not the most appropriate forum for the action (FNC) and to show which forum is (FC). Only one other point: Eng court can attach conditions to the stay Aerospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak, [1987] PC Test for granting ASI: 1) is this court most appropriate forum (FC/Spiliada principle), and 2) would continuing foreign proceedings be oppressive and vexatious. Exercise caution! Court will not grant ASI if it would deprive P of advantage in foreign forum of which it would be unjust to deprive him.Facts: Helicopter crash in Brunei, kills very wealthy Brunei resident/businessman. His widow commences action against various Ds in France (later discontinued), Brunei and Texas. Proceedings in both Brunei and Texas continue P wants case in Texas against D to continue. D applies in Texas for stay against the proceedings, but Texas declines. D then later applies in Brunei for them to issue ASI prohibiting P (widow) from continuing the action in Texas. The Brunei court declines. It goes on appeal to Privy Council (Spiliada decision now available). PC (Lord Goff) PC decides that the Brunei CA had not had the benefit of the Spiliada decision and it should be taken into account. Brunei CA didnt consider correct principles (they had just considered FC principle for service in England, and decided not to issue ASI). We cant have injunctions issued based on balance of convenience thats too generous. In considering whether to grant an ASI: First step of English/Brunei court is to ask is this a natural forum are we the most appropriate forum for the action (Spiliada discretionary principle). If so, then Second, court then has to consider whether continuation of the foreign proceedings would be oppressive and vexatious. As a general rule, court will not grant an injunction if, by doing so, it will deprive the P of advantage in the foreign forum of which it would be unjust to deprive him. PC makes quite clear that it ought to be significantly more difficult to persuade a court to issue an ASI than it is to persuade an Eng court to issue a stay of its own proceedings. Oppression and vexation reqt. Conclusion: Eventually court decides to issue ASI to stop P from continuing Texas proceedings. Why? Malaysian defendant would be a party to the Brunei proceedings, but would not be a party to the Texas decision (could not be a party). That was an important determining element.  Airbus v. Patel et al., 1999 HL Ability to grant ASI requires jurisdiction over the parties, and over the cause of action!Facts: Airplane crash in India kills/injures many passengers , including two families of Indian descent who reside in England. Crash was caused by pilot error. Ps commence action against the airline, manufacturer and others in India. Theres some settlements, but the Patel families that reside in England, decide to commence an action in Texas. Two proceedings underway: in India and Texas. Ds in the Indian action apply to the Indian court for an ASI prohibiting Ps from continuing action in Texas or anywhere else. (We dont have worldwide injunctions in Canada yet). P ignored it; didnt discontinue Texas proceedings. D then brought application in England asking for two forms of relief: 1) R&E of the Indian ASI, and 2) in the alternative, for Eng crt to issue its own ASI. (England had jurisdiction because of personal physical jurisdiction). The TJ refused to recognise the Indian ASI (There was no precedent for CL courts to recognize an in personam order of a foreign court, such as an ASI). That decision was not appealed. Issue: could the Eng court issue its own ASI prohibiting Eng residents from continuing Texas proceedings? The answer given by the HL was No. HL says they clearly have jurisdiction over P, but they must also have jurisdiction over the cause of action theres no basis for taking jurisdiction over an air crash in India (Ds were not in Eng). So Airbus case confirms what was said by Lord Goff in Aerospatiale we have to have jurisdiction, though Goff didnt make clear whether it was jurisdiction over cause of action or over parties. Control over the parties is not enough have to have jurisdiction over the legal cause of action. b. Canadian Principles CJPTA: S. 11 relates to exercising discretion. Codifies the CL (Teck); non-exhaustive list (Teck, BCCA) Court may decline to exercise its TC on the grounds that another court is a more appropriate forum (fc). Court decides the issue by considering the circs relevant to the proceeding the section provides non-exhaustive list, including comparative convenience and expense to the parties, law that will be applied, avoiding multiple proceedings, etc. BC Civil rules: Rule 21-8 allows defendant to object to BC court taking jurisdiction. 21-8(2) enables def to ask for a stay The only Canadian case dealing with ASIs (the rest of the cases deal with fnc/stays) is Amchem In Amchem, SCC thinks its adopting English principles but its not identical. Good to understand the English principles, should be able to apply them. Regarding forum conveniens, loss of juridical advantage is one factor that should be considered with all the others in deciding the appropriate forum. Juridical advantage depends on a partys connection to the jurisdiction and whether it is R&S. ASIs are available b/c not every other jurisdiction will satisfy requirements of fnc test, or respect comity ASIs cant be anticipatory Well only issue an ASI if there was i) no reasonable basis for the foreign courts decision not to stay AND ii) continuation of the foreign proceeding would be unjust Cant issue ASI unless theres a cause of action commenced in forum (Patel) With regards to fnc/stays: Burden is always on D (Amchem, Van Breda) Standard to displace Ps choice of forum is high. D has to clearly establish existence of a more appropriate forum (Young v. Tyco; Amchem) Balancing of factors should achieve justice and efficiency (Young v. Tyco); the ends of justice like in Spiliada Prudential approach to fact finding at this stage accept Ps facts if reasonable and supported (Young v. Tyco; consistent with Armeno Mines) Teck, BCCA approves of approach taken in Amchem to multiple proceedings (can use this for deciding fnc) Amchem Products Inc. v BC (WCB), 1993 SCC *Frequently cited for stays, FC and discretion (ASIs arent applied very often). Draws on the English authorities. Provides steps/rule for deciding ASI issue. Major modification of burden of proof: always on DFacts: Many Ps have been injured by exposure to asbestos. Majority are BC residents, but there are residents from other CND provinces. Actions are started in Texas. American Ds bring application for stay in Texas on grounds that Texas is forum non conveniens. Texas declined. American Ds decide they would rather be sued in BC where Ps are resident, so Ds commence an action in BC, seeking an ASI with a cause of action for damages for abuse of process. BCSC grants the ASI. BCCA upholds BC court decision. They held it was an appropriate case for ASI because they find it unjust that Texas doesnt have a doctrine of forum non conveniens. This gets appealed to SCC SCC (unanimous result, written by Sopinka) Court addresses the doctrine of forum conveniens Frequently theres no single forum that is clearly the most convenient/appropriate but rather several which are equally suitable alternatives. When its a toss up, how do you decide? Loss of juridical advantage is one factor, that should be considered with all the others in deciding the appropriate forum Juridical advantage depends on a parties connection to a jurisdiction and whether it is real and substantial vs. blatant forum shopping Sopinka talks about stays and ASIs how forum conveniens operates. He refers to Spiliada, and the various tests, and in the end what the SCC holds is close to the Spiliada decision. We need ASIs because other jurisdictions dont always respect comity and they dont always satisfy the requirements of the fnc test Should consider granting an ASI where not doing so would lead to serious injustice Court follows similar approach to ASI granting as Aerospatiale and Patel, but adapts it to Canada: Steps/Rule for granting ASI (approved of in Teck, BCCA for approaching fnc where multiple proceedings) 1) It cant be anticipatory ( to prohibit commencement of foreign proceedings (this is new not the case in England) 2) A Canadian court should give a foreign court an opportunity to decline to determine if it is an appropriate forum to hear the action. 3) If foreign court stays its own action b/c Its not the appropriate forum, then problem solved. We dont have to do anything or decide the ASI issue. 4) If the foreign court declines to stay the action, then the Canadian court has to make a decision. The Canadian Court has to evaluate the foreign decision to see whether it was made on reasonable grounds. If the FC made its decision on a reasonable basis then we wont issue an ASI. (Note, SCC in Teck says this is not determinative, but should be given great weight) Well only issue an ASI if there was no reasonable basis for the foreign courts decision not to stay AND Reasonable basis does the other court follow doctrine of fnc Is domestic forum the natural forum has the closest connection with the action and the parties (fc) (Aerospatiale). continuation of the foreign proceeding would be unjust (court leaves out oppressive and vexatious from Aerospatiale) Note: If no action has been commenced in the domestic forum, it has no juridical basis for hearing the ASI application (Patel) unless it is contended by the applicant that the action should have been commenced in the domestic forum as the more appropriate forum and it is potentially an appropriate forum. What he modifies for Canadian purposes is the allocation of the burden of proof its always on the D! . Edinger: this is completely inconsistent with all the lip service that the SCC pays to the doctrine of comity Service ex juris is supposed to be exorbitant exercise caution. Amchem ( Sopinka says weve got jurisdiction, life is simple, we can just organize comity. Conclusion: SCC lifts the ASI and allows the action to continue in Texas. What do we do if the foreign jurisdiction is civil law (no discretion to exercise). If someone was asking for an ASI here, we would examine Whether the civil law court would have decided it was the most appropriate forum by weighing all the relevant factors If the BC court says [civil law place] is clearly not the most appropriate forum, must go on to decide whether continuation of that foreign proceeding would be unjust? Young v. Tyco Intl of Canada Ltd., 2008 ONCA Case provides list of factors courts generally consider in deciding fnc. Case provides three principles related to fnc motions. 1) Standard to displace Ps choice of forum is high, 2) balancing of factors should achieve justice and efficiency, 3) Prudential approach to fact finding at this stage accept Ps facts if reasonable and supported.Facts: Y worked for Tyco in the states, eventually fired. Y returns to Ontario and commences an action there against Tyco and 6 different Tyco defendants (2 of them are located in Ontario so Ont has jurisdiction). JS is conceded, not an issue. Issue: whether ONCA is the most appropriate forum for the action Tyco says Ont is forum non conveniens. ONCA: In deciding fnc, courts consider seven factors established in caselaw (in BC these are set out in s. 11 CJPTA, many of the same factors) These are typical factors, but its not an exhaustive or definitive list. You can add or subtract factors. Case highlights three important principles related to fnc motions: Standard to displace Ps chosen jurisdiction is high ( D has to clearly establish existence of a more appropriate forum (Amchem). Edinger: weight of each factor will vary with each case and are subject to argument by both sides. The balancing of the factors should aim to achieve efficiency and justice for the parties ( the ends of justice (like in Spiliada). Want to do whats fair for both parties Motions judge should adopt a prudential and not aggressive approach to fact finding; dont conduct a trial of the facts. Youre ordinarily accepting the plaintiffs version if it has a reasonable basis in the record. You have to have a record supported by affidavit evidence (Armenio mines) *Ontario doesnt have CJPTA and follows this case to decide forum conveniens Teck Cominco v. Lloyds, 2007 BCCA Helpful analysis of how CJPTA works. S. 11 codifies the CL, provides non-exhaustive list of relevant factors court should consider in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction. References and approves of SCCs approach to parallel proceedings in Amchem (judicial review of other court). Facts: Since 1906, Teck operated smelter facility in BC, which polluted a river that flowed down into Washington state. Teck stops polluting the river in 1995, and has discussions with US authorities about damage done there. Teck enters into settlement talks and then has talks with Lloyds about claiming on the insurance. They first enter into stand-still agreement, but after that expires, Teck rushes to commence action in Washington for a declaration of what insurance coverage its entitled to under policy. Lloyds commenced action in BC later the same day. Both parties object to jurisdiction of the court in the other jurisdiction. Washington State concludes that it is the most appropriate jurisdiction and refuses to stay its insurance proceeding. 3 days later theres a hearing in BC regarding newly proclaimed CJPTA. Hearing says s.11 for determining exercise of jurisdiction (1) is a codification of the Scottish principle in Spiliada interest of the parties in the ends of jusice. Then (2) court must consider each of the factors. BCSC had decided that BC is the most appropriate forum so parallel proceedings continued in both places. Issue: does s. 11 CJPTA alter the CL principles and factors BCCA Upholds BCSC decision agrees that BC is most appropriate forum for the action. Very rarely can you appeal if judge exercised discretion What does the CA say about the CJPTA, factors and process s. 11 codifies the CL; it doesnt really make any substantive changes. the mandatory factors listed are not exhaustive. Theyre very broadly phrased. However many of these factors were already being used before so you can still bring in old case law. Problem of parallel proceedings had been addressed by Sopinka in Amchem (it can happen). Teck argued that in BC the CA had stayed a bunch of diff. actions when the foreign court had decided it was the most appropriate forum for the action. Teck argued that BC should defer since Washington court has decided to exercise discretion. CA says SCC in Amchem rejected simplistic approach to parallel actions we dont just defer if they decided. We have to decide for ourselves if were the most appropriate forum. Parallel actions are difficult and unfortunate, but we agree with BCSC and we are the most appropriate forum for the action Teck appeals to the SCC . Teck Cominco v. Lloyds, 2009 SCC SCC says s. 11 not ousted when other court has decided it is the most appropriate forum (declines to stay). This is not conclusive but should be given great weight by domestic court. S. 11 is a complete codification of CL, governs discretion.Facts: SCC takes appeal of BCCA decision in Teck v Lloyds. Court fails to review any of the SCC cases that were referred to it. SCC In responding to Tecks arguments regarding whether BC shouldve stayed its action, SCC says: s. 11 is not ousted. When a foreign court, in which a parallel action is proceeding, has exercised discretion and decided on a reasonable basis that it is the most appropriate forum for the action, that factor is not conclusive but should be given very great weight. (Amchem suggested this was determinative) SCC says you have to use s. 11, its a complete codification of the CL, there are no exceptions. CJPTA governs discretion. SCC decides against having any kind of bright-line rule (ie. first to file). Comity isnt necessarily served by automatic deferral to the first court to assert jurisdiction.Edinger: were still at large in terms of how to consider assertion by foreign courts (Amchem said if foreign court exercises jurisdiction on reasonable basis then we wont issue an ASI, but SCC in Teck say the foreign courts decision isnt determinative, but should be given great weight by domestic court) Van Breda, 2012 SCC fnc confirms burden is always on the D, but muddles rule principle behind exercise of jurisdiction (LeBel says if you take JS you ordinarily should retain jurisdiction). This is inconsistent with the CL approach.1. burden is always on the defendant (Edinger: inconsistent with comity) 2. if you have JS you ordinarily ought to be retaining jurisdiction (Edinger: this is not consistent with CL approach which says broad service ex juris rules (assume jurisdiction in wide array of cases) but well narrow it in deciding to exercise discretion.) What LeBel is doing is taking the Quebec Civil Code approach, which had introduced forum non conveniens Edinger: prediction is Van Breda will mostly be disregarded.c. Jurisdiction Selecting Clauses Currently, the CL, even in Canada (ECU, Momentous), considers JSCs to be valid and to have great weight On top of the CL, there are now statutory provisions. The statutes are not uniform in the way in which such clauses are treated. Its not uncommon for a statute to treat a JSC as absolute. There are now in some Cnd provinces some consumer legislation which provides that a JSC in a K (usually b/w a consumer and a giant corp) is void Approach to JSC First, consider whether there is a relevant statute (ie. consumer legislation). If theres no relevant statute, then Second, apply CL rules in assessing JSC at discretion stage. Is the clause valid? Where it appears K is breached, court tends to still uphold JSC allow jurisdiction whose law applies determine if theres been a fundamental breach. (Pompey) Whats the effect that we are going to give to this valid JSC grant a stay? Have to first look at factors in s. 11 of the CJPTA, but its not exhaustive (it says including these factors) (Teck). Can try to work JSC into one of the s. 11 factors, or else consider it separately. Can decide to stay either in relation to JSC or if s. 11 CJPTA factors show another forum is more appropriate. (Viroforce, 2011 BCCA) Must give existence of JSC very great weight (Pompey, Momentous) Unless there is a strong cause as to why a domestic court should exercise jurisdiction, order and fairness are better achieved when parties are held to their bargains (Pompey, affd in Momentous) Burden of proof is on P who has breached the JSC by bringing the action in the forum; heavy burden (contrary to Amchem which says burden is always on D). If you apply for a stay, under BC Civil Rules this is not exempted from being considered submission (Rule 21-8) ECU Line v. Pompey, 2003 SCC Where it appears K is breached, court tends to still uphold JSC allow jurisdiction whose law applies determine if theres been a fundamental breach. SCC decides to follow Eng line of cases, creates order and fairness consistent with Morguard. Presence of JSC is a factor to consider at discretion stage in deciding whether to issue stay. Burden is on P (contrary to Amchem). Problematic in BC?Facts: Shipping case. Pompey (P, vendor) sold equipment in France bill of lading (K) executed there ECU Line (D) to carry cargo by sea from Belgium to Seattle. K contains a CoL clause (choosing Belgium) and JSC (selecting Antwerp courts). Contrary to K, cargo was shipped from Antwerp to MTL, offloaded in Mtl onto freight train to travel to Seattle. Cargo arrives damaged. The allegation is that it was damaged during freight transport. P commences action in Canada against D in Federal Court (maritime law). D applies for a stay of the federal court proceedings, because there was a JSC (wants FC to exercise discretion). SCC First, was there a valid JSC? It was alleged D fundamentally breached K so was K, and thus JSC, gone? P wants JSC to disappear. SCC doesnt buy it, holds that JSC is still valid and the action should be stayed. SCC defers to the JSC which is still active. Have to allow the jurisdiction whose law applies determine if there has been a fundamental breach. Should FCC adhere to the CL? Eleftheria case (upholding application of JSCs) had been followed for decades. SCC says he doesnt see a reason to abandon it. Why should we adhere to English CL and uphold JSC in Ks? it creates certainty and security in transaction, derivatives of order and fairness, which makes this approach completely consistent with Morguard. The factors the court considers in deciding whether to grant a stay b/c of a JSC are similar to those it considers in deciding a stay in ordinary cases applying the FNC doctrine. SCC is quite clear that JSC are considered at the discretion stage. The difference lies in the burdens. For stay related to fnc, burden is normally on D to show why a stay should be granted (Amchem) For stay related to JSC, different test warranted b/c parties should be held to their bargain, and P has the burden of showing why a stay should not be granted. Edinger: as far as I can tell, the only difference that he identifies is in the allocation of the burden of proof, and the weight to be given to the factor of the JSC. He talks about a separate system/different test, and that poses some problems for us in BC (post Teck Cominco, post CJPTA). Pompey case holds the contract is still intact so you defer to the JSC. [in other cases (English), where court is faced with JSC, court is reluctant to find that a JSC has somehow vanished and been voided. The courts always seem to find that the JSC has survived. Thats not unreasonable. Momentous.ca Corp v. Canadian American Assocn of Professional Baseball, 2012 SCC Edinger: this case screws things up. Court however seems to conclude that Pompey was correct.Facts There was a semi-professional baseball team in Ottawa The Rapidz (P). They lost money, notified league (D) that they wanted out. The league rejected this attempt at voluntary withdrawal, and drew down on a $200k L/C. P sues the league in Ontario and asks for declaratory relief in damages. The problem is the league bylaws and the K b/w the league and the team included a JSC and CoL clause selecting North Carolina. D applies to Ontario court under Ontario rules of civpro. Part of the problem in that the rules authorizes the judge to stay or dismiss an action on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter (sounds like discretion) The league applied and filed a statement of defence (on the merits) and pleadings on the jurisdiction/arbitration clause. (Did the League submit to the jurisdiction of the Ontario court? Then they cant claim the court has no jurisdiction anymore. SCC doesnt comment on this.) Ontario had agreed to stay the action, in consideration of the JSC in the K. OCA agreed with this decision in line with Eng case Elestheria and with SCC in Pompey. Court had exercised discretion and decided to defer to JSC. Issue: Should the Ontario court have issued a stay based on the JSC in the K? Edinger: cant understand why SCC gave leave to appeal Ontario had taken the right approach. SCC: theres some discussion as to whether D had used the correct civpro rules decides what D did was ok. Initially the SCC seems to say that JSC goes to the jurisdiction of the court and that when there is a JSC, the court has no jurisdiction (moving it from discretion back into jurisdiction). But then in [9], the court finds that the Pompey case is applicable and reiterates the test in Pompey. in the absence of specific legislation, the proper test in determining whether to enforce a [JSC] is discretionary in nature. It provides that unless there is a strong cause as to why a domestic court should exercise jurisdiction, order and fairness are better achieved when parties are held to their bargains C. CLASS ACTIONS There is class action legislation in all provinces and federal Two models in Canada: Opt-in model you have to ask to be a member of the class (BC is like this) Opt-out model Ontario; can declare a class including other province residents or international residents, etc. There are other differences with the class action models/legislation, ie. Wrt costs All class proceedings legislation is procedural it changes the domestic rules about who can join in a class, etc. Its not intended to change the substantive domestic law. Defendants in class actions do not react in a uniform way. Sometimes defendants will want to have a single class action in one jurisdiction, no parallel actions. Sometimes defendants want to fragment the opposition and have as many class actions as possible. The ideal situation is for a defendant to have a single class action and to have it be the only one in the sense that it binds the rest of the world so they cant sue that defendant anywhere else. Substantive law will vary so defendant may want to avoid certain law Class actions have had constitutional problems and conflict of laws problems. Not a problem w/ opt-in because plaintiffs have to submit to the jurisdiction Conflicts issues: In any class action, there are jurisdiction issues Does the court have JS or TC? Is the court the most appropriate forum for the action? Though keep in mind its not unusual to have more than one CP commenced against the same def There are R&E issues, dealt with separately Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp., 2000 BCCA CA will take a flexible approach to jurisdiction in class proceedings; not apply rigid test. Out-of province Ps should be allowed to opt into class proceedings in BC bc common issue gives them a R&SC; and allowing this coincides with order and fairness in Morguard. Facts Out-of province plaintiffs seek to opt-into class proceedings started in BC by BC plaintiffs Does BC court have jurisdiction over out-of-province plaintiffs? Court has to have jurisdiction over the defendant, plaintiff and the matter. This was pre-CJPTA. Dow Corning is not a BC corp. Plaintiff lived here, purchased implants here, so there was R&SC between representative plaintiff and the jurisdiction. This provided JS over the defendant. It appeared the out-of province litigants lacked connection w/ BC and shouldnt be allowed to opt-in TJ said R&SC for the purposes of this class action was the common issue. This was sufficient. Can apply this reasoning to other class actions. BCCA CA agrees with TJ. Her judgment goes beyond common issue. She deals fairly extensively with JS in class actions. Allowing out-of-province plaintiffs to opt-in accords with order and fairness (Morguard) its a broad and bigger principle than a R&SC. She is concerned about fundamental fairness to the parties, and orderly decision making. jurisdiction is not going to be dependent on a mechanical application of a rigid test. We can be a little bit flexible in class actions. We ought to be. The subject matter of the class action is highly relevant especially in a products liability cause of action. Manufacturers can expect to be sued anywhere in the world that their products are sold. Edinger: statutory cause of actions, its not going to be as easy to be flexible, BC might not be likely to say come one and come all, sue here Ward v. Canada, 2007 MBCA 123 Traditional CL bases for jurisdiction continue to operate. In assessing fnc, look at normal factors AND juridical advantage.Facts: Feds are being sued in connection with herbicide spraying in NB at an army base. The tort occurred in NB. Mr. Ward, who was one of the people affected, is now a Manitoba resident. The Crown is present in every province theres really no JS problem. Presence in the province, so traditional bases for jurisdiction is met. Issue: Does the MB court have jurisdiction over Wards cause of action? Is it the most appropriate forum for the action? Jurisdiction: MBCA finds that MB has JS. Court doesnt accept Beals v Saldanha that R&SC test eliminated the CL traditional bases for jurisdiction. This is contrary to Morguard which said those bases continue (ie. Presence). The traditional bases for jurisdiction continue to operate presence is sufficient. Forum non conveniens: the crown argued MB is not the most appropriate place for the action b/c theres hardly any plaintiffs in MB they are all over Canada, not concentrated in MB. So NB would be a more appropriate forum for the action. MBCA says you consider normal fnc factors, and juridical advantage. MBCA looks at its own legislation and determines it is a very plaintiff-friendly class regime, which gives P (and others) a strong juridical advantage. Crown didnt try to weaken this argument. MBCA says MB is forum conveniens. Action was not stayed. However MBCA says if things come up over the course of this proceeding, then the court management judge still has discretion to stay decision were not making a final decision, it can still be addressed. D. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF IN PERSONAM JUDGMENTS (PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY) If P is successful, D becomes a judgment debtor. These remedies assume that D does not have assets in the province you have to go to another jurisdiction to get the judgment R&Ed Judgments can be divided into In personam includes pecuniary (money judgment) and non-pecuniary (equitable orders for specific performance, injunctions, etc.) In rem are good against the world, ie. In relation to property, maritime judgments Territorial sovereignty requires conversion of foreign judgments (BC requires conversion, typical of every jurisdiction in the world). Which foreign judgments must be converted? Usually all Its possible for a sovereign state to wave all rights to require conversion. Within Canada, there are some modifications for family creditors. How do you convert a foreign judgment? (foreign any non-BC judgment) 1) Always the default: use the common law Often have to use this for non Cnd judgments that we dont have reciprocating agmt with 2) Statutory: registration under the Court Order Enforcement Act Part II available for jurisdictions where we have agreements with them 3) Statutory (NEW, companion to the CJPTA): Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act (changes some procedure and substantive rules) available only for other Canadian judgments (not available in every CL province) Which method do you use? Depends on the location of the original judgment Key considerations Have to check in a province where you want a judgment enforced, to see if they have enacted/adopted the appropriate statutes Should start R&E proceedings the minute judgment is granted Its not considered an abuse of process to plead more than one method in a claim, or plead one, and then another Also have to pay attention to limitation periods some provinces have quite short periods now for conversion of foreign judgments. In BC, new Limitation Act preserves the lengthier limitation period for conversion of foreign judgments (s. 7(b)). It provides that a judgment creditor with a judgment from any other place, has the shorter of the limitation period in the province where the judgment was obtained, or the Limitation in this province (10yrs). 1) Common Law P has the burden of establishing that the foreign judgment is final and conclusive (Nouvion v. Freeman), AND The foreign court had jurisdiction in the international sense. Three options (Mid Ohio case) D was present in the foreign jurisdiction when the action was started, OR D somehow submitted to the jurisdiction of the international court, OR There is a real & substantial connection between the action and the foreign jurisdiction. (Morguard) CL radically expanded in Canada in 1990 with Morguard Morguard creates a Catch-22 situation for Canadian defendants: Now D in actions who might become judgment debtors have to take a gamble about whether to submit if they dont, they might lose and still have judgment enforced b/c theres a R&SC. But if they submit then this counts against them for R&E. R&SC should be met or the Canadian courts shouldnt even hear the case. This makes it more difficult for counsel to advise D sued in a foreign jurisdiction you have to guess a whole bunch of conditions. Morguard hasnt been adopted in England or Ireland. Its only Canadian defendants at risk Even if the rules are satisfied (final conclusive, and jurisdiction in intl sense), there are still defences that can be raised: [Contrary to forum public policy, etc.] Breach of natural justice (procedural defence) Fraud For a non-reciprocating, non Cnd jurisdiction, you have to use the CL!! Morguard very minimal connection required. Defences are available, but they are not frequently applied by the court so as to refuse R&E of a foreign judgment. So if youve got a client who is being sued somewhere else in the world, you can try to get that action stayed (by whatever foreign rules, may be considered submission), but if you dont succeed, you have to think about Morguard, and whether your client has a good defence to whatever the action is. B/c if they have a good defence, you better seize your opportunity to make it, b/c the chances are very good that that judgment will be R&E in Canada (pursuant to Morguard, and Beals v Saldanha, and ProSwing v Elta). 1. Pecuniary Judgments: Common Law a. Final and Conclusive Nouvion v Freeman (1889), HL [meaning of final and conclusive for CL R&E of foreign judgments] Explain what is meant by final and conclusive ( must be res judicata. Neither party should be able to go back to court and have the pecuniary amount adjusted. Its okay if theyre allowed to appeal. Rarely an issue in a case The biggest category of pecuniary judgments that are not considered final and conclusive are maintenance and support orders. Doesnt mean these cant be enforced in another country, but statutory rules are designed to deal with this issue. Even if the P is appealing the actions, D should still commence R&E action take certain protective prejudgment measures. Can try to get a mareva injunction or garnishee order. b. Jurisdiction in the International Sense (Presence, Submission and R&SC) i. Presence Forbes v. Simmons (1914) Alberta SC - mere physical present is sufficient to give crt jurisdiction Mere physical presence for a brief period of time is sufficient Forbes, AB resident, temporarily visited BC to visit his sick wife. Got served doesnt defend or submit, and returns to AB. Alta SC held the judgment could be R&Ed at CL. Exception: if D was tricked to come into the jurisdiction (theres no case law on this, only said in dicta) *Determining corporate presence would be based on facts. Ie. does the corporation have a mailing address here, doing business here, permanent residence here, etc. ii. Submission (aka attornment) Must be voluntary Submission can be met even if D wasnt in the jurisdiction when the action was commenced (couldve been served ex juris. Perhaps D submitted after the fact. Theres no finite or exhaustive list of the ways a D can be found to have submitted. BCCA found a defendant in a case had submitted to a German court by sending a letter which effectively set out his defence. First Natl Bank of Houston v. Houston E&C, 1990 BCCA [Submission is objectively determined; can submit without intention, or on bad legal advice, unless lawyer acted completely w/o authority] Theres a default judgment in Texas. Unclear if and how D was served. Ds throw up a bunch of defences. Issue: did D voluntarily submit? D had not appeared, but applied to have the Tx judgment set aside (Tx court refused). D had Tx attorneys who had participated, but D said they didnt give Tx attorneys instructions to submit/attorn to the Tx jurisdiction. BCCA: Submission is objectively determined its not based on what D intended (subjective) a litigant can by the acts he does or which are done on his behalf attorn although he has no intention of doing so D can attorn even if he has been given erroneous legal advice as to what constitutes a submission or what the result will be of the act which he does. Only exception is if a lawyer acts completely w/o authority, but D failed to prove that here. Clinton v. Ford (1982) Ont CA [involuntary submission? can protest foreign court taking jurisdiction and object to property seizure, but cant defend on the merits] Facts P was permitted by law in South Africa to take land owned by D as security against potential judgment in a case concerning breach of K. D lived in Ontario at the time, was served there. D enters an appearance by mail. He files a notice of an intention to defend. He files an affidavit in his defence in summary trial. Plea was filed on his behalf (he claims w/o his instruction). At no point in time did the Ont D contest the jurisdiction of the SA court he went directly to the merits. P gets judgment in SA against D. P as judgment creditor, brings action in Ont for R&E. D says but I didnt voluntarily submit to jurisdiction in SA, my land had been seized. I was acting under duress! Issue: Was Ds submission to South African proceedings involuntary, such that judgment should not be enforced in Ont? Ont. CA: D submitted he went too far. Yes property was seized, but the fact that it was seized in advance of the judgment does not free you up to do whatever you like on the merits of the case. D can certainly protest foreign crt taking jurisdiction and object to the seizure of his property in advance of the judgments. If you defend on the merits then youve submitted. Ability of defendant to object to prejudgment seizure is fortified by contempt proceedings that can be commenced if P improperly seized assets or froze assets improperly (this will not be considered submitting to the jurisdiction). Mid-Ohio v. Tri-K Investments (1995) BCCA Did case change the CL or interpret BCSC rule at that time? If it changed CL, then D has not submitted if he only makes JS and fnc arguments. If case was interpretation of BCSC rule, then new BC SC civil rule 21-8(5) prevails (cant argue fnc) Facts: P (Mid-Ohio, an Ontario corp) obtained judgment against D (Tri-K, a BC corp) in K in Ohio. Question 1) Had D submitted to the Ohio court, such that the Ohio court had jurisdiction in relation to the judgment that was obtained? D had been served in BC had not been present in Ohio at the time the action was commenced 2) Should BC court R&E Ohio judgment? BCCA: Post Morguard BC court had 3 options for determining that the Ohio court had jurisdiction in the international sense 1) presence, 2) submission, 3) R&SC. BC court decides that there wasnt a R&SC for purposes of international jurisdiction in the international sense. Did the BC corp def somehow submit to the jurisdiction of the Ohio court? Have to look at the facts or what the BC def did in the Ohio proceedings. BC Def had participated to argue that the Ohio court had no JS under its own rules; and that Ohio was the most appropriate forum (BC was fnc). BC Def ALSO made some technical arguments wrt Ps claim (not quite defending on the merits) BCCA decides it is permissible for a BC def to argue 1) no JS, and 2) FNC in the foreign court. The basis for that decision was ambiguous (is it changing the CL or an interpretation of the BCSC rules) Eng cases said you could only argue no JS, because arguing fnc was like admitting they had jurisdiction and you didnt want them to take it. So arguing FNC was considered submitting. (Edinger was hoping this was what the judge did because weve changed the BC SC rules since then, and this case would no longer apply) BC defendants appearing in foreign actions should be allowed the same flexibility. As long as D sticks to arguing no JS and FNC, BC court will not consider the defendant to have submitted. In this case, BC Def was found to have submitted b/c of third argument on technical basis. New SC rule 21-8(5) only allows you to argue no JS without submitting, so cant argue FNC on the basis of SC rule (can only do this if this case changed the CL and wasnt based on an interpretation of old SC civil rule) Edinger submission issue probably doesnt come up as often on this basis b/c we have R&SC as the third option. Result: D submitted to the foreign jurisdiction. iii. Real and Substantial Connection New category for jurisdiction in the international sense, from Morguard Morguard Investments v. De Savoye, (1990) SCC supports R&E of Cnd judgments provided there was a R&SC b/w the action and the originating province; traditional CL basis for jurisdiction continue BC court asked to R&E AB judgment D had not been present in AB and did not submit to AB courts jurisdiction in any way. SCC decided that within Canada, Cnd CL courts should recognize judgments originating in any other Cnd province provided that there was a R&SC b/w the action and the originating province. Wasnt intended to be used all over the world What was not clear (still hasnt been solved) was how tight the court intended to R&SC to be. Real not hypothetical Substantial more than a little, more than evenly balanced, a fair amount But then the SCC undercut that nice logical, literal interpretation by saying R&SC is valid, but the traditional bases are still good. mere transient physical presence how does that work R&SC? In any event, it was an only in Canada rule. After Morguard Hunt v T&N Plc, 1993 SCC constitutionalized the obligation to give full faith and credit to judgments from other provinces; consistent with order and fairness (Morguard). Also comity, may require R&E of other judgments (outside Canada) where there was a R&SC. In 1993 also, there was an appeal to SCC by BCCA in Moses v Shore Boat Builders. BCCA approved R&SC as a ground for jurisdiction in the intl sense to an Alaskan court/judgment. So can we use the Morguard R&SC basis for recognition of non-Canadian judgments? SCC refused leave to appeal so it seemed like R&SC could be used for R&E of non-Canadian judgments. In the course of the next decade, we used Morguard within Canada, for non-Cnd judgments, and we fluctuated a bit in terms of how tight the connection must be, but on the whole in BC we moved to a minimal connection. And we extended it to foreign, non-cnd judgments Beals v Saldanha says the R&SC for R&E of foreign judgments is higher ( substantial or significant If you are defending a client who is facing an action in a foreign judgment, youre probably going to have to defend there. Otherwise there may be a default judgment which in Canada we are going to R&E Beals v Saldanha, 2003 SCC R&E did FL have jurisdiction in an intl sense? SCC extends Morguard/R&SC to foreign judgments; makes R&SC the only test for finding jurisdiction for R&E of foreign judgments (traditional CL bases N/A). R&SC for foreign judgments requires higher connection (substantial/significant, vs minimal connection for Cnd judgments). Facts Ontario residents (D) sold property they owned in Florida to P (A Florida contractor). There was some mixup in the documentation and P started to construct a home on the wrong property. P realizes this and then sues the Ontario Ds in Florida courts, for various costs. Ontario Ds are notified/served about the proceedings. They basically take no part in the proceedings. In 1991, P obtains judgment in Florida and an award of damages of $264k plus 12% interest. In 1993 P commenced proceedings in Ontario for R&E of the Fl judgment. (this is now post-Morguard). Ds consult a lawyer, who tells them the award cant possibly be R&Ed b/c they werent present and didnt submit (ignores effect of Morguard). Damages + interest grew to over $1mln by the time case reached SCC Issue: Should the Cnd courts (and SCC on appeal) R&E the Florida judgment? Did Fl crt have jurisdiction in an intl sense? SCC Morguard rule does extend to Non-Cnd judgments (affirming Moses v Shorewood). R&SC applies to non-Cnd judgments, subject to any provincial modifications. It is within provincial legislature jurisdiction to modify the R&SC rule for foreign judgments (cant modify it for Cnd judgments). Meaning of R&SC is different for Canadian, and non-Canadian courts: for foreign courts, the connection must be significant or substantial; a fleeting or relatively unimportant connection will not be enough. Disconnect b/w what we require for our own jurisdiction (minimal) and what we are requiring for the jurisdiction of a foreign court, for the purposes of R&E (this is confusing) Any unfairness is balanced by the defences available to D, and Ds ability to argue fnc (supports Mid Ohio case) Majority seems to be saying that there is now only one rule, one basis for establishing foreign courts jurisdiction R&SC. Traditional bases in CL (presence and submission) arent available anymore After this decision, everyone said it seemed the SCC made R&SC the only rule for finding jurisdiction for R&E of foreign judgments. This has somewhat been ignored by the lower courts they still use presence, submission, and R&SC. Result: SCC upheld R&E (lawyers negligence fund paid the judgment b/c of Ontario lawyers bad legal advice) Had Morguard become the only R&S basis? And whether connection needed to be higher for R&E of non-Canadian judgments No provincial C.As have solved this yet. Van Breda It lowered the R&SC for jurisdiction, but it wasnt clear this extended to R&E Edinger: Jury is still out on this issue. Provincial courts will just continue, and ignore Beals v Saldanha, and Van Breda wrt foreign judgments Braintech v Kostiuk, 1991 BCCA Court adopts American R&E principle for deciding R&SC not met when corp has mere transitory presence, vs purposeful commercial activity in that placeFacts: P, Braintech, is a Nevada corp, carrying on business in BC. For 3 months, it had presence in Texas, and obtained a judgment there against D (a BC resident) for defamation. Question: Was there a R&SC with Texas so the Texas judgment could be R&E in BC? BCCA: BCCA borrows from American jurisprudence on R&E, which distinguishes b/w purposeful commercial activity and mere transitory presence. BCCA looks at the facts (especially fact that there wasnt evidence that anyone in Texas had even been affected by the defamation) and holds that there was no R&SC b/w the action and Texas. Thus BC court would not R&E Texas judgment. Problem with this case is its possible to interpret that judge has adopted American law, and allowed American law to characterize the issue and decide whether there was R&SC in Texas. Lex causae characterization is contrary to conflicts jurisprudence we practice should practice lex fori characterization. Result: Court found there was not a R&SC b/w the cause of action and the originating jurisdiction/judgment 2. Non-Pecuniary Judgments: Common Law Old CL did not have any rules for R&E for non-pecuniary judgments Since Morguard (1990) and Hunt in Canada, people have been thinking about R&E of NP judgments Hunt case dealt with non-pecuniary judgment R&E of order to produce documents from BC court in QC Pro Swing Inc v. Elta Golf Inc., 2006 SCC Foreign equitable orders are now eligible for R&E, but must be sufficiently clear and specific and not penal in natureFacts: P (Pro-Swing) sued D (an Ontario Company) in Ohio, over a US trademark dispute. D submits to jurisdiction of Ohio court. Theres a consent order (judgment) in Ohio court, but D does not comply with the consent order. So P applies for and obtains a contempt order in Ohio, which includes an injunction, order for damages, consent to accounting, etc. Is this the kind of foreign order which CND CL provinces should R&E? SCC We ought now to extend our rules for R&E to non-pecuniary foreign orders. SCC focused primarily on injunctions foreign equitable orders are now eligible for R&E ( no longer arbitrarily excluded. In order to get foreign equitable order R&Ed, have to establish: Order has to be issued by a foreign court, that has jurisdiction in an international sense (in this case Elta had submitted) Court will consider various factors (Deschamp factors) has to be sufficiently specific Clear about whether its intended to apply extraterritorially against D Whether its the kind of order that is going to be a drain on local judicial resources (because non-pecuniary judgments require more work from the court, more judicial oversight, very fact and context specific) In the end, SCC decided not to R&E the Ohio order. Deschamp was worried it was a penal (not civil) contempt order. She thought there were alternatives available to the P in the Ohio action. She thought that the property at issue was not sufficiently important. Order was unclear One case since then where NPJ has been R&E: USA v Yemek, 2010 Ont CA 414 this is the kind of an injunction which we are prepared to R&E CA considered all the Deschamp factors and says we wouldve liked the judgment to be a bit narrower, but its ok. It gets over the bar. Its not uncommon for a CL court to issue an equitable (in personam) order which will be a worldwide order. So D subject to the order must comply everywhere in the world. But you might have to get that order R&E in other jurisdictions, b/c you might not be able to rely on defs conscience. 3. Defences to R&E: The exclusionary rules, fraud, and breach of natural justice Even if P has satisfied all the rules, there are still defences available to D If foreign judgment is based on foreign penal, foreign revenue or other public law, were not going to recognize it If contrary to forum public policy Additional CL defences to R&E foreign judgment obtained by fraud Foreign judgment obtained in breach of natural justice Contrary to forum public policy Note that error of law by the foreign court is not a plausible defence (Gottard v Grey) Beals v Saldhana, 2003 SCC Sets out the traditional CL defences: fraud, breach of natural justice, contrary to forum public policy defences arent exhaustive. Ds raised a number of CL defences against R&E of the Florida judgment. One thing SCC does that is notable is agree that these traditional CL defences may not be exhaustive. There may be situations which warrant creation of a new defence. The court doesnt give any indication of what this may be have to be creative. Fraud: SCC modifies the current approach to fraud (which distinguished b/w intrinsic and extrinsic fraud) to a new approach Fraud going to jurisdiction may always be raised. Not subject to the due diligence requirements, but we (BCCA) should be very reluctant to accept fraud going to jurisdiction of foreign court (Lang v Lapse, BCCA) and fraud going to the merits of the case - can only be raised if the allegations are new (not the subject of a prior adjudication), or there are new or material facts not previously discoverable with due diligence Fraud was alleged in Lang v Lapse, BCCA, but didnt succeed. P (KD Lang) commences action in BC for R&E of the California judgment. D raised a whole bunch of defences, most of them struck out. But chambers judge leaves fraud (probably shouldve been struck out). CA helpfully sorts out Beals v Saldanha for BC; he says that old approach to fraud was based on evidentiary categories, whereas new approach relate to subject matter. forum conveniens goes to the merits category (this is a bit puzzling arguing jurisdiction goes to the merits). Anything going to the merits of the case is subject to the Beals v Saldanha due diligence requirement; must be new and not subject to prior adjudication, even when its a default judgment. Edinger: fraud is a relatively limited defence, but there are going to be cases in which it can be raised. It really turns on the behaviour, conduct, and activity of the plaintiff in the foreign action, and not of the foreign court. Breach of natural justice more accessible and available, might succeed in invoking it more often. Of course burden is on Def. SCC indicates that there might be heightened scrutiny for non cnd judgments. Defence is likely to apply in relation to a foreign procedure contrary to Canadian notions of fundamental justice did you have your day in court, did you have proper notice, etc. fair process is one which reasonably guarantees basic procedural safeguards such as judicial independence and fair ethical rules governing the participants in the judicial system. Edinger: So if you want to argue foreign court was biased and corrupt, you can argue BNJ. Make sure to focus on whether there was BNJ in your case, not in the foreign court system generally. Breach of Public Policy SCC sticks to traditional rule is it contrary to forum basic morality. (look to Kuwait and Lloyds v. Meinzer) Be very careful with this bc were condemning the foreign system, going to be rarely successful. Mere difference between the laws isnt sufficient. Triple damages are not contrary to forum public policy.  4. R&E of Class Actions Usually defendant in class action doesnt want to be sued again in another province. So judgment is usually being used as a shield to stop a plaintiff from commencing proceedings in another province Currie v MacDonalds Restaurants, 2005 Ont CA whether Cnd crt should R&E a foreign class action judgment. Depends on 1) jurisdiction (R&SC), 2) adequate representation of non-residents, and 3) procedural fairness (adequate notice). Breach of NJ can impact R&E.Facts There was a consumer class action in Illinois, granted a judgment. The Plaintiff class included Canadians. Illinois is an opt-out regime. Class is determined by court and plaintiffs get opportunity to opt out. Mr. Currie, an Ont resident, had been part of the plaintiff class. Opt-out notice had been advertised in Canada in Macleans magazine and three French language papers (not very widely read publications). Mr. Currie wants to commence class action in Ontario against McDonald and D says no, youre bound by Illinois judgment, you didnt opt out 1) Does court have jurisdiction for the class action? Not an issue here bc D has presence in Ontario, lots of consumers there 2) Should the Ontario Crt R&E the Illinois class action judgment? The Illinois class action is prima facie recognizable. Illinois court had jurisdiction, but Ont. CA says recognizing the Illinois CA could be unfair to Canadian consumers. Three criteria have to exist for an Ont court to recognize a foreign, non-Canadian class action. There must be 1) jurisdiction based on R&SC (b/w action and forum met here by Illinois), 2) the non-residents have to be adequately represented, and 3) The non-residents have to be accorded procedural fairness, which includes receiving adequate notice! CA agrees with TJ that notice was not adequate in this case. (not widely disseminated, not easily understandable) In this case it amounts to breach of natural justice, but its not so much a defence it is considered in whether you want to recognize the judgment. Lack of adequate notice is a sufficient to constitute breach of natural justice, and cause crt not to R&E the foreign class action judgment. McDonalds failed to get Illinois judgment R&Ed in Ontario. Mr Currie was given leave to commence his action in Ont b/c he wasnt bound by Illinois judgment. Canada Post v. Lepine, 2009 SCC - Notice is critical. Notice has to be in the right places so the intended recipients will see it, receive it, and will actually be able to understand it.Edinger: very unsatisfactory case Consumers were unhappy with Canada Post b/c they advertised a lifetime internet service, which ppl subscribed to and then CP discontinued it Class Actions were commenced in BC, Ont and Qc (by Lepine) There were settlements in Ont and BC. The Ont judge knew the class actions had been commenced in QC; Ont settlement excluded BC but everyone else was included (inc. QC). Thus Lepine would be bound by it and unable to continue his QC class action. Issue: Should QC plaintiffs be bound by Ont judgment? Should it be R&Ed? Were they given adequate notice to opt out? SCC (Lebel): Adequacy of notice: actual individual notice is not necessary, but the way the notice procedure is designed must make it likely that the information will reach the intended recipients, AND the wording of the notice must take into account the context it will be published and the situation of the recipients SCC found that the notice given in Ont action was not adequate. Ontario courts were aware of parallel proceedings in QC and the notice failed to make clear to the QC recipients what it was all about consumers were confused and wouldnt know what they were being asked to do. In that respect, lebel endorses Currie v McDonald. Notice is critical Then Lebel applies a provision in the QC civil code and said the QC action was started first so Ontario action doesnt bind it. Parallel actions appear to be a problem, including parallel Class actions. It creates friction b/w the courts. Dont ask the courts to solves these problems. Provincial legislators should solve it. Were not going to come up with a judicial approach to solve these problems. Edinger: it was a cop out, thats what Teck was about, didnt get a resolution there. And thats what this case is about. Provinces still havent solved this. Still have the problem of parallel class actions. Meeking v Cash Store Inc., 2013 MBCA [raising national settlement as a defence] Def raises as a defence against continuation of the MB class action, an Ontario settlement. Mr. Meeking, MB resident, did not opt out of the Ont action (Ont declared national class, excl BC and AB), settlement order says everybody is bound cant sue anywhere else. Question for MBCA should we R&E the Ontario settlement so as to bind Mr. Meeking and prevent him from commencing action in MB? Court recognizes that Van Breda establishes that the common issues b/w parties in a class action constitute a R&SC sufficient to give the class action court jurisdiction. MBCA found Ont ct had jurisdiction to find a national class and bind P based on common issue. Notice was sufficient. Thus MBCA recognizes the Ont class action. Mr Meking is bound he cant commence a class action here. Edinger: I have no real complaints about this. But after this point they went off on other tangents. Edinger: a province cannot prohibit a party in another province from commencing an action in that other province. That would be territorial legislation (not constitutional) But if Meking is correct and upheld, and there was a R&SC b/c of common issues between out of province resident and CA province, then the CA province has jurisdiction over the parties. That gives them jurisdiction for an in personam order and the in personam order is you cant commence an action anywhere else. So that resolves the constitutional issues. 5. Statutory Regimes for R&E BC Law on R&E is a combination of common law and statute law In order for a judgment creditor who is the holder of a judgment from another, non-BC jurisdiction, to select the options and then the best option, they will have to determine nature of the order (pecuniary, non pecuniary), the location of the originating court In BC we have lots of choices. Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act (ECJDA). Companion to the CJPTA available only for other Canadian judgments (not available in every CL province) Changes some procedure and substantive rules Not every province in Canada has yet adopted and enacted this act Some provinces enacted earlier version Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act. Court Order Enforcement Act (COEA), Part II. All Cnd provinces have enacted (except QC) available for jurisdictions where we have agreements with them Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, For family creditors. Most provinces have a similar/same act Foreign Arbitral Awards Act and Intl Commercial Arbitration Act For arbitration awards Note: its possible for party in receipt of arbitral award to file it with the court, and have it turned into judgment, in effect. BC Limitations Act 10 yrs or LP in originating jurisdiction. Some provinces have adopted 2yr LP for R&E of judgments so pay attention to this. a. Judgment and Orders 1. Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act limited to Canadian judgments (but not every prov has enacted it); applies to pecuniary, NP (equitable) and possibly in-rem orders. Eliminates some CL defences. Built in LP.Limited to Canadian judgments; no defences available (Go directly to this statute) Modifies the CL in favour of the judgment creditor 1) it mandates blind full faith and credit if its a Canadian judgment (s. 6(3)). We dont apply Morguard anymore. 2) not limited to pecuniary orders, includes registration of non-pecuniary orders and possibly other things 3) it eliminates some CL defences (Ie. lack of jurisdiction, fraud, breach of NJ) (s. 6(3)) Key provisions S. 1 definition of a Canadian judgment "Canadianjudgment"means ajudgment, decree or order made in a civil proceeding by a courtofa province or territoryofCanada other than British Columbia (a)that requires a person to pay money, (PECUNIARY) including (i) order of a tribunal that is enforceable as a judgment, and (ii) a criminal compensation order (b)under which a person is required to do or not do an act or thing, or [NON-PECUNIARY] (c)that declares rights, obligations or status in relation to a person or thing, [COULD BE IN-REM, COULD RELATE TO TITLE ON PROPERTY, but we dont know b/c theres not been any caselaw] and, subject to section 1.1, includes a domestic trade agreement award, but does not include a judgment, decree or order that (d) is for maintenance or support, including an order enforceable under the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, (e) is for the payment of money as a penalty or fine for committing an offence, (f) relates to the care, control or welfare of a minor, except in the case of a Canadian civil protection order, (g) is made by a tribunal of a province or territory of Canada other than British Columbia, whether or not it is enforceable as an order of the superior court of unlimited trial jurisdiction of the province or territory where the order was made, to the extent that it provides for relief other than the payment of money, or [NON-PECUNIARY ORDERS OF TRIBUNALS] (h) relates to the granting of probate or letters of administration or the administration of the estate of a deceased person; [ESTATE MATTERS] Ss. 2-4 Process: you register; you dont have to start a court process. S. 5 built in limitation period: A Canadian judgment that requires a person to pay money must not be registered or enforced under this Act (a) after the time for enforcement has expired in the province or territory where the judgment was made, or (b) later than 10 years after the date on which the judgment became enforceable in the province or territory where it was made. S. 6 (1) you can register, and then the judgment debtor (defendant) can apply for instructions (2) judge can order various things, including (a) order to modify original judgment, (c) stay the judgment (it could be under appeal in foreign province) including if its contrary to public policy (iv) Could stay enforcement if its contrary to BC public policy. Edinger: this probably wont get used much, it would be unusual that BC would find other provinces law offends BC public policy. (3) SC must not make order staying/limiting enforcement, solely on the grounds that: the judge, court or tribunal that made the judgment lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceeding that led to the judgment, or over the party against whom enforcement is sought, under (i) principles of private international law, or (ii) the domestic law of the province or territory where the judgment was made, ( blind full faith and credit, the Supreme Court would have come to a different decision on a finding of fact or law or on an exercise of discretion from the decision of the judge, court or tribunal that made the judgment, or (crystallized error of law is not a defence) a defect existed in the process or proceeding leading to the judgment. (this is intended to eliminate defences of fraud and breach of natural justice, but again no case law on this. If one of these issues exists in a case, all you can do is go back to originating court and appeal) There seems to be no provision for notifying the judgment debtor Court Order Enforcement Act, Part II requires that BC have entered into agmt w/ other jurisdiction (**Reciprocal**); All Cnd provinces except QC have enacted this. Strict 30 day period for judgment debtor to object (30 days). All defences available.Also operates by a registration system Limitation: requires that BC have entered into an agreement with the other jurisdiction It truly is reciprocal BC has entered into agreements with all other Canadian provinces and territories (except Quebec), all those in Australia 6 states in US (Washington, Alaska, California, Oregon, Colorado and Idaho) Small number of European jurisdictions (Germany, Austria, UK) This is pre-Morguard, so its a crystallization/codification of the CL Example/key statutory provisions: If youve got a judgment from outside of Canada from a reciprocating state and you want to realize on it, you make an ex parte application to register the judgment. Acting for the judgment creditor, you have 30 days in which you must notify the judgment debtor that you have registered the judgment from the reciprocating states. Defendant then has 30 more days to object. Defendant can object on any of the CL grounds: 1) Court didnt have jurisdiction (I wasnt served, wasnt present, didnt submit, etc.) 2) CL defences Limitation periods have been strictly applied in the cases there are no extensions. If the D doesnt manage to object in that 30 day period, then no matter how many defences that D mightve been able to raise, its an enforceable judgment. Central Guaranty Trust v De Luca, 1995 NWTR (SC) Example of case where limitation period in COEA determined outcome of the case (allows P to register judgment against D), despite defences available and despite courts effort to read in Morguard. Dont expect original judgment will have jurisdiction based on R&SC.Facts: P had obtained an (original) judgment in Ontario. Then applied ex parte in NWT to have judgment registered and enforced. Notice was given that the judgment has been registered. D later applies to set aside the registration of the judgment, but well after the 30 day period. Counsel for the judgment debtor operated on assumption it could be extended (mistake). Issues : 1) whether this judgment could be registered at all against the judgment debtor b/c at CL Ontario did not have jurisdiction (D wasnt served in Ontario; it was a default judgment; he didnt submit to their jurisdiction in any way but there was a R&SC b/c case related to property owned by them in Ontario), 2) whether there was any defence under the act NWTSC: Note: This is post-Morguard, but the Reciprocal Judgments Act is pre-Morguard, and no province has amended the legislation so as to incorporate any changes to the CL. Theres an attempt in this case to read in Morguard somehow but it fails Jurisdiction: NWT reads in Morguard as giving Ont court jurisdiction, which in turn allowed them to serve def in NWT. Court says D couldve raised a defence here (he wasnt present, hadnt submitted, wasnt carrying on business there), but he brought his application after the limitation period ended. Court allows registration of the judgment against D in NWT. So this was not a successful conversion in the NWT in applying the reciprocal judgments act. Re Carrick Estates and Young (1987), Sask CA (COEA may require more than transient presence; Sask CA agreed that BC judgment served to person transiently in BC should not be registered based on statutory language) Interpretation of Sask Recriprocal Enforcement Act. Facts: Mr. Young was a football player he was in BC for a game, served in the province. He doesnt defend, but applies to set it aside (participated to limited extent). D applied ex parte in Sask to set aside judgment Saskatchewan agrees. Case indicates what courts can do in interpreting a statute. Even though transient presence is sufficient in CL, Sask CA says not under our statute. So the fact that he was served in BC while he was there for a football game doesnt count. And the fact that he applied in BC to set aside doesnt count as submission either. There are limits to what you can do with the COEA (Reciprocal Enforcement Act) Owen v Rocketinfo Inc., 2008 BCCA 502 [disallowed chaining of judgments for registration under COEA; can only register original judgments] There was a process starting to be known as chaining you get a judgment in a non-reciprocating state and you would register it in a reciprocating state, and then you would register that in the place you really wanted it enforced. Each province has different reciprocating states/provinces. In this case, original judgment obtained in state of Nevada (not a reciprocating state with BC). The Nevada judgment is registered in California (recipg jurisdiction). So then judgment creditor (based on some case authority), registers it in BC. This gets to the BCCA which says no you cant do that, the only judgments that are registrable under the COEA are the original judgments not any subsequent conversions of that judgment by the process of registration. Another limitation on the statute: can only register original judgment b. Arbitral Awards Extra-judicial Edinger: In BC we have a couple of arbitration acts. Important to recognize that under all the acts, in every province, there are defences available to R&E of arbitral awards Shreter v. Gasmac Inc. (1992) Ont Gen Div Enforcement of a foreign arbitration award based on provl statute; case highlights statutory defences available to D to prevent R&E, as well as CL defences (Breach of NJ or contrary to forum public policy could apply)Facts: Case sets out the statute (same in BC as Ontario), as well as interpretation and judicial reaction to registration of an arbitration award from Georgia. Arbitration was b/w Canadian and American corps. Gasmac (D) took no steps in Georgia to set arbitration award aside. P applied and filed arb award with the Georgia Court (to make it enforceable as a judgment). D raised some objections to jurisdiction but it was dismissed. P applies under arb statutes in Ontario to have the Georgia arb award R&Ed (not the Georgia judgment). D raises a number of arguments: 1) Ont application process (not important), 2) b/c the Georgia arb had been filed in the court, it had merged into the judgment and no longer had independent existence -> could no longer be registered (this was rejected) Whether there is a merger is a matter for forum law question is do we consider the foreign arb to have merged into the judgment At CL, the cause of action does not merge into the judgment. Thats why you can continue to bring an original action in BC, as well as the foreign action. Similarly in arb we don t consider that the arb merged with the judgment So plaintiff has choice whether to sue under arb or judgment 3) There was a breach of NJ( Defences (set out in statute, Art. 36)) ( b/c the arbitrator didnt give reasons. The Ont Ct conceded that failure to give reasons could be a breach of NJ Art 36 provides defences available to R&E of a foreign arb award Incapacity of the party No proper notice (breach of NJ) Award deals with something not covered by the clause (that was supposed to be arbitrated) There was something wrong with the arb tribunal/committee Award hasnt become binding Contrary to the public policy of the state 4) the arb award was contrary to forum public policy (very difficult to win on this argument), related to the acceleration of the royalty payments under the court They thought since defence was statutory, they might get a more broad treatment of the defence (vs narrow treatment in Beals v Saldanha). Court sticks to CL interpretation/application of the defence, and finds that this was in no way contrary to public policy, here. E. JURISDICTION AND R&E: IN REM ACTIONS Judgments as to status or title of property, and in theory, an in rem judgment, can determine the status of an individual (divorced, married, etc.) In rem actions - supposed to be good against the world but only good in the jurisdictions that recognize them Property Various categories (based on classification/characterization) each have their own CoL rule Conflict of laws has two big categories (based on civil law) Moveable property Immoveable property [CL categories: real, and personal property] The two dont necessarily coincide; generally they do coincide First step in any case: classifying the property Hogg v Provincial Tax Commissioner, 1941 Sask CA how to classify property for the purpose of conflicts, into moveable and immoveable property Mocambique, Hesperides Hotels court has no jurisdiction over actions concerning title or trespass to foreign land. Godley v Coles is a bit of a qualification on those two cases Ward v Coffin deal with exceptions to this rule Duke v Andler deals with R&E Hogg v. Provincial Tax Commissioner, 1941 Sask CA Process: where is property located? 2) Foreign (not forum) characterization of property as moveable or immoveable. BC law characterizes mortgages as immoveables.Facts: Lady held mortgages on land in BC, but died domiciled in Sask. All Bs are in Sask. Sask wants to tax her estate and is permitted to do so if the property devolves by or under Sask law. This implicates CoL of law rules what law governs entitlement to succession of these mortgages? CL has developed CoL rules for succession to immoveable and moveable property Moveables depend on the domicile of the deceased at the date of death Immoveables depend on the situs (location) of the property How do you go about classifying the property? The forum, Sask, does not classify the property. Forum doesnt apply its own law ( this is the big exception to the forum characterization and forum application of own law . Complete deferral to foreign characterization; abandonment of lex fori approach. Process to follow: 1) Where is the property located? BC CL rule: interest in land (incl. mortgages) are located where the land is located 2) Forum asks the jurisdiction in which the property is located to classify it Sask asks how does BC law classify mortgages Expert witnesses are called from BC and asked how does BC law classify/characterize mortgages The more correct expert says they are considered immoveables Thus mortgages in Sask devolve under the law of BC, and thus not subject to tax in Sask. The point to remember is the processTheres lots of personal property that doesnt have a physical location, or a connection to a physical place. The court has to invent an arbitrary rule BC Courts always have jurisdiction if the property is located in BC. S. 10 of the CJPTA has subsections which reference that property in the province is a R&SC. The more difficult question, addressed in Mocambique and Hesperides case, is when, if ever, will a BC court consider it has jurisdiction if the immoveable property is located outside BC? The two cases hold that the BC court will have no jurisdiction for some causes of action if the immoveable property is located outside BC. British South Africa Co v. Companhia de Mocambique, 1893 Eng HL domestic court has no jurisdiction over actions concerning title or trespass to foreign land.Facts: There is a dispute in England (forum) over immoveables (mines) in South Africa. Ps allege that Ds had wrongfully taken property and ejected Ps. Cause of action: trespass to land, seeking injunction and damages The HL refuses to take jurisdiction Trespass to land necessarily involves questions of who has title to land. It assumes title in the plaintiff. How do we know? And even if we could tell, we might have inconsistent decisions b/w England and South Africa. Basic rule: in actions concerning title to foreign land, or trespass to foreign land, the domestic court has no jurisdiction Hesperides Hotels Ltd. v Muftizade, 1979 Eng HL HL refuses to reargue Mocambique. Court has no jurisdiction to hear an action re: title to immoveables (even framed differently)Facts: Ps covertly attempt to reargue Mocambique, but HL isnt fooled Ps (from Greece) owned a hotel (immoveable) in Cypress, in area that had fallen under Turkish rule. Ps discover that an English company is booking tours to their old hotel. Ps commence action in England, against Mr. Muftizada (representative of Turkish govt in England) and local defendants for conspiracy to trespass, with an account of profits and injunction. (intentionally avoid arguing trespass to foreign immoveables). Ds of course argue Eng crt has no jurisdiction (especially per Mocambique). HL: HL isnt fooled, refuses to re-argue Mocambique. Ps didnt bring enough support to overturn Mocambique, which has been adopted all over the CL world. Its a matter of some delicacy and should be left to the legislature. Revising the rule in Mocambique would lead to forum shopping. This still stands - Can bring an action for trespass to chattels in the hotel, but you cant bring an action related to title of immoveables. Court wont take jurisdiction. Lucas Film v Ainsworth, 2011 UKSC [UKSC refused to extend Mocambique to IP claims/foreign breach of copyright] Facts Ainsworth (English citizen, D) was found in US to have breached Lucas Film (P) copyright in Star Wars products; specifically Storm Troopers helmets and armour (clear that copyright was breached in US). P sued him in California and got judgment for $20m. D hadnt been physically present, or submitted in any way P brought action for R&E in England, of California default judgment. (Perfect example of the non-merger rule in Georgia arbitration case (Shreter v Gasmac)). P also brought an original action in the alternative for breach of US copyright. Issue: Should Eng crts R&E California judgment? Do Eng Crts have jurisdiction over breach of property in the US? English courts: all of the courts agree that California judgment is not enforceable under traditional CL rules The argument had been made that by advertising and selling over internet, Ainsworth had presence in US; this was considered by courts, but was rejected; this wasnt presence for R&E So English courts are sticking to traditional rules of enforcement for non-EU judgments Eng Courts: Regarding original action for breach of US copyright, theres no doubt that D had physical presence in England; he was in England, served in England. But does Eng crt have subject matter jurisdiction - over CoA for breach of property right in US? SC doesnt want to extend Mocambique rule to other forms of property beyond real/immoveable property The Mocambique situation was political and had pragmatic considerations. Principles of international law and comity were engaged Since then, court can, under EU law, take jurisdiction for actions related to title of property in other member states. This has worked, hasnt caused problems Court decides not to extend Mocambique to all IP, or to foreign copyright in foreign territories providing that there is in personam jurisdiction over a D, an English court does have jurisdiction in this area. This is the English situation: they have put a limit on it; there are still the major exceptions (which we havent covered yet), which render this subject matter relatively small Godley v Coles, 1988 Ont Div Crt Mocambique should be restricted to its facts (where title to land is in dispute); shouldnt preclude other (ie. tort) actions that relate to foreign immoveable property (ie. where some damage has occurred unclear what some means.)Edinger: a bit of a qualification on the absolute rule (shes not aware of another CND case that picks up on this case and uses it Facts: Both parties are Ontario residents no question that Ont crt has jurisdiction. Parties own condos in Florida. Coles (D) condo is directly above the plaintiffs condo. Ds toilet leaks, does damage to Ps condo (both moveable and immoveable elements) The action is commenced in Ont for damages (pecuniary judgment sought) to both the contents of the downstairs condo (moveable property), but also to the condo itself (immoveable property) Issue: Should the Ont court take jurisdiction? Clearly Ont Crt can assume jurisdiction over an action to recover damages caused by negligence to moveables. But should minute or some damage to immoveables in a foreign jurisdiction raise the application of the Mocambique rule and preclude Ps from bringing claim? No Court concludes that the presence of some damage should not disentitle Ps from bringing their action in Ontario Title to foreign immoveables was not at issue here Mocambique should be restricted to its facts and does not preclude all actions that relate to foreign immoveables Case approves of tort actions relating to some damage to foreign immoveable property. Unclear what some means.  Exceptions to Mocambique rule per Dicey Court has no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the determination of title to or right to possession of immoveable property situate outside England, except: A) the claim is based on a contract or equity between the parties B) the question has to be decided for purpose of the administration of an estate or trust and the property consists of moveable or immoveables in England as well as outside England. Ward v Coffin relates to exception under contract Equity breach of confidence (concerns foreign property) If you frame your case as an equitable or contract in personam claim, local court is likely to find that they have jurisdiction Ward v. Coffin, 1972 NBSC App Div highlights contract exception to Mocambique rule.P (Ward) and D (Coffin) entered into K for sale of land located in QC. P brings action in NB (in K) seeking either damages or an award of specific performance. K was said to have been made in NB NB court exercises jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, b/c its a K action and b/c its one of the exceptions to Mocambique D would try to use Mocambique and say no jurisdiction Duke v Andler, 1932 SCC Cnd courts arent going to R&E foreign in rem actions dealing with local immoveable property (Mocambique)Facts: P (California residents) entered into K to sell land (immoveables) in BC to the Dukes (D). Purchase price was $55,000, and D agreed to pay $10,000 in cash upfront and deliver a promissory note for the balance secured by a mortgage. The deed went into escrow, was meant to give title to the purchasers when everything complete. Somehow, after P did what they were supposed to do (deposit title deed in escrow), D managed to get possession to the title deeds without paying $10,000 and without providing promissory note. Mr. Duke also registered title in his name in land registry office, and transferred title to his wife who mortgaged it for $30k. Ps commence action in California suing D for breach of K. California court took jurisdiction on exception for K cause of action. California court finds Duke breached the K, and ordered Duke to reconvey title to the property to the Andlers (in personam equitable order). Calif crt also alternatively ordered that if he doesnt comply, the court ordered the court officer to execute the reconveyance What happens? Mr. Duke didnt reconvey. The county officer comes up to BC to apply for reconveyance. The land title office wont do it and then Canadian litigation commences. Issue: Will BC court R&E aspect of California judgment that is really foreign direct enforcement of an in rem action? BC Courts The BC courts are very helpful to the California plaintiffs. They find the decree is valid - its an in personam contract action. The Calif court was not assuming jurisdiction to decide title to BC local immoveables. They took jurisdiction the same way we wouldve, to resolve the contract dispute However, BC court doesnt like the method it uses to work it out ( remedy for contempt against Duke, and also that a judicial officer had been empowered to come up here and reconvey (it looked like foreign direct enforcement). Court was worried D could be imprisoned. But court found a way to enforce it under the Law and Equity act. They had no problem in the BC courts. SCC: There was a recognition that this was not a foreign action dealing directly with title to local immoveable property it was just a K action. They saw that. But they were not moved SCC Refused to recognize foreign in personam equitable order (This would now be recognized per Pro-Swing) This case is cited regularly as authority in Canadian cases for jurisdiction rule (Mocambique) and for the Canadian recognition rule which is a non-recognition rule: we in CL Canada are not going to recognize a foreign judgment dealing with local immoveable property Edinger: I think ECJDA definn of CND judgment in s. 1(c) includes things that declare rights, obligations or status, in relation to a person or thing. you could argue that it requires BC courts to recognize other Canadian judgments relating to BC land. Its open to this interpretation. It could also include Canadian equitable orders What if we had another California judgment? Cant use ECJDA. Would we recognise an order for specific performance? Edinger: I would argue strongly that wed have to consider it b/c of Pro Swing v Elta. Immoveable property is here, we know what D has been ordered to do, so D should transfer title and we should R&E that California judgment. We can chip away at Duke v Andler F. CHOICE OF LAW Presume that court has exercised jurisdiction (had JS and hasnt exercised discretion to stay the action). What law will the courts apply? Are you okay with that, or are you going to raise a conflicts CoL issue? You have to convince the court of the connecting factor, and what the relevant and applicable CoL rule is. May be required to present expert affidavit evidence as to what the foreign law is Theory as to why we have CoL rules: Comity Two different methodologies for pursuing CoL Jurisdiction selecting approach/method CL and Civil law systems We might have different CoL rules but use same methods Governmental interest approach used in the U.S.A. (edinger not a fan); constitutional Asks which govt state has the greatest interest to have the law applied SCC in Van Breda confirmed that we do still have CoL rules (R&SC is not taking over CoL rules) CoL Rules CoL rule depends on the characterization of the of issue (characterization), which leads to a connecting factor that points to a legal system. Examples: Formal validity of a marriage (thats the issue, characterization) is governed by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated (connecting factor) Then apply the law of that place Essential validity of a will related to a particular kind of property (issue) is governed by the law of the testators domicile at the date of death (connecting factor) Apply law of the place where testator was domiciled at death Can group law of any place into domestic law and conflicts law/rules. Conflicts can be subdivided into i) choice of law rules, and ii) renvoi rules When applying the law of the place selected by characterization/connecting factor, do we apply domestic or conflicts rules? Presumption towards applying the domestic law: Ordinarily, the forum (BC court) will say where does the CoL rule point us? Ie. law of the place of celebration points us to the domestic law (lex causae law selected by the choice of law rule). In this case, domestic law would be formal validity of marriage law of that place. Applies in most but not all juridical categories of CoL rules Sometimes, the forum will look at the conflicts rules of the lex causae ( Renvoi!!! Neilson, Aus HC case proves that this concept is still alive 1. Renvoi and the Incidental Question Two types of renvoi: 1) Partial renvoi very simple, useful. Look at the CoL rules of the lex causae (foreign jurisdiction). If the LC is CL, then it should have same CoL rules and lead to same place. However if the LC is a civil law jurisdiction they often use different CoL rules and a different connecting factor. If LC uses different connecting factor, its going to point to the law of some other jurisdiction (transmission to a third system), and were going to apply that jurisdictions domestic law or its going to point back to our jurisdiction (remission back to BC, where we apply BC domestic law). Typically, civil law systems use nationality (CL uses domicile, or a place (ie. Where the marriage was celebrated). Case where partial renvoi occurred : Taxanowska v Taxanowski, 1957 APPROACH per Edinger: always apply domestic law first, and then if it doesnt help, default to partial renvoi assuming its going to be helpful for your case. 2) Total renvoi/double renvoi/foreign court theory Tezcan v Tezcan, 1992 BCCA: Court defined partial and total renvoi, but didnt tell us which to follow in BC Total renvoi BC court will try to solve the issue in the way the foreign court would do in these circs on these facts. ( Complete deference Requires evidence of an expert to say what the foreign court would do. Foreign court would do one of 4 things 1) foreign court would apply substantive domestic law. 2) foreign court would apply CoL rule and see where that leads (ie. To Poland), and apply their domestic law. Transmission or remission (consistent with partial renvoi) 3) foreign court would apply CoL rule, see where that leads, and then apply CoL rule of that place. 4) Foreign court would do what originating court would do (follows foreign court theory) ( complete remission back to BC? Within Canada, cant have renvoi b/c our rules are the same Example of total renvoi: Re Annesley Renvoi is a very live part of conflicts. It can spread to juridical categories where its never been used before (ie. torts (Neilson)) Trying to figure out what a particular judge has actually done, b/w partial and total renvoi, is very difficult to ascertain bc the results often coincide can get same result from partial as total renvoi. Hard to determine by looking at the result. Possible steps in renvoi analysis: If I wanted to use partial renvoi, and apply whatever substantive law that CoL rule points to (transmission or remission), I would ask a foreign expert to expound on and explain the application of his legal systems CoL rule. But I would be careful to limit questioning to that (might ask about substantive law as well). Go with partial renvoi if after doing your research you discover that your client would get the wrong result from going with foreign substantive domestic law (that forum CoL rule has pointed to). I would ask, well whats their CoL rule? And if its a civil law system it might point me to a third legal system or might remit me to BC law. Partial renvoi provides an alternative CoL rule This will be very relevant for formal validity of the marriage, formal validity of a will and essential validity of a will Total renvoi dont want to go for this unless you know what will happen what foreign expert will say about how foreign court would handle the issue. Unless its a foreign immoveable and then we will defer completely to their system Cant use renvoi in contracts matters (judges have expounded on this) Renvoi can possible expand to new juridical categories (like torts as was seen in Nielson, but theres no precedent for this in Canada. Its been floated in cases involving moveable property Taxanowska v Taxanowski, 1957 Eng Example where Eng Crt employed partial renvoi to try to uphold (validity) a marriage.Facts: H and W were married in Italy. They were both Polish, Roman Catholic and in Italy. H was serving in the military, and she was a civilian refugee. They got married at a catholic church in Italy, ceremony was performed by catholic priest. Issue: are they validly married? Characterization of issue: formal validity of marriage ( connecting factor is place where the marriage ceremony occurred ( apply the law of Italy. First, we ordinarily look to Italian domestic law and they examine whether the ceremony complied with the domestic law of Italy at the time it was performed (it didnt, Catholic priest had screwed up). So if you applied Italian domestic law they dont have a valid marriage. Second: Court policy in those days was to try to uphold a marriage, so court employs partial renvoi and looks at the Italian CoL rule. It said validity of marriage is governed by the law of the nationality ( Poland. Eng court looked to law of Poland to see whether the couple had complied with Polish law (unfortunately they hadnt complied with that either). Third, Eng considered whether it was a valid marriage at CL (ignore) Re Annesley, 1926 Eng Ch early example of total renvoi/foreign court theory. Renvoi is alive and well in successionFacts Mrs. A had married an Eng army officer in 1860. He dies in 1884. Afterwards, she moves to France and lives there til her death in 1924. She seldom even visited Eng during that time. But she never did the paperwork to become a domicile of France. She makes a will in 1919, in English form. In it she attempts to dispose of her moveable and immoveable property both in France and Eng. The will was probated and contested in Eng (thats how they got jurisdiction over validity of will). By French law at the time, she could leave only 1/3 of her estate away from her two surviving daughters. *Proprietary Capacity* Issue: Question for Eng court was whether she had proprietary capacity to dispose of her moveable property as she had done under the will (not concerned with immoveable property because it goes according to situs so under French law). Characterization: essential validity of a will related to moveable property in succession context Connecting factor: domicile of testator at death of death Where was A domiciled at death? lex fori characterization, and in Eng we would say she was domiciled in France (we dont care how French law would characterize it). Therefore French law should govern Then court moved directly to Frances conflicts rule without looking at their domestic law (Renvoi) French CoL rule says essential validity of will in succession is governed by the nationality of the testator (Mrs. A was English). So France wouldve applied English law And English court would decide that French law should apply. Would French court have accepted the remission of the matter? Expert evidence said yes b/c French (civil) system only uses partial renvoi. Edinger: if you had to use it, I would use partial renvoi myself. Neilson v. OPC Ltd, 2005 HC Australia New juridical category for renvoi: torts. Thus if a tort occurred in a foreign jurisdiction, have to look to see what that jurisdiction would do. Facts: Mr. and Mrs. N are physically in China working for OPC. Mrs has bad accident in China. They return to Aus. She decides to sue OPC for damages from personal injuries (tort action against employer). Shes within LP, she has cause of action, parties are there. Problem is tort occurred in China (conflicts issue). And Australia had adopted Tolofsen v Jensen approach, so LP is the place where the tort occurred (China). Question becomes: what is the Chinese domestic law on liability in tort and what is the limitation period? Domestic law: The LP in China is one year and its expired. She should be unable to bring her action. CoL rules: However, they go on to look at the Chinese CoL rule (this is renvoi) ( Chinese rule says that in situations where both parties are nationals of the same country or domiciled there, the law of their own country may be applied. ( Gives Chinese a discretion to decide which law to apply. Somehow, P is able to persuade the HC Aus to apply Australian law instead of Chinese law. Edinger: Its unclear how the Aus HC did this. The justices all use a different method. Whats in the casebook is part of Justices Gummo and Hain who appear to opt for a renvoi rule for torts. They seem to support total renvoi; they engage in statutory interpretation of the Chinese rule, and under foreign court theory China would apply Australian law. This means that whenever theres an accident in a foreign jurisdiction you look to see what the foreign court would do (lex fori delicti).  Incidental Question Schwebel v Ungar contained an incidental question that SCC solved without realizing it. Case is known around the world. Incidental question: subsidiary question in a conflicts case, that meets certain conditions 1) the main question is one calling for the application of a foreign law (lex causae); CoL issue (ie. capacity of marriage is characterized as essential validity of the marriage, which is determined by the law of the place of the domicile of the parties at time of marriage, ie. Israel) 2) there is a subsidiary question which is also a conflicts issue that has a CoL issue of its own (ie. capacity to marry, depends on single status, which could depend on whether one partys foreign divorce is recognized. CoL rule is whether domicile of the party (ie. Hungary) at time of divorce wouldve recognized divorce) 3) if the forum applies its own CoL rule to the subsidiary question, it gets an answer, and that answer is inconsistent with the answer the forum would get if it applied the CoL rule of the lex causae. The point is, that when youve got a true IQ, which has these 3 characteristics, youve got a choice there is no rule saying which CoL rule to apply (lex causae vs forum CoL rule). Counsel can argue the issue, or frame its issue in a certain way. Court has to decide. Scwebel v Ungar, 1965 SCC Case contained an incidental questionFacts: 1945 the parties marry in Hungary. They were domiciled there. No issue. They leave Hungary (never to return) for Israel but they spend several years in Italy. 1948 they obtain a get (Jewish) divorce in Italy. They then, separately, travel to Israel, where they stay for the next 10 yrs. W later comes to Canada to visit relatives. While there she meets someone and they marry. Daughter born, shortly after marriage breaks down. H2 finds out about H1, and instead of applying for divorce (tough to get in 1958), he applies for a declaration that his marriage to W is void b/c she had no capacity to marry b/c she was still married to H1. Main question: Did W have capacity to marry in 1957? This can be approached either through application of LC CoL rules, or through exploring the subsidiary question (recognition of her foreign divorce) which calls for its own LC CoL rule. Two possible approaches: 1) Applying LC CoL rule to main question: Characterization of main question: Essential validity of the marriage; connecting factor: is law of the domicile of the parties at the time of marriage At the time of marriage (1957), W was domiciled in Israel. Israel wouldve recognized her divorce and found she had capacity to marry. This is the approach the court followed, finding that she was validly divorced, without realizing there was a subsidiary question. 2) Apply forum CoL rule (look at the subsidiary question) Capacity to marry depends on single status, which depends on recognition of her foreign divorce (Characterization). Connecting factor: Would her divorce have been recognized by her place of domicile? At the time she divorced, her domicile was Hungary, and Hungary would not have recognized her divorce, therefore Canada wont recognize it either. Thus, she did not have capacity to marry in 1957. 2. Marriage What are the CoL rules: Original rule (until 1861) that validity of marriage is governed by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated. Still the rule in many American states Brook v Brook changed this, by distinguishing b/w formal and essential validity. Now, a marriage must be both formally and essentially valid. We know that formal validity of a marriage is governed by the lex loci celibrationus, or the CoL rule that the lex loci celibrationus would apply (renvoi, Taxanowska), or CL marriage BUT essential validity of a marriage is governed by either The dual domicile of the parties Did each party have capacity to marry the other under the legal system of their domicile at the time of marriage Problematic b/c theres two chances (in each domicile) to find marriage invalid The law of the intended matrimonial home (Narwal case) How do you determine where they intended to reside? Is it where they first lived? Is it where they ultimately settled? Often these two overlap. But where theres a difference, its open to argument from counsel. Defects found in past cases going to formal validity of a marriage: Defects going to requirement for bans or notices Witnesses (have to have them, how many?) Registration is it required by the legal system where the ceremony occurred Civil or religious system? Both? Proxy marriages Parental consent (in CL, civil disagree) Validity of online marriages ( Formal marriage: not too controversial, narrow category Defects found in past cases going to essential validity of a marriage: Age is there an age below which the legal system will not permit a party to marry Consanguinity are the parties impermissibly related by blood? Affinity relationship by marriage Single status was this party already married (ie. Would ante-nuptial domicile or law of intended matrimonial place permit marriage) Consent can be vitiated in a number of ways (ie. Fraud, duress, mistake as (to identity, purpose of the ceremony, mental illness, mental reservations (sham marriages)) impotence polygamy same sex not allowed in Australia Note that CoL for validity of marriage Ks, or for determining division of property are governed by the FLA Brook v Brook (1891) HL Changed traditional CL rule re: validity of marriage. Distinguishes b/w formal validity (governed by law of the place of celebration) and essential validity.Facts H and W were married/celebrated in Denmark. H and W were not allowed to marry in England b/c W was sister of Hs first wife. There were 5 children total (2 from first marriage, 3 from second). H and W die, leaving everything to 5 named children. One child dies shortly after. Question is who gets dead kids share of fathers estate? AG argues that they do because 2nd marriage was ivoid. Issue: Was H and Ws marriage valid? Marriage was perfectly valid in the place where it was celebrated (Denmark). Court distinguishes between formal and essential validity. Formal validity will still be determined based on the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated, BUT essential validity will be determined based on connecting factor related to dual domicile / intended home test (either way it was England). This case never made clear exactly what determines essential validity, still debated today. Canada v Narwal, [1990] FCA Example where court applies intended matrimonial home test (in spirit) to essential validity of the marriage (to find it valid despite affinity issues in Eng/India)Facts In 1983, W comes to Canada as fianc of one brother. They marry and then divorce. She wants to remarry so father-in-law sets her up with other son, who lives in India. They marry in England, and conceive a child there. He returns to England to apply for admission to Canada. Through applying for immigration, validity of marriage becomes an issue. Issue: Is Ws marriage to her ex-husbands brother valid? Applying dual domicile means marriage likely isnt valid (there was doubt as to whether India would hold the marriage valid b/c of affinity defect). Knowing theres a child on the way, court applies intended matrimonial home test in spirit the parties want to reside in Canada eventhough H isnt here yet. Court says its using the spirit of the IMH test they wanted to be in Canada. That was good enough for the court So they applied Canadian law (no concern about affinity), marriage found valid. Edinger: This case is not the CoL rule for Canada, but its a precedent you can use. Court wanted to find the marriage valid, so in this case they found a CoL rule to make it valid. Sangha v Mander, [1985] BCSC Court canvases all the possible CoL rules re essential validity of marriage (regarding impotence)Facts: W (domiciled in BC) married H, who moved from India. He was impotent, unable to consummate the marriage, and left the marriage after 7 days. W sought to have marriage annulled. Was the marriage essentially valid? BCSC canvases all the possible CoL rules for determining essential validity of a marriage MJ Huddart talks about both jurisdiction and CoL Jurisdiction based on joint resident Annulment based on defect of impotence which goes to validity She says proper rule is probably dual domicile rule but she would consider the intended matrimonial home test, and possible alternatives. In the end she applies BC law mostly because theres no evidence given as to the law of India (dual domicile rule), and so she applies the presumption: if there is no evidence of foreign legal system or evidence is not persuasive, then you fall back and apply the law of the forum. Court applies law of forum and decree of annulment is issued The point is the court had so many options Vervaeke v. Smith, 1982 HL raises validity issue regarding consent to marry (sham marriages)Facts V was a Belgian prostitute. In 1954, she marries George Smith to avoid getting deported every time she got arrested. George is down and out, and for 50 pounds and a ticket away he agrees to a ceremony of marriage. 10 yrs later V retires, and she goes to Italy to live with Mr. Messina who had been running the criminal organization. He just got out of jail in Belgium. In 1970 she goes through a ceremony of marriage with Mr. Messina (although she never got divorced form first husband). He dies on their wedding night. He was very wealthy, owned property all over the place including in London. He died intestate. Intestate succession to immoveable property in England is governed by English law. Under English intestacy wife takes a huge portion of the estate. Is V validly married to Messina? She applied to the English courts for a declaration that she is validly married to Messina, on the basis that her first marriage was a sham (she didnt really consent and they never intended to live together) Trial court: discovers that George Smith had been married, but his wife later divorced him prior to his marriage to V. Eng courts recognize the divorce. So Smith was able to marry V, and therefore he was validly married to V. HL: Question was to decide whether to recognize Vs marriage to Smith do we recognize sham marriages? Do we recognize where theres been no consent? HL: English public policy sentences to parties who go through a sham marriage to marriage. We consider that crossing your fingers behind your back does not vitiate the marriage. You knew what you were doing. Youre married. So she wasnt validly married to Messina and wouldnt get the property. One of the judge said that maybe there should be a new CoL rule for such situations. Its a matter of quintessential validity. Suggests that there should be separate CoL rule for each defect. Suggests a kind of R&SC test should apply for reality of consent. Consent is a very real issue. Comes up in some cases. Public policy can be argued Polygamous marriages At CL, theres a history of CoL rules and recognition of some polygamous marriages. CL recognizes them to a certain extent. There are 4 issues that can arise in connection with validity of a PM 1) Characterization Forum characterization; forum determines if a marriage is polygamous 2) CoL rules for determining capacity to enter into a PM. Capacity to marry dual domicile rule. If both domiciles find parties have capacity to marry, then the union is a validly polygamous union. What CL has said, is that if B is domiciled in a monogamous legal system, B has no capacity to enter into a polygamous union with A (ante nuptial domicile rule). One exception: PM is an issue which ought to be determined by the law of the intended matrimonial home b/c it has the greatest interest in determining whether PM are permitted. 3) What are the consequences that flow from a fact that a marriage is found to be a valid PM? Hyde v Hyde case defines marriage as one man and one woman for life. Our systems are not able to handle giving relief in the context of PM. HL says that this part of Hyde is still good law: even if the marriage is a valid PM, they cannot obtain matrimonial relief if you are a party to a valid PM. 4) Can a valid PM be converted to a monogamous union? Yes. If those parties change their religion or change their domicile to a monogamous place, then the marriage has been converted and it is possible to get matrimonial relief. So once polygamous not necessarily always polygamous. 3. Torts In Canada, we threw out the old English double-barrel rule, and adopted a new rule thrown out by the Americans lex loci delicti law of the place where the tort occurred (in Tolofson v Jensen, 1994 SCC) Approach to tort CoL 1) General rule Lex Loci Delicti apply the law of the place where the tort occurred (Tolofson v Jensen) 2) There may be intl exceptions based on the fact pattern and the law of the LLD, but its a narrow opening. There has to be a potential injustice (Somers v. Fournier); Law of forum would then apply (Tolofson v Jensen) 3) It may be possible to formulate particular CoL rules for particular torts where it makes sense (ie. difficult to locate) Defamation place of must substantial harm to the reputation (Banro) Product Liability where harm occurred (Moran v Pile), but keep in mind provl consumer protection legislation Conspiracy? 4) Use Neilson and ask for renvoi, in a particular tort situation. Edinger: I dont like it, but if I needed it I would argue it Edinger: tort CoL rules is a fairly settled area of law now. Tolofson v Jensen, 1994 SCC Tort CoL rule law of the place where the tort occurred (lex loci delicti). International exceptions may warrant an exemption; in such case law of forum to apply.Facts MVA occurred in Sask. BC Car and Sask Car. BC resident had his 12 yr old son in the car who was injured. When he attained majority, he commenced action in BC against Sask driver. Only question for court was what law should apply? In BC the son Plaintiff, had to prove ordinary residence. In BC, LP had not yet expired. So no problems with tort action brought by son in BC. SCC Court decides to change CL CoL rule. Order and fairness are important (comes from Morguard), especially order need to have a definite rule, prevent forum shopping New CoL rule when the cause of action lies in tort: law of the place where the tort occurred. What are the advantages of such a rule: certainty, predictability, ease of application, meets the expectations of the parties (Edinger is not sure this last one is the case). Applying this rule in this case, meant young plaintiff was completely out of luck b/c the Sask substantive law at that time (has since changed) required that gratuitous passengers establish gross negligence on the part of the drivers in order to succeed. And he couldnt establish that. And there was the additional substance procedure characterization issue. And the SCC held that LP periods should be applied as substantive (Lex Causae/Sask), and Sask LP had expired years ago Laforest acknowledges not all torts are as easy to locate ie defamation, product liability, conspiracy. He says it might be permissible to create exemptions for international exceptions, but doesnt go into this. But he does indicate what law should be applied as the exception to the CoL rule. He suggests that if the circs warrant making an exception to the lex loci delicti, then the law that the Canadian court should apply is the law of the forum. Somers v. Fournier, 2000 Ont CA Intl exception requires intl facts and that an injustice would occur if exemption (from lex loci delicti) was not applied. Characterization of costs, etc.Facts: MVA occurred in NY state b/w Ontario resident (P, Somers) and NY resident (D, Fournier). P brought action in Ont against D. She wanted law of Ont to apply; tried to convince court that tort fell w/in intl exception in TvJ. Issue: What law should apply to the tort? Does it fall w/in T v J intl exception law of forum applicable? CA suggests that the only circs in which it would be willing to apply the law of the forum instead of the law of the place where tort occurred would be a situation where an injustice would occur. So the bar is set very high. Its not just did the facts all occur there. But would it be unjust to apply NY law to the plaintiff. No. injustice unclear how to interpret. Edinger: maybe if there was virtually no recovery for damages In terms of characterization, CA also says costs (procedural), prejudgment interest/court ordered interest (substantive), availability of heads of damages (substantive), quantification of damages (procedural) Editions Ecosociete v Banro, 2012 SCC court says T v J left room for creation of exceptions (to lex loci delicti) for particular torts (ie. defamation). Suggests place of most substantial harm to the reputation as CoL rule for defamation.Facts: D (publisher, QC corp) published something that dealt with mining activities of some Canadian corporations. P, Ont mining company, alleges defamation. P brings action in Ontario. Issue: Choice of Law wrt defamation SCC: Where do you locate the defamation for CoL purposes? Court wants to apply substantive law of a single legal system to the action for defamation. T v J left room for the creation of exceptions to the lex loci delicti rule; exceptions for particular torts (ie. Defamation). Court suggests, but doesnt decide, an appropriate CoL rule for actions in defamation place of most substantial harm to the reputation 4. Contracts Its an area where there is legislation and international conventions ( ALWAYS check for legislation Its commercial, we want certainty. Common Law rules Governing policy in this area, which directs actual CoL rules, is party autonomy. Parties should be able to do what they want, but its not absolute. Original CoL rule was lex loci contractus law of the place where the contract was made (a bit dated) This was changed by Vita Foods v Unus Shipping, the leading case in the CL world; Contracts are governed by the proper law of the K Cases are about what is the proper law The proper law of the contract is always the internal substantive law. (there is NO renvoi in contracts; cant ask courts to look at the CoL rule of the proper law) Proper law governs virtually all areas of the contract, except: Formation Formalities Capacity Vita Foods tells us how to find the proper law of the K, whether express CoL clause determines proper law of the K, how to deal with other laws incorporated by reference, and how to determine illegality issue. Express CoL is the preferred way of selecting the proper law of the K Other three cases tell us how to determine proper law where theres no express CoL clause (Richardson Intl, Colmenares, Amin Rasheed Shipping). In theory, proper law of K is determined either based on Express Intention: CoL clause. It has to be 1) bona fide, 2) legal and 3) provided theres no public policy reason to avoid the choice. (Vita Foods) Implied (subjective) intentions: look at entirety of contractual relations to decide parties subjective intention (Richardson) Presence of arb clause preferring a jurisdiction highly persuasive, though not determinative (Richardson) Objectively ascertained Considering K as a whole, in light of all circs surrounding it, applying the law with which it appears to have the closest and most substantial connection (Colmenares) The place where the K was made is not determinative (Colemaneres) Head office of an insurance company + totality of circumstances Colemaneres Court was persuaded by fact that one jurisdiction didnt have relevant subject matter law in Amin Rasheed Note: it is very difficult to determine difference b/w objectively ascertaining the proper law and finding a subjective implied intent General rules for contracts and choice of law 1) A K must always have a proper law 2) Proper law of K cannot change (except where you make a new K and choose a new proper law) 3) For the vast majority of cases a given K is governed by a single proper law (single legal system) however, there are some exceptional cases where you might have one part of K governed by one proper law, another part governed by another proper law a. The Proper Law Vita Foods v Unus Shipping, [1939] PC on appeal from Canada How to determine proper law of the k, how to deal with express CoL clauses; how to deal with other laws incorporated by reference; how to deal with illegality argument (what laws are relevant?)Facts There was a K to ship goods from Nfld to NY. Goods were herring. Sailed from NfLd, there was a storm, ship runs a ground in N.S., which is where the ship was registered. Herring were reconditioned and sailed on to NY. P (Vita Foods) brings claim for damages against D (Unus Shipping) in N.S. (no jurisdiction issue). The K exempted D from negligence, so P had to argue that it was void/illegal b/c they were in breach of Nfld statute (D hadnt modernized K to reflect recent change in Nfld statute). Nfld is the place of contracting, but the K also contained a clause selecting law of England as the law to govern the K. Case wasnt argued as a conflicts case Issue: What law governs the K? K is governed by the Proper Law of the k. Parties never know what the proper law is. Connecting factor is judicially determined. Parties can include CoL clause to help decide the matter. The CoL clause in this case is for the application of English substantive law to any breaches of K. How do you determine proper law of the K? The proper law of the K is the law which the parties intended to apply. That intention is objectively ascertained, and, if not expressed, will be presumed from the terms of the K and the relevant surrounding circumstances What if parties include a CoL clause? It will apply if it is 1) bona fide, 2) legal and 3) provided theres no public policy reason to avoid the choice. Consistent with party autonomy. Party autonomy extends to choosing a law to govern contractual relations which has no necessary connection to the K. You can choose a third legal system and it doesnt have to have any connection with the parties or the K. The parties had incorporated an American statute and a Canadian statute; how does this incorporation by reference affect the choice of law? It doesnt. You can incorporate any statute you like by referring to them by name. If you had spelled out all the provisions in the K: they are now the terms of you K; so it will be interpreted and applied according to the proper law governing the K Doesnt negate the CoL clause Was contract void/illegal? 1) What do English CoL rules say about illegality? English CoL rules do not consider that illegality by the law of the placing of contracting is relevant. 2) If the Nfld statute were applicable and relevant then K mightve been void. Richardson International v Chikhacheva, 2002 FCA Case provides factors which are relevant to determining proper law based on subjective intention of parties (No CoL clause)Facts: P (Richardson: Washington State corporation) enters into a K with a Russian company; P asserts that it supplied necessaries for a trawler and 2 other vessels owned by Russian company P sues the trawler (C). Ship arrested in Nanaimo, P bring an action against the vessel claiming a maritime lien The right to claim the lien depends on the K, interpretation of series of Ks b/w P and Russian company. No express CoL clause Issue: What is the proper law of the K and what does it say about claiming a lien? Can look at entirety of contractual relations to decide parties subjective intention Court decides that an arbitration clause in the K selecting US law shows parties implied intention to have US law apply ( This is not an uncommon reading and use of an arbitration clause Factors to consider when determining parties actual subjective intentions Language of the K Residence and head office of the parties Location of the subject matter Legal terminology and form of the K (ie. Canadian or American in nature?) Overall: from this case we know that each judge will give different weight to different factors Contractual relations here governed by US law Imperial Life Assurance v Colmenares (1967) SCC In determining proper law, where K was made is not determinative. Proper law of the K is determined by considering K as a whole, in light of all circs surrounding it, applying the law with which it appears to have the closest and most substantial connectionFacts: Life insurance policy issued on Mr. Colmenares, through branch office of Imperial Life in Havana. No express CoL clause. C resident of Cuba, many connections to Cuba. K is written in Spanish. Payment under the K is to be in US dollars. Premiums are to be paid in Cuba in Cuban currency ( many possible connections Mr. Colmenares is going to leave Cuba, wants to be paid the cash surrendered value of life insurance policy Whether he can succeed depends on whether K is governed by law of Ontario (yes) or law of Cuba (no) Problem with Cuban law: at that time couldnt make this payment w/o permission; foreign exchange controls SCC treats this case purely as determination of proper law (Cuba or Ontario) Issue: What is the proper law of the K? SCC: Court first asks where K was made? (not determinative, but it is important to consider). ( Ontario b/c: applications sent to head office in Ontario Policies were prepared in Ontario office Used the Ontario form The insurance K could only be varied by head office Any requests for payment had to be made to the head office But the court goes on to say that where K made not determinative; still have to decide what is the proper law by considering K as a whole, in light of all circumstances surrounding it, applying the law with which it appears to have the closest and most substantial connection SCC purports to be following PC cases: the system of law with reference to where K made or that with which the transaction has a closest and most real connection Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v. Kuwait Insurance, 1984 Eng HL Distinguishes b/w subjectively implied and objectively ascertained proper lawFacts: P is Liberian shipping company whose head office is in Dubai. D is Kuwait Ins Co. P claims against insurance for loss of ship confiscated by Saudi authorities. P brings action in England. Issue: Was the proper law of the K English law, so as to ground Eng courts jurisdiction? Key factors the court looked at: K written in English Uses Lloyds SG form, consistent with 1906 Eng Act. Currency is pounds sterling. K made in Kuwait Proper law is either England or Kuwait. However Kuwait didnt have law on maritime insurance. K cant exist in a legal vacuum - need to have a proper law thats applicable. TJ and CA differed as to proper law of the K. HL: Unanimously decides proper law is English Law. Kuwait is the most appropriate forum (using discretion). Finds that intention of parties (subjective) was English law Problem was it was not argued b. Exceptions to application of proper law: Formation, Formalities and Illegality (rules of mandatory application) while the proper law of the K governs most of the issues that arise it doesnt constitute the exclusive CoL rules Capacity rules going to formation is there a contract at all? rules of formalities Illegality Capacity to contract Can come up wrt minors, or wrt someone signing on behalf of a corporation There is a feeling that a party should not be able to confer capacity on him or herself, there should be some objective CoL rule. Corporate capacity always governed by law of the corps domicile Natural persons capacity governed by the objectively ascertained proper law Formation: Two options for CoL 1) Law of the forum (Mackender) to decide whether there was a basic agreement 2) Putative proper law of the K - the law that would be the proper law of the K if there were a K in existence (Albecco ShoeMachine case, Parouth case) In Albecco Shoemachine case, Eng company (creator of shoemachine) and Swiss company (seller/agent) exchanged various letters but never came to a formal K. Swiss Co sells four machines and then wants to be paid. Postal rule for formation of K would apply, but whose law do you apply? Swiss company says we posted a letter, Eng company says they never received it. By English law, its the posting of a letter that completes a K. By Swiss law, the letter has to be received. There was no evidence that letter had been posted. BUT in dicta, court says but if it had been established that the letter had been posted, there still wouldve been no K, b/c the proper law for this K of agency wouldve been Swiss law. This is the case that Lord Diplock rejects. Parouth, 1982 is a recent case where courts used the other alternative, the putative proper law of the K. Theres an issue wrt a ship. P wants to litigate in England. Court has to decide if theres a K for the purposes of service ex juris. K in this case, consisted of a bundle of telexs, but in one of the telexs, one of the parties suggested/stated there should be arbitration in London in the event of a dispute, judge decided from a jurisdiction point, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the putative proper law of the K is the law of England. So he issued leave to serve ex juris. Edinger: no idea what happened after that. So in a situation where the parties are communicating back in forth, and you dont have a nice document, I think the putative proper law is a real contender. You dont have agreement by definition on all the terms of the K, that you would normally look at to decide proper law of the K. Mackender v. Feldia AG, 1967 Eng QB CA Formation is there a K? forum law applies. Issue of illegality.Facts: There was an insurance policy issued by Lloyds, to diamond merchants. It had a CoL clause which said law of Belgium governs, and it had exclusive jurisdiction clause which selected courts of Belgium. It was an actual document in existence which had been signed and it existed for some time. When a loss occurred in Italy (diamonds were stolen), company claimed for loss under policy. Lloyds conducted investigation and discovered that diamond merchants were in the practice of smuggling diamonds into Italy and evading customs. Lloyds says they dont have to pay the claim b/c of illegality, contrary to forum public policy, and non disclosure (they didnt disclose to Lloyds they were doing this). Lloyds wants to avail itself of Eng CL defences, so commences action in England. Question: should Eng courts should retain jurisdiction? CA says no, were not going to hear this case. Youve got the K, it has CoL and jurisdiction clauses which say Belgium, so go there. But Lloyds was arguing there is no K (Pompey case), theres illegality, its void. Eng says law of the forum says those things are voidable. Theres a K so go to Belgium. Lord Diplock comprehends conflict issues and deals with the putative proper law argument. Lloyds said putative proper law would be England. Diplock says no, its up to the forum and we apply forum law. Apply the law of the forum to decide whether there is basic agreement to form a K. But this case is special b/c it was quite clear there was a K in existence, and these were defences which were raised later when events occurred and a claim resulted. Reason why it falls under formation is because Lloyds tried to argue no contract void, but court said no K was voidable it existed, go to Belgium Formalities: Not a very crucial issue anymore Some jurisdictions developed protective rules ie. formalities of Ks. Alberta is one such jurisdiction (Greenshields v Johnson). What CoL rule determines the legal system that governs formalities of a K? There can be a rule of alternative reference, so either this law or that law applies - whichever law the K satisfies. Usually law of the place where K was made, or proper law of the K Greenshields: TJ applies law of alternative reference. Doesnt comply with one but it does comply with the other When case goes to appeal, they treat the issue as one of substance and procedure. Theres a fine line b/w rules of procedure and rules governing formalities of a K. Greenshields Inc. v Johnson (1981) AB QB K did not meet formality of forum law (where K was entered into). AB is jurisdiction w/ alternative reference rule; K is valid per proper law of K (Ontario). QB characterized formality as law of substance, and applied proper law of K (ont) finding K valid.Facts: Guarantees Acknowledgement Act, in AB, makes it necessary for the parties to sign the K before a notary. Theres a guarantee K signed in AB. Theres a failure to comply with the Act, which is part of the law of the place where the K is made. However, this K contains a CoL clause, which selects the law of Ontario (express choice). P commences an action on the K, but D argues that its void and they dont have to pay Issue: Is the guarantee contract valid? TJ: this is a question of the formal validity of the K (characterization). The CL CoL rule which is in force in AB, is that the law is one of alternative reference. If there was failure to comply under law of the place K was made, check to see if it is valid under the proper law of the K (Ont), and Ontario has no equivalent requirement. So this is a formally valid K under the proper law of the K. On appeal: this is a question of whether the statute is a law of substance or procedure. Forum procedure always applies, then we would apply it, but they characterize statute as a substantive law, so it doesnt apply. Proper law of the K is Ontario and its formally valid K. Statute is obviously designed to protect Albertans from foolishly signing a guarantee Illegality: Rules of Mandatory Application Already touched on this in Vita Foods (Cnd), Lloyds (Cnd), and Mackender (Eng) Illegality is frequently raised b/c theres a proliferation of legislation dealing with Ks, and a given K may have contacts/ connections w/ so many legal systems. Vita Foods lists for us, the relevant contacts for a K (relevant in terms of a defence in illegality). The relevant contacts: proper law of k, the law of the place where the K is to be performed, the law of the forum, and occasionally if it coincides with one of the other three, the lex loci contractus The new terminology, which the CL is starting to adopt in this area, is laws of mandatory application. These are statutes, usually intended to protect consumers in the jurisdiction, against certain kinds of Ks. Theres an overlap b/w public policy defences, and laws of mandatory application. Edinger: Im not convinced that laws of mandatory application always satisfy the very narrow/high bar which you need for successful invocation of forum public policy, but they do overlap. Securities Act constitutes a law of mandatory application (from Lloyds case in Ontario). Weve got three cases: Avenue properties case deals with illegality according to the law of the forum Pearson v Boliden not a conflicts case, it rejects the conflicts CoL approach. It deals with statutory interpretation, and tells us that we dont blindly apply a law of mandatory application; you interpret it to determine whether its intended to apply. Example of forum law Gillespie management illegality in the law of the place of performance. No case on illegality of proper law. Edinger: dont have to, its so obvious. If its proper law, you get all of the law, entire legal system. But the other connections do require illustration and precedent. Laws of mandatory application/illegality Forum ALWAYS has to apply its own procedural law Illegality by the law of the place contract was made is likely not relevant - Vita Foods Application of forum law may be mandatory where theres an express statutory directive ( statute may render K illegal (Avenue Properties) Application of forum law may be mandatory where theres an implied statutory directive When K may be illegal b/c of material misrepresentation if a statute applies, may have to engage in statutory interpretation to see who and what the statute applies to (for constl reasons, provl statutes may apply to contracts from each province.) - Pearson Illegal according to the place of performance lex loci salutionus. May provide a suitable defence Gillespie Avenue Properties, 1986 BCCA in deciding most appropriate forum, court considers strong juridical advantage P gets in BC b/c of law of mandatory application (governing real estate Ks), which would render K illegal/unenforceable.Facts P (Avenue Properties) is a BC Company. P entered into K to purchase immoveable property in Ontario from D (a developer based in AB, carrying on business in Ont). K had a CoL and non-exclusive JSD clause selecting Ontario P informs D that its not going to complete the purchase bc D hasnt delivered a prospectus, required by BC Real Estate Act. Makes K unenforceable by forum law. D commences action in Ontario. P later commences action in BC for a declaration that the K is unenforceable, and for return of deposit money. Issue: Should the BC courts take/retain jurisdiction over this matter? (forum conveniens) Is BC most appropriate forum? a court can apply the law of its own jurisdiction in these circumstances: 1) the forum can apply its own law if the law is characterized as a procedural rule. 2) the court will apply the law of the forum if the law amounts to a unilateral CoL rule (ie. if its a law of mandatory application). If the statute is drafted in such a way that it directs the local courts to apply its provisions in all actions related to certain contracts, etc. 3) choose to apply the forum law if it breaches forum public policy McLachlin then works these options back into Forum conveniens analysis. Court looks at juridical advantage and disadvantage based on law that is applied. Court finds BC law (of mandatory application) gives P juridical advantage that he wouldnt get in Ontario. BC will apply it b/c its a law of mandatory application. Result: Court refuses to stay the action and allows BC action to continue. Pearson v Boliden, 2002 BCCA Any misrepresentation in a securities prospectus is governed by the law of the province regulating it, which has constl jurisdiction. Court decides appropriate CoL rule by engaging with statutory interpretation.Facts Investors commence class action proceedings against mining company, seeking damages for misrepresentation, based on a statutory Cause of action in BC Securities Act (classic law of mandatory application, designed to protect consumers, among other aims). They argued that everybody in the class, which was not limited to investors in BC, could rely on the BC Securities Act. Issue: what law applies to misrepresentation in a K related to purchase of securities (in class action context)? Chambers judge characterized it as a tort action, and was prepared to apply tort CoL rule, which by 2002 is lex loci delicta. Law place where tort occurred, in each of the diff. classes, would be applied. BCCA (MJ Newbury): BCCA decides not to take the conflicts CoL approach too uncertain in this context. There are also constitutional issues with applying the law of one province to acts/plaintiffs in another province. BCCA engages in the process of statutory interpretation. Securities Acts generally are consumer protection legislation, and thus are designed / intended / limited to protecting consumers within the province. Therefore, we have to apply the Securities Act of each of the subclass provinces to determine whether theyve got the statutory cause of action. Any misrepresentation in the prospectus is governed by the law of the province regulating the prospectus, which has constl jurisdiction. Edinger: how does this case fit in with this conflicts approach to illegality: It engages with statutory interpretation. Its not a conflicts case. But Vita foods says: first we decide whether the law thats invoked is even applicable, for that we decide on the connection of the K and the law thats invoked. If we decide its applicable, then we engage in statutory interpretation whats the effect on the contract.  lex loci salutionus Even in English law, this doctrine is a bit uncertain. It was understood as applying to the actual performance But now its been set as a ground for illegality, as in Mackender v Feldia, that the forum (eng court) will not require you to do something that offends and breaks the law in a friendly foreign country. Gillespie Management Corp v. Terrace Properties, 1989 BCCA Illegality by the lex loci salutionus (law of the place of performance) is relevant, and may be a good defence. Where we have a similar law, we better enforce their law (holding K unenforceable, so dont enforce it).Facts Terrace (Washington partnership, P) and Gillespie Mgmt (BC company, D) enter into agreement whereby P will manage properties for D in Washington. P commences action in BC for damages for breach of K. D uses illegality as a defence P wasnt licensed to manage properties in Washington. What was the proper law of the K? found to be the law of BC. The question is then, what effect should be given in BC court in a situation in which the K is governed by BC law, to a failure to comply on the part of the plaintiff with Washington state law? Should BCCA ignore the lack of Washington state license, or should it give effect to Wash. State law? Washington law would prohibit bringing of a suit. BCCA: She analyses the issue clearly on grounds of forum public policy. We should always defer to law of the place where K is performed. But where we have a similar law, we better enforce their law so they enforce our law. illegality by the law of place of performance is relevant and it may be a good defence, depending on the nature of the illegality. In this case it means BC wont enforce the illegal k. Youve got to consider laws in the place of performance, have to interpret and apply them, if they are invoked.  5. Unjust Enrichment Christopher v Zimmerman: Adopts the CoL rule in Dicey (Rule 230) (1) the obligation to restore the benefit of an enrichment obtained at another persons expense is governed by the proper law of the obligation (2) rules for determining proper law: three choices A) if the obligation arises in connection with a K, the proper law of the obligation is the law applicable to the K B) If it arises in connection with a transaction concerning an immoveable, proper law is the lex situs (law of place where its located) C) if it arises in any other circs, its proper law is the law of the country where the enrichment occurs Its not clear how A, B and C relate to each other. This is what the court had to figure out in Minera Aquiline. Choice was clear in C v Z because 2 of the choices (K, land) didnt apply Edinger: I don think CoL rule for UE claims is firmly settled. Theres a HC of Aus judgment which comes to pretty much the same result as Minera Aquiline. You can certainly rely on the rule in Dicey b/c BCSC says you can. You can argue principled approach (Minera) as an alternative. Problem is, its just not clear, even in Dicey, how those alternative CoL rules relate to eachother especially where you have both immoveable property and a K. This category will probably continue to develop. Always keep in mind what CoL Forum A and Forum B would apply if you litigate in that forum. Christopher v. Zimmerman (2000) BCCA Adopts Dicey rule regarding Unj EnrichmentFacts: P (Ms. C) brings action in BC for UE against D (Mr. Z) seeking imposition of constructive trust (they werent married) What is the relevant CoL rule for claims characterized in equity/UE? BCCA adopts CoL rules set out in Dicey (above). She says it doesnt involve land or contract so only choice is C law of the country where the enrichment occurs. Judge cannot apply that rule as b/w the parties b/c she doesnt have enough facts, so she sends it back to trial. The point is that the Court of Appeal unanimously agrees that if the claim is an UE or restitution, you find the CoL rule in Dicey. The implication is you then select the relevant CoL rule. Minera Aquiline Argentina SA v. IMA Exploration Inc, 2006 BCSC (affd 2007 BCCA) Can use principled approach to decide which rule in Dicey applies in a given case law of the place w/ the closets and most real connectionFacts: Facts are somewhat complex, but essentially parties had entered into a K for sale of mineral claims, but then D stakes out an enjoining claim. P argues that D committed breach of K (confidence), by using confidential info obtained in negotiating to his own benefit. At trial, it was basically a question of fact, which were hotly contested. Parties also argued whether domestic law or conflicts CoL rule should apply. TJ: Decided based on BC Law. Theres been a breach of K, so dont need to decide CoL issue. Since issue had been argued though, she provides comments. One party had argued that one subsection of the K should apply and determine CoL issue (obligation arising wrt contract should be decided in Colorado ( proper law of K), but since that party provided no evidence as to the law of Colorado, law of BC was applied (apparently there was no diff. b/w the two). The other party had argued that the claim arises in connection with a transaction involving an immoveable in Argentina, so Arg law should apply. So basically, one party wanted Rule A to apply and the other wanted Rule B to apply Dicey doesnt help us decide CoL issue is resolved on a principled approach (rather than a categorical approach). The principle that should govern claims of UE is that it should be governed by the law of the place with the closest and most real connection to the obligation in question. How do you determine this? examine all the factors that could be relevant to the strength of the connection b/w the obligation and the competing legal systems. Such factors should be given weight according to a reasonable view of the evidence and their relative importance to the issues at stake. Thus, each of the factors listed by Dicey and Morris would be considered and weighed along with the following non-exhaustive list of factors to determine which set of laws has the closest and most substantial connection to the obligation. Where the transaction underlying the obligation occurred or was intended to occur; Where the transaction underlying the obligation was or was intended to be carried out; where the parties are resident; where the parties carry on business; what the expectations of the parties were with respect to governing law at the time the obligation arose; and whether the application of a particular law would cause an injustice to either of the parties. She applies this test and decided it would result in application of BC law (domestic law) which shes already decided to apply anyways. Exhibit 1: CJPTA s. 3 (Factors for establishing TC); 6 (residual discretion); 10 (Factors for establishing R&SC); 11 (discretion as to the exercise of TC)Part 2 Territorial Competence of Courts of British Columbia Proceedings against a person 3 A court has territorial competence in a proceeding that is brought against a person only if (a) that person is the plaintiff in another proceeding in the court to which the proceeding in question is a counterclaim, (b) during the course of the proceeding that person submits to the court's jurisdiction, (c) there is an agreement between the plaintiff and that person to the effect that the court has jurisdiction in the proceeding, (d) that person is ordinarily resident in B.C. at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, or (more than transient presence in Maharanee of Baroda case) (e) there is a R&SC between B.C. and the facts on which the proceeding against that person is based. (this is expanded on in s. 10) Residual discretion 6 A court that under section 3 lacks territorial competence in a proceeding may hear the proceeding despite that section if it considers that (a) there is no court outside B.C. in which the plaintiff can commence the proceeding, or (b) the commencement of the proceeding in a court outside B.C. cannot reasonably be required. ( Edinger says this is a peculiar section b/c it seems to go against s. 3 and fails to meet Morguards constitutional standard -forum of necessity rule Real and substantial connection 10 Without limiting the right of the plaintiff to prove other circs that constitute a R&SC between B.C. and the facts on which a proceeding is based, a R&SC bw B.C. and those facts is presumed to exist if the proceeding (a) [relates to (im)/movable property in B.C.], (b) concerns the administration of an estate in relation to (i) immovable property in B.C. of the deceased person, or (ii) movable property anywhere of the deceased person if at the time of death he/she was ordinarily resident in B.C., (c) is brought to interpret, rectify, set aside or enforce any deed, will, contract or other instrument in relation to (i) (im)/movable property in B.C., or (ii) movable property anywhere of a deceased person who at the time of death was ordinarily resident in B.C., (d) is brought against a trustee in relation to the carrying out of a trust in any of the following circs: (i) the trust assets include im/movable property in B.C. and the relief claimed is only as to that property; (ii) that trustee is ordinarily resident in B.C.; (iii) the administration of the trust is principally carried on in B.C.; (iv) by the express terms of a trust document, the trust is governed by the law of B.C., (e) concerns contractual obligations, and (i) the contractual obligations, to a substantial extent, were to be performed in B.C., (ii) by its express terms, the contract is governed by the law of B.C., or (iii) the contract (A) is for the purchase of property, services or both, for use other than in the course of the purchaser's trade or profession, and (B) resulted from a solicitation of business in B.C. by or on behalf of the seller, (f) concerns restitutionary obligations that, to a substantial extent, arose in B.C., (g) concerns a tort committed in B.C., (use Moran v Pyle to locate the tort in BC, where damage occurred (Stanway v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc, 2009 BCCA). Spar Aerospace, SCC damage satisfies JS in the province, and should satisfy R&SC as well) (h) concerns a business carried on in B.C., (i) is a claim for an injunction ordering a party to do or refrain from doing anything (i) in B.C., or (ii) in relation to property in B.C. that is immovable or movable property, (j) is for a determination of the personal status or capacity of a person who is ordinarily resident in B.C., (k) is for enforcement of a judgment of a court or arbitral award made in or outside B.C., or (l) is for the recovery of taxes or other indebtedness and is brought by the govt/local authority in B.C.. Discretion as to the exercise of territorial competence (incorporates FNC/discretion) 11 (1) After considering the interests of the parties to a proceeding and the ends of justice, a court may decline to exercise its territorial competence in the proceeding on the ground that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum in which to hear the proceeding. (2) A court, in deciding the question of whether it or a court outside B.C. is the more appropriate forum in which to hear a proceeding, must consider the circumstances relevant to the proceeding, including (a) the comparative convenience and expense for the parties to the proceeding and for their witnesses, in litigating in the court or in any alternative forum, (b) the law to be applied to issues in the proceeding, (c) the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of legal proceedings, (d) the desirability of avoiding conflicting decisions in different courts, (e) the enforcement of an eventual judgment, and (f) the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole. Exhibit 2: BC Supreme Court Civil Rules Rules 4-5 (Service Outside BC), Rule 19-4 (Transfer of Proceedings from Foreign Courts), and Rule 21-8 (Jurisdictional Disputes)HYPERLINK "http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/168_2009_00"http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/168_2009_00 Rule 4-5 Service Outside BC (1) may serve document outside BC without leave in any of the circs enumerated in section 10 of the CJPTA [(2) Requires an] endorsement (3) Application for leave to serve outside the jurisdiction is necessary if not provided for in (1) (4) application may be made without notice, must be supported by affidavit evidence (5) If order is made, document must be served with related documents (7) parties may agree to these terms in contract (9 13) deal with service abroad and the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, signed at the Hague on November 15, 1965. Rule 19-4 Transfer of Proceedings from Foreign Courts. (1) Court may require translation of proceeding transferred in accordance with the CJPTA, and that person who applied for transfer pay expenses or provide security for payment Rule 21-8 Jurisdictional Disputes Disputed jurisdiction (1) A party who has been served with an originating pleading or petition in a proceeding, whether that service was effected in or outside BC, may, after filing a jurisdictional response in Form 108, (a) apply to strike out the claim /third party notice /petition or to dismiss/stay the proceeding on the ground that the claim /third party notice /petition does not allege facts that, if true, would establish that the court has jurisdiction over that party in respect of the claim made against that party in the proceeding, (b) apply to dismiss or stay the proceeding on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction over that party in respect of the claim made against that party in the proceeding, or (c) allege in a pleading or in a response to petition that the court does not have jurisdiction over that party in respect of the claim made against that party in the proceeding. Order declining jurisdiction (STAY) may be sought (but counts as submission under (5)) (2) Whether or not a party referred to in subrule (1) applies or makes an allegation under that subrule, the party may apply to court for a stay of the proceeding on the ground that the court ought to decline to exercise jurisdiction over that party in respect of the claim made against that party in the proceeding. Disputed pleading or service (3) If a party who has been served with an originating pleading or petition in a proceeding, whether served in or outside BC, alleges that the notice of civil claim, counterclaim, third party notice or petition is invalid or has expired or that the purported service of the notice of civil claim, counterclaim, third party notice or petition was invalid, the party may, after filing a jurisdictional response in Form 108, apply for one or both of the following: (a) an order setting aside the notice of civil claim, counterclaim, third party notice or petition; (b) an order setting aside service of the notice of civil claim, counterclaim, third party notice or petition. Powers of court pending resolution (4) If an application is brought under subrule (1) (a) or (b) or (3) or an issue is raised by an allegation in a pleading or a response to petition referred to in subrule (1) (c), the court may, on the application of a party of record, before deciding the first-mentioned application or issue, (a) stay the proceeding, (b) give directions for the conduct of the first-mentioned application, (c) give directions for the conduct of the proceeding, and (d) discharge any order previously made in the proceeding. Party does not submit to jurisdiction (5) If, within 30 days after filing a jurisdictional response in a proceeding, the filing party serves a notice of application under subrule (1) (a) or (b) or (3) on the parties of record or files a pleading or a response to petition referred to in subrule (1) (c), (a) the party does not submit to the jurisdiction of the court in relation to the proceeding merely by filing or serving any or all of the following: (i) the jurisdictional response; (ii) a pleading or a response to petition under subrule (1) (c); (iii) a notice of application and supporting affidavits under subrule (1) (a) or (b), and (b) until the court has decided the application or the issue raised by the pleading, petition or response to petition, the party may, without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, (i) apply for, enforce or obey an order of the court, and (ii) defend the proceeding on its merits.     PAGE  PAGE 30 TeghΰmbSbBS7hvmHnHu j}hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhS5CJOJQJjhS5CJOJQJUhp4hkh>*OJQJhp4h)POJQJhp4hkhOJQJ,6STfgP /9. &  &  &  & =c   . / 0 J K L M N O P Q R n o p q Ƭݚ~sY2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhvmHnHu jwhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHujhUmHnHuq     ѸѭodoVMV3o2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jqhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu0 jh:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu ' 8  кqfqXOX5q2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jkhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu     ^ _ ` z { | } ~  ߿дСeSBдС j_hUmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jehUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu ջ㩞~sY@0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhvmHnHu jYhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhmHnHu Ǹǧ~pgpM;Ǹ#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jShUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu %&'(?qrs¹«xbWWF jG hUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jMhUmHnHu )*+,-./0Ӱᗀj_P_?P4PhvmHnHu jA hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhCJmHnHu01MNOP]^_yz{}~λ~sY@0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j hh>*B*UmHnHphuhvmHnHu j; hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2j hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu  4FǸǧ~pgpM40h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j5 hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu2346789:;WX淬{iX淕 j)hUmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2j hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j/ hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHuXYZ~ӺyncULU22jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHuhvmHnHu j#hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphu+   '()+,-./0LMNOкqfqXOX5q2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHuOhijӷӤsbӷӤ jhUmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHuqrsӺsbsWsL>5>hmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHuhvmHnHu j hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuCPa /!y"$%''<(**+,-x- &  &  &  & ӺsbsWsL>5>hmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphu+ӺsbsWsL>5>hmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuӺsbsWsL>5>hmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2j|hh>*B*UmHnHphu !"<=>@ABCDEabcdpӂttZA0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jphh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jvhh>*B*UmHnHphup{|~ 2345A蹮pepWNW4p2jjhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHuANOQ2蹮pepWNW4p2jdhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu2C"Ǹǧ~pgpM;#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2j^hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu"-./IJKMNOPQRnopqҶңr`OҶң jhUmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2jXhh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu&h:/h0J6OJQJmHnHu    ./01GQRźӆņlQ8Q1h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHsH u4h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHsH u2jLhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jRhh>*B*UmHnHphuR^>?@Z[\^_`abcйЮpepWNW4pW2jFhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu1h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHsH uD d q v 淮oVoVoE jhUmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j@hh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu ! ! ! !!(!)!*!,!-!.!/!0!1!M!N!O!P!ĻġđĆujݻĻP2j4!hh>*B*UmHnHphuhvmHnHu j hUmHnHuhmHnHuh:/h0J6mHnHu2j: hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHujhUmHnHuP!l!!!!!E"O"T"V"W"X"r"s"t"v"w"x"y"z"{""кккxmZOZA8hmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j!hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu"""""""U#\#k#r###### $ $ $$$$$$$/$0$ĭ}l}a}VMhmHnHuhCJmHnHuhvmHnHu j"hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2j."hh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHu0$1$2$h$s$$$ %%A%G%~%%%%%%%%%%Ӻvvvk\kK\@\5hCJmHnHuhvmHnHu j#hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2j(#hh>*B*UmHnHphu%%%%%%%%%%%%%A&H&&'''' '߼v_v_v_vTETjhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j"$hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu '!'"'$'%'&'''(')'E'F'G'H'l'w'x'z''·©mVmV@*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j%hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu j$hUmHnHu''''''(((5(6(7(9(:(;(<(=(>(Z([(\(](Ǹǧ~pgpM2j&hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j%hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu](w(((()))))))*********7*кxmZOZA8hmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j&hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu7*8*9*:*p*q*r***************f+g+h+񹪹ąkR<*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j (hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuhvmHnHu j'hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2j'hh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuh++++++++++++++++~,,,,շ{bK5*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j)hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu j(hUmHnHuhmHnHu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,---------9-:-·©tiiX © j{*hUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2j)hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu j)hUmHnHu:-;-<-U-V-W-q-r-s-u-v-w-x-y-z-------źӆņlS<-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j+hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuhvmHnHu ju+hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2j*hh>*B*UmHnHphu-...../// / / / / //*/+/,/-/H/V/ȹȨqhqN50h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j,hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jo,hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHux- /0d1134R678@91;&<z<=>o??0@@`AB CCYE`FH &  &  &  & V///00000000000000000ȹȨqhqN50h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j-hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu ji-hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu00A1B1C1]1^1_1a1b1c1d1e1f11111111111Ǹǧ~pgpMpǸ< j]/hUmHnHu2j.hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jc.hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu111111111111 22222222222ӼʼӉr\rQQ@ jW0hUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j/hh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHujhUmHnHuhvmHnHu233333 3!3C3P333334444ӰᗀjSjSjH9HjhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j0hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhCJmHnHu444444444444455)5·©mV@*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j1hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jQ1hUmHnHu)5/56 6.6/60616K6L6M6O6P6Q6R6S6T6p6q6r6s6Ǹǧ~pgpM2j2hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jK2hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHus666777777777777777777кqfqXOX5q2j3hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jE3hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu777888888888888888899999:9ȹȨqhqNqȹ= j95hUmHnHu2j4hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j?4hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu:9;9=9>9?9@9A9B9^9_9`9a9u99l:t:::;;;*;һɻ҈q[D[D[99hmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j5hh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu*;+;,;.;/;0;1;2;3;O;P;Q;R;;;;·©mV@*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j6hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu j36hUmHnHu;;<<<< <!<#<$<%<&<'<(<D<E<F<G<W<X<Y<s<Ǹǧ~pgpM;Ǹ#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2j7hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j-7hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHus<t<u<w<x<y<z<{<|<<<<<<<===¹«xaK4K-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j8hh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu j'8hUmHnHu============>>>>'>7>>淬{bK5*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j9hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j!9hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>?Ǹǧ~pgpM;#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2j:hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j:hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu?%?L?M?N?h?i?j?l?m?n?o?p?q??????????????????ϯzz`Oz j<hUmHnHu2j;hh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j;hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu&h:/h0J6OJQJmHnHu???? @@@)@*@+@-@.@/@0@1@2@N@O@P@Q@n@@@@񹪹ąkR<*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j=hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuhvmHnHu j =hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2j<hh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHu@@@@@@@@@@@@@@=A>A?AYAZA[A]A^A_A`AaAbA~AAAAշ{jշP2jz?hh>*B*UmHnHphu j>hUmHnHu2j>hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu j>hUmHnHuhmHnHuAAAAAABBBBBBBB$B%B&B'B_BBBBCƷƦ}ofoLƷ2jt@hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j?hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHuCCC C C C C CC*C+C,C-CMCCCCCCCCCC·©mWLL; jAhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jnAhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu j@hUmHnHuCCCCDDDD4DDDD2E5E6E7E8EREӰᗀjSjSjH9HjhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jhBhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhCJmHnHuRESETEVEWEXEYEZE[EwExEyEzEE=F>F?FYFZF[F]F^F_F·©mWLL; jChUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jbChh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jBhUmHnHu_F`FaFbF~FFFFFFFFGGGHӰᗀjSjH9HjhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j\Dhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhCJmHnHuHHHHHHHH H%H&H'H(H;HGHHHHH·©mV@55hmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jVEhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jDhUmHnHuHHHIIIIII!I"I#I$IJIKILIfIgIhIjIkIlImInIoIII·©tiiX © jFhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2jPFhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jEhUmHnHuHImISJJK(LrMpNOcOOP$RSTUU,WWXYZ;[\\] &  &  &  & IIIII0J1J2JLJMJNJPJQJRJSJTJUJqJrJӺsbsWsL>5>hmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHuhvmHnHu jGhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jJGhh>*B*UmHnHphurJsJtJJJJJJJJJJJJJKKKKKӂttZA0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j>Ihh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHuhvmHnHu jHhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jDHhh>*B*UmHnHphuK#KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKLLL!LǸǧ~pgpM;Ǹ#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2j8Jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jIhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu!L"L#L%L&L'L(L)L*LFLGLHLILiLwLOMPMQMkM¹«xaK@@hmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j2Khh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jJhUmHnHukMlMmMoMpMqMrMsMtMMMMMMMMNNNONiN·©mV@55hmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j,Lhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jKhUmHnHuiNjNkNmNnNoNpNqNrNNNNNNNNNNN·©mV@55hmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j&Mhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jLhUmHnHuNNNOOOOOO!O"O#O$O@OAOBO\O]O^O`OaObOcOdOeOOO·©tiiX © jNhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2j Nhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jMhUmHnHuOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPźӆņlS=*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jPhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuhvmHnHu jOhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jOhh>*B*UmHnHphuPPPPPPPPPQQQQ!Q*QRRRR·©mV@55hmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jQhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jPhUmHnHuRRR!R"R#R$R%R&RBRCRDRERgRuRR·©mV@*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jRhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jQhUmHnHuRR3S=SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSǸǧ~pgpM<!h:/h0J56mHnHu2jShh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jRhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHuSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTUiUjUkUUǸǧ~u[JǸ!h:/h0J56mHnHu2jShh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jShUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHuh:/h0J6mHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuh:/h0J5mHnHuUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVVV·©©{{j ©P2jUhh>*B*UmHnHphu jsUhUmHnHuhmHnHu2jThh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jyThUmHnHuVV-V/V W W W%W&W'W)W*W+W,W-W.WJWKWйxmZOZA8AhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jmVhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHuKWLWMWfWmWtWuWvWWWWWWWWWWWWWWwn`n`F2jWhh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHuhvmHnHu jgWhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu&h:/h0J6OJQJmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jVhh>*B*UmHnHphuWWWXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYYкqfqXOX5q2jXhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jaXhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHuYpYqYrYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY߿дСeL5-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jYhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j[YhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHuYZfZgZhZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZǸǧ~pgpM<!h:/h0J56mHnHu2jZhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jUZhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHuZZZZ[[[4[5[6[8[9[:[;[<[=[Y[Z[[[\[k[Ǹǧ~u[B0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j[hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jO[hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHuh:/h0J6mHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuh:/h0J5mHnHuk[|[[[i\j\k\\\\\\\\\\\\\\һҰrgrYPY6r2j\hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jI\hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\]]]](]̬̽uluR90h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j]hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jC]hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu)h:/h0J56OJQJmHnHu&h:/h0J5OJQJmHnHu(]<]]]h]m]n]o]]]]]]]]]]]]]]һҰrgrYPY6r2j^hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j=^hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu]]]]])^3^4^5^6^P^Q^R^T^U^V^W^X^Y^u^v^кxmZOZA8AhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu j7_hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu]W^^__`a b[bVc^d"eefghMiii5k'lmmn#ooBqlr &  &  &  & v^w^x^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ _______ӂttZIӂ j+ahUmHnHu2j`hh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHuhvmHnHu j1`hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2j_hh>*B*UmHnHphu___2_3_4_5_M_Y_____________߼vk\kK\@\5hCJmHnHuhvmHnHu j%bhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jahh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu______ `g`h`i````````````λuj[jJ[?[4hCJmHnHuhvmHnHu jchUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jbhh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu`````daeafaaaaaaaaaaaaӺsbsWsL>5>hmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHuhvmHnHu jdhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jchh>*B*UmHnHphuaaaaaaaabbb b b b b bb*b+bӺsbsWsL>5>hmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHuhvmHnHu jehUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jdhh>*B*UmHnHphu+b,b-b8b9b:bTbUbVbXbYbZb[b\b]bybzb{b|bbӂttZA0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jfhh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHuhvmHnHu j fhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jehh>*B*UmHnHphubb3c4c5cOcPcQcScTcUcVcWcXctcucvcwccc;dǸǧ~pgpM40h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jghh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jghUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu;d*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jhhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHueeeee e!e"e#e$e@eAeBeCeVe]e^e`eeeeշ{bKbK5*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jxihh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jhhUmHnHuhmHnHueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee f f f ffffff.f/fշ{iXշ jjhUmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2jrjhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jihUmHnHuhmHnHu/f0f1fLfOffffffggggggggӺvk\kK\@\5hCJmHnHuhvmHnHu jkhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jlkhh>*B*UmHnHphugg3g4g5g6gIgXgggggghhhλu^uSDS3D jlhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jflhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhhhhhhh5h6h7h8hUh`hkhphhh*i+iӺ~gQ:Q:Q/hmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j`mhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHujhUmHnHuhvmHnHu+i,iFiGiHiJiKiLiMiNiOikiliminizi{i|iiiiiiiiiiii𶫶zhW𶔶 jnhUmHnHu#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2jZnhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jmhUmHnHuhmHnHujhUmHnHuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijjjj/jQjźӆņlS<-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jNphh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuhvmHnHu johUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2jTohh>*B*UmHnHphuQjkkk.k/k0k2k3k4k5k6k7kSkTkUkVk|kkll߿дСeL5-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jHqhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jphUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHull l!l"l$l%l&l'l(l)lElFlGlHlllzl{m|m}mm𶫶zaJ4*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jBrhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jqhUmHnHuhmHnHujhUmHnHummmmmmmmmmmmmmmJnKnLnfn·©mV@55hmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jrhUmHnHufngnhnjnknlnmnnnonnnnnoooooo o!o"o#o$o%oAoBoCoDo·©©{{j ©P2j0uhh>*B*UmHnHphu jthUmHnHuhmHnHu2j6thh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jshUmHnHuDo[omoooooooooooooooooppкqfqXOX5q2j*vhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu juhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHupq q!q;q*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jvhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHuJrKrerfrgrirjrkrlrmrnrrrrrrrssss𶫶zaJ4*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jxhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jwhUmHnHuhmHnHujhUmHnHusssssssssssssstt·©mV@*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jyhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jxhUmHnHulrstTuu w`w-xx\y}yyyNzz${C{a{{{{ d^gdkh & Fgd|  & Fdgdkhgdkhgdkhgdkh &  &  & t'tttttttttttttuuuu1u2u3uMuǸǧ~pgpM;Ǹ#h:/h0JOJQJmHnHu2jzhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jyhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J6OJQJ\^JmHnHuMuNuOuQuRuSuTuUuVurusutuuuuuuuuu¹«xaK@@hmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j {hh>*B*UmHnHphuh:/h0JmHnHuhmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu jzhUmHnHuuuuuuuuuuvv v v=v]vvvvw·©mV@55hmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu0h:/h0J56OJQJ\^JmHnHu2j|hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu j{hUmHnHuwww w w w w ww*w+w,w-w8w=w>w?wYwZw[w]w^w_w`wawbw~ww·©©vkkZ © j}}hUmHnHuhmHnHuh:/h0J6mHnHu2j}hh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHujhUmHnHu j|hUmHnHuwwwwwwwwww x x x&x'x(x*x+x,x-x.x/xKxLxӼ{peWNWhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHuhCJmHnHuhvmHnHu jw~hUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHu*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2j}hh>*B*UmHnHphuLxMxNxuxvxwxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxy y9yźӆņlU?U?U?*h:/h0JOJQJ\^JmHnHu-h:/h0J5OJQJ\^JmHnHu2jhh>*B*UmHnHphuhmHnHuhvmHnHu jqhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHuh:/h0JmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHu2j~hh>*B*UmHnHphu9y:y;yUyVyWyYyZy[y\y]yyyyyMzNzcz|zzz淬}rg\rQFQ:hp4h|5CJaJh}5AhgiCJaJh}5Ah|CJaJhp4h|CJaJhp4h*vCJaJhp4hkhCJaJhp4hkh5CJaJhp4hkhOJQJ.jhS5CJKHOJQJUaJnH tH hCJmHnHu$jh:/h0JUmHnHuhvmHnHu jkhUmHnHujhUmHnHuhmHnHuzz {#{${%{C{F{R{`{x{{{{{{{{{{{||:|;|R|z|{|zzlzaUahp4hb*5CJaJhp4hb*CJaJhp4hkh56CJaJhp4hkh5CJaJhp4h*v>*CJaJhp4h*vCJaJhp4hkh>*CJaJhp4hkhCJaJh}5Ahkh5CJaJh}5Ah*v5CJaJhp4h|5CJaJh}5Ahgi5>*CJaJhp4hgi5CJaJh}5Ah|5>*CJaJ{{;|{|||m}*~3~S~\~~~$d$If^a$gd*v  & Fdgdkh  & Fdgdb*  & Fdgdkh {||||||| }}})}f}j}l}}}}}3~;~R~\~f~}~~~~~~~~~~~~5ISefpѷѯїїїїїїrьrhp4hgi56CJaJhp4hgi5CJaJhp4hgiCJaJhp4hkhCJOJQJaJh}5A6CJaJh}5ACJaJ jhp4h|CJaJhp4hkh6CJaJhp4hkhCJaJhp4h|CJaJhp4hb*CJaJhp4hb*56CJaJ,~~~~~~~[FFFF$d$If^a$gd*vkd$$Ifl\4 & n t0644 layt*v~~~~~~[FFFF$d$If^a$gd*vkd$$Ifl\4 & n t0644 layt*v~~~~~~[FFFF$d$If^a$gd*vkdz$$Ifl\4 & n t0644 layt*v~~~~~~[FFFF$d$If^a$gd*vkdC$$Ifl\4 & n t0644 layt*v~~[FFFF$d$If^a$gd*vkd $$Ifl\4 & n t0644 layt*vf>[NNNA?  & Fdgdkh  & FdgdkhkdՄ$$Ifl\4 & n t0644 layt*vr&JLxӽn[E[[5[5[h?UB*OJQJ\^Jph* jh?UhOAiB*OJQJ\^Jph$h?UhOAiB*OJQJ\^Jph$h?Uh*uB*OJQJ\^Jph$h?Uh @B*OJQJ\^Jph$h?UhkhB*OJQJ\^Jph*h?Uh?U56B*OJQJ\^Jph*h?Uhkh56B*OJQJ\^Jphhp4hkhOJQJh}5Ahkh>*CJaJhp4hkhCJaJhp4hgiCJaJЁqrރ߃ݷݡ|pd[PHP*CJOJQJaJhp4hOAiCJOJQJaJh}5ACJOJQJaJh}5AhOAi5CJaJh}5Ah*u5CJaJhp4h*u6CJOJQJaJhp4h*uCJOJQJaJhp4h*u56CJaJhp4hkh5CJaJhp4h*u>*CJaJhp4h*uCJaJhp4h*u5CJaJ߃ q [ly & Fd$IfgdOAid$If^gd}5A & Fd$IfgdOAi & F$IfgdOAi & Fd$Ifgd*u & F$Ifgd*u & Fd$Ifgd*ud$If^gd*u݆;IK #%'JLԉՉ։֮ti]hp4hkh6OJQJhp4h}5ACJaJhp4h'DCJaJ hp4hkhhp4hkhCJOJQJaJhp4hkhCJaJh}5Ah}5A56CJaJh}5Ah*u56CJaJ jhp4hOAiCJaJhp4hOAi5CJaJhp4h*u5CJaJh}5ACJaJhp4hOAiCJaJhp4h*uCJaJ$&Չ։pbULh^hgdkh  & Fdgd!g d^gdkhjkd?$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt*v & Fd$Ifgd*u & Fd$IfgdOAi։ىډ &'(+FPhijmSUVWðvk_S_S_kSGvhRhkh5CJaJhRh25CJaJhRh @5CJaJhp4h @CJaJhp4h25CJaJhp4hkhOJQJ$hp4hkhB*OJQJ\^JphhRB*OJQJ\^Jph$hp4h xJB*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4hkh5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h?U56B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4hkh56B*OJQJ\^Jph։ijW xfTfBB & Fd$Ifgd2d$If^gd2d$If^gd*vwkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt*v$7$8$@&H$Ifgd*vЌԌ . ,04˺zdQ@!hYN5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h?U56B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4hkh56B*OJQJ\^Jphhp4hkh6CJOJQJaJhp4hkhOJQJhRhkhCJaJhRh2CJaJhp4h xJCJOJQJaJ hp4h xJCJOJQJ^JaJ#hRh xJ5CJOJQJ^JaJhp4h xJCJaJhp4h2CJaJhp4hkh5CJaJ xsd$7$8$@&H$Ifgd*vgdkhhkd]$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt*v & Fd$Ifgd*v & F$Ifgd xJ45ACrYZovא QRUvwגؒǴznzc[c[c[c[c[c[cOc[cnzhRh'D>*CJaJhRCJaJhp4h'DCJaJhp4hkh5CJaJhp4h'D5CJaJhp4hkhOJQJ$hp4hkhB*OJQJ\^JphhYNB*OJQJ\^Jph$hYNhYNB*OJQJ\^Jph$hYNhkhB*OJQJ\^Jph!hYN5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4hkh5B*OJQJ\^Jphؒ`ϓ֓saOOs & Fd$Ifgd'Dd$If^gd'Dd$If^gd*vzkdڇ$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt*vϓ֓ܓ:;\WXkxϗЗɽ|q|q|q|q|eq|qeWehp4hu}5>*CJaJhp4hu}5CJaJhp4hCJaJhp4hu}CJaJhYNOJQJhp4hu}OJQJhp4hkh6OJQJhp4hkhOJQJhYNhkh5CJaJhYNh'D5CJaJhp4h'D5CJaJhRCJaJhp4hkh5CJaJhp4h'D6CJaJhp4h'DCJaJ"֓\XpkbUU  & Fdgdu}gdu}gdkhjkd{$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt*v & Fd$Ifgd*v & Fd$Ifgd'D Xx,/ә3ABH$7$8$@&H$Ifgd#gdu} d^gdu} & FgdnI & Fgd5 & Fgde & Fgde & FOd^Ogdu}  & Fdgdu}  & Fdgdu} 3cȘɘ#әڙ3@ٚ@ABH^t·~wl[Khp4hu}5OJQJ\^J!hp4hu}56OJQJ\^Jhp4hu}OJQJ hp4hu}hp4h CJaJhp4h >*CJaJhp4h5CJaJhp4hnICJaJhp4he>*CJaJhp4heCJaJ jhp4heCJaJhp4hCJaJhp4hu}CJaJhp4hu}5CJaJhp4hu}5>*CJaJt~rw 89:= /{l]M]l]lhYNh>`>*CJOJQJaJhp4h>`CJOJQJaJhp4h#CJOJQJaJhp4h#5CJaJhYNhYN56CJaJhYN5CJaJhp4h>*CJaJhp4hCJaJhp4h5CJaJhp4hu}5CJaJhp4hu}OJQJhp4hu}OJQJ\^JhYNOJQJ\^JhYNhYNOJQJ\^J:ΞsaaOBO & F$Ifgd# & Fd$Ifgdd$If^gd#d$If^gdzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt#͞ΞϞ;<ϟ/01ؠĹyiYiI=IIhYNhYN5CJaJhp4h#5CJOJQJaJhp4h`5CJOJQJaJhp4h>`5CJOJQJaJ"hYNh5>*CJOJQJaJhp4h5CJOJQJaJhp4h#CJOJQJaJhp4hCJOJQJaJhp4h#CJaJhp4h5CJaJhp4h#5CJaJ jhYNh^CJaJhYNh^CJaJhYNh#CJaJΞ<1#z7f & Fd$Ifgd# & F $If^gdn & F $If^gde & F$Ifgd# & Fd$Ifgd ؠ"#pt|z-67FWееЦyjyjyZyOGhYNCJaJhnhYNCJaJhnh5CJOJQJaJhnhYNCJOJQJaJhnhCJOJQJaJhnhnCJOJQJaJhnh>`CJOJQJaJhp4h#CJOJQJaJhnCJOJQJaJhp4h>`CJOJQJaJhp4hCJOJQJaJhp4h5CJOJQJaJhp4h#5CJOJQJaJWefghp~1_kmƤʤ!´¬•tatV¬VJVVh?Uh5CJaJhp4he6CCJaJ$h?Uh?UB*OJQJ\^Jph*h?Uh?U56B*OJQJ\^Jphh?Uh?UCJaJhp4h6CJaJhp4h?UCJaJh?UCJaJ jhp4hCJaJhp4hCJaJhp4hOJQJ hp4hu}hp4hu}OJQJhnhu}CJaJhp4hCJaJfghp2lm}pcpUJ 7$8$@&H$gd?U d^gd?U  & Fdgd?U  & Fdgdgd d^gdu}jkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt#NOLwkd $$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytyA$7$8$@&H$IfgdyAgd  & Fdgde6C  & Fdgd  & Fdgd?UťΥ8<MNOakmnp譗raN>h 1B*OJQJ\^Jph$hrwhrwB*OJQJ\^Jph!hrw5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4h5B*OJQJ\^Jph!h 15B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4h56B*OJQJ\^Jphhp4h6OJQJhp4h6CJaJhp4he6CCJaJhp4he6C5CJaJhp4h5CJaJhp4hCJaJh?Uh>*CJaJަ+9`fwx{ʧE%0˸ˬ˸˸֕Õ։}}tø}iahMOJQJhp4hyACJaJh 16CJaJhp4he6C5CJaJh 1he6C5CJaJh 1h 1CJaJh 1he6C>*CJaJh 1h>*CJaJhp4he6CCJaJh 1CJaJhp4hCJaJhp4h5CJaJhp4hOJQJ$hrwhB*OJQJ\^Jph%xʧJaXXgdehkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytyA & Fd$Ifgde6Cd$If^gde6Cd$If^gd  !',2389GklΫ"$%Ece¬ɬˬ߻xlߛxߐllahp4hCJaJhp4hGP 6CJaJhhe5CJaJhhGP 5CJaJhp4hGP CJaJhCJaJhp4he5CJaJhp4h"5CJaJhp4hGP 5CJaJhp4he6CJaJhp4h"6CJaJhp4heCJaJhp4h"CJaJhp4heOJQJ"l%ˬPyǮ$7$8$@&H$IfgdXgde  & FdgdnI  & FdgdGP  & Fdgd HNPѭ yǮ HѷѷѫџєtiS*hp4he56B*OJQJ\^Jphhp4heOJQJhhnI6CJaJhh6CJaJhCJaJhp4hnICJaJhp4hGP 6CJaJhhGP 5CJaJhp4hGP >*CJaJ jhp4hGP CJaJhp4hGP CJaJhp4h6CJaJhp4hCJaJhp4h>*CJaJǯʯq 3GJvw%0:<Yز؟|qfqfqfqfq^qfqRqfqfqfqRhhe>*CJaJhCJaJhp4h"CJaJhp4heCJaJhp4h"5CJaJhp4he5CJaJhp4heOJQJ$hp4heB*OJQJ\^Jph$hp4hXB*OJQJ\^Jph$hp4hGP B*OJQJ\^Jph$hp4h#`"B*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4he5B*OJQJ\^Jph IuucQ?Q? & Fd$Ifgd & Fd$Ifgded$If^gdXd$If^gd"wkd9$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytXY\JOTbiprHIIJ-<TUmĶŶܷFAŹŭŢŢŗŭŭŹŗŏŏŭhp4h#`"5CJaJhCJaJhp4hXCJaJhp4h#`"CJaJhp4he5CJaJhp4he6CJaJhp4heCJaJhp4h"CJaJhp4he>*CJaJhhe>*CJaJhh">*CJaJ0JUŶ:;ahkdՋ$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytX & Fd$IfgdX & Fd$Ifgde & Fd$Ifgd Ar׹"'*8:<fvx櫢ӖӋudP'hp4he5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hj5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4he56B*OJQJ\^Jphhp4heOJQJhp4he6CJaJh5CJaJhp4he56CJaJhp4h#`"5CJaJhjhe5>*CJaJhp4heCJaJhCJaJhp4he5CJaJhp4he5>*CJaJ;<"saaOO & Fd$IfgdXd$If^gdXwkdR$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytX$7$8$@&H$IfgdXgdex5J"vǼzoddXLhp4h~5CJaJhp4hpu5CJaJhp4h~CJaJhp4hpuCJaJhp4heCJaJhp4hX>*CJaJhjCJaJhp4hXCJaJhp4he5CJaJhp4hX5CJaJhp4heOJQJ$hp4heB*OJQJ\^Jph$hp4hGP B*OJQJ\^Jph$hp4hXB*OJQJ\^Jph-^_`a#/Jfh/4:+,-.?@Ǿ޶޶ޫӫӶӟӶ攉~s`$hF a56B*OJQJ\^Jphhp4hOJQJhp4hkhCJaJhp4heOJQJhp4heCJaJhp4h~5CJaJhp4h~CJaJhF aCJaJhj>*CJaJhjhX>*CJaJhp4hXCJaJhjCJaJhp4hX5CJaJhp4hX5>*CJaJ"aE0, & Fd$IfgdX & Fd$IfgdF a & Fd$IfgdX & Fd$Ifgdj & Fd$Ifgdj,-.?@Vyylll]$7$8$@&H$Ifgd`  & Fdgdr 7$8$@&H$gdF agd dgdkhhkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytX @OP`acdUV~״lXG!hF a5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hF ah5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4h56B*OJQJ\^Jphhp4hr5CJaJhp4hrCJaJhF aCJaJ$hF ahF aB*OJQJ\^JphhF aB*OJQJ\^Jph$h{A56B*OJQJ\^Jph$hF a56B*OJQJ\^Jph*hF ahr56B*OJQJ\^Jph$-.a16<JKظwoodXL@hF ah5CJaJhF ah 5CJaJhp4h 5CJaJhp4hCJaJhF aCJaJhF ah >*CJaJhp4h CJaJhp4h5CJaJhp4hOJQJ$hp4hB*OJQJ\^JphhF aB*OJQJ\^Jphh~B*OJQJ\^Jph$hp4h$ B*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4h5B*OJQJ\^JphnFsssaaaTT & F$Ifgd` & Fd$Ifgd`d$If^gd`zkdk$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt` 5mnw Epq\p'8Mɽxi]i]ii]iݬUh~CJaJhF aCJOJQJaJhp4h`CJOJQJaJhF ah`5CJOJQJaJ#hF ah55CJOJQJ^JaJ#hF ah`5CJOJQJ^JaJ hp4h`CJOJQJ^JaJhp4h`5CJaJhF aCJaJhF ah`>*CJaJhp4h`CJaJhp4h CJaJhp4h 6CJaJ!3\'8M*+,ug d^gd`jkd $$Ifl$h% t0644 layt` & Fd$Ifgd` & F$Ifgd` )*+,Fcf Uucxthth\\\Phhp4h%5CJaJh~h%>*CJaJh~h%5CJaJh~hp45CJaJhp4h%CJaJh~CJaJhp4CJaJhp4h%OJQJhp4hB*CJaJphhp4hOJQJh~hCJaJhp4hnICJaJh~CJOJQJ^JaJ hp4h`CJOJQJ^JaJhp4h`CJaJ,F UzK!s   & Fdgd%  & Fdgd%  & Fdgds#gd%  & Fdgd%gd%03:JTW_ !BDs Ź蜐woogh%CJaJhq}7CJaJh7ICJaJh~5CJaJhs#CJaJh~hs#>*CJaJh~h%>*CJaJh~6CJaJh~CJaJh~h~5CJaJh~h%5CJaJh~hp45CJaJhp4h%OJQJhp4h%CJaJhp4h%5CJaJ((=Ln3 PQRZghoɹɱɩvkkkkh?*h?*CJaJh?*hDCJaJhq}7hDCJaJh?*6CJaJh?*CJaJhDhD5CJaJhq}7CJaJhDCJaJh7ICJaJh~CJaJhp4h%CJaJhp4h%5CJaJhp4h~CJaJh~h~CJaJh~6CJaJ*hmW-/  & F dgd  & F dgd  & F dgdU  & F dgdD  & F dgdU  & FdgdU  & Fdgd%  & Fdgd%  & FdgdV} & FgdD`ahiklm  89:VWǼдyqhZqRIRqhV}6CJaJhV}CJaJ jhDhDCJaJhD5CJaJhUCJaJ jh~h~CJaJh~CJaJhUh%5>*CJaJhp4h%5CJaJhq}7hq}7CJaJhq}7CJaJhDhDCJaJhD6CJaJhDCJaJhV}hV}CJaJh?*CJaJh?*h?*CJaJh?*6CJaJ'KY $+,->egkqڽ횲~hT'hp4h5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4h56B*OJQJ\^Jph hp4hhV}6CJaJhp4h5CJaJhp4h>*CJaJhp4h6CJaJhp4hCJaJhV}CJaJhU5CJaJhp4hU5CJaJhp4hUCJaJhDCJaJhUCJaJhp4h%CJaJABt{+jXXXFF & Fd$Ifgdd$If^gdwkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt$7$8$@&H$Ifgd d^gdABIZzt{+7%˷˯ˣ✆rarQhq}7B*OJQJ\^Jph!hp45B*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4h5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4h56B*OJQJ\^Jph hp4hhDh5CJaJhDCJaJhp4h>*CJaJhqmCJaJhp4hCJaJhp4h5CJaJhp4hOJQJ$hp4hB*OJQJ\^Jph+wh$7$8$@&H$Ifgd d^gdhkd*$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytd$If^gd%Jsssaaaa & Fd$Ifgdd$If^gdzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt0JKL_lmozмгۼШwwfSCh<B*OJQJ\^Jph$hp4hB*OJQJ\^Jph!hp45B*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4h5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4h56B*OJQJ\^Jph hp4hhp4hOJQJhV}5CJaJhV}CJaJhV}h>*CJaJhp4hCJaJhp4h5CJaJhV}hV}5CJaJhV}h5CJaJJKLw$7$8$@&H$Ifgd d^gdjkdH$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytKPeQ !"Eƻƻƻƛƻƻyc*hp4h56B*OJQJ\^Jph hp4hh?*h5CJaJhp4hCJOJQJaJh<CJaJhV}hV}5CJaJhV}h5CJaJhp4hCJaJhp4h5CJaJhp4hOJQJh<B*OJQJ\^Jph$hp4hB*OJQJ\^Jph K[QsssaTTaa & F$Ifgd & Fd$Ifgdd$If^gdzkdʐ$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt !"(pbS$7$8$@&H$Ifgd d^gdjkdk$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytd$If^gd & Fd$IfgdEV()*+567HSep{| 9Ž͵wowowcwUh?*h56CJaJh<h5CJaJh?*CJaJh<hCJaJh<CJaJh}h}6CJaJh<h}CJaJ&jh}CJUaJmHnHtH uh}CJaJh?*OJQJhp4h5hp4hOJQJ$hp4hB*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4h5B*OJQJ\^Jph()*+568aqrwnn`VVV` dgd} d^gd}gd d^gdzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt r|\Zj'($7$8$@&H$Ifgdl% d^gdlK  & F dgdmS  & F dgd  & F dgd<  & F dgd  & F dgd}  & F dgd}9AYZefglsB趭~umd[OFhmS6CJaJhmSh}6CJaJhZ#5CJaJh}5CJaJh}CJaJhZ#6CJaJh}h}6CJaJhZ#hZ#CJaJhZ#CJaJhmSCJaJh?*CJaJh?*6CJaJh<hmS6CJaJh<h6CJaJh?*h56CJaJh<h5CJaJh<hCJaJh?*h5CJaJBij&'(345>?@BUVǹޡxdSdxdC3hZ#B*OJQJ\^Jphhl%B*OJQJ\^Jph!hl%5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4hlK5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4hlK56B*OJQJ\^Jph$hl%56B*OJQJ\^Jphh<hlK5CJaJh<h6CJaJh?*h6>*CJaJh?*h>*CJaJh<hCJaJh<h5CJaJh}hmS6CJaJhmS5CJaJV+,0QR·|qeR$hl%56B*OJQJ\^JphhCJOJQJaJhp4hlKCJaJh}h}5CJaJhZ#hl%5CJaJh}hl%5CJaJhZ#hl%>*CJaJh}hl%CJaJh<hl%CJaJhp4hlKOJQJ$hp4hlKB*OJQJ\^JphhZ#B*OJQJ\^Jphhl%B*OJQJ\^Jph,Ruuccu & F d$Ifgd}d$If^gd}wkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytl%4$7$8$@&H$Ifgdl%dgdl%hkd*$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytl%345;<=?&)~ ֵ{rg\g{gPgHg@gHhl%CJaJhZ#CJaJhZ#hl%>*CJaJhl%hl%CJaJh<hl%CJaJhl%5CJaJhl%hl%5CJaJhp4hl%OJQJ$hp4hl%B*OJQJ\^JphhW%aB*OJQJ\^Jphhl%B*OJQJ\^Jph!hl%5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4hl%5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4hl%56B*OJQJ\^Jph45&*uuccchd$If^hgdl%d$If^gdl%wkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytl% 789@789:;=JUԾ|pepe|]UMBM9h$c6OJQJhp4h$cOJQJh$cOJQJh$cCJaJhCJaJhp4hCJaJhp4h5CJaJhp4hOJQJhZ#B*OJQJ\^Jph$hp4hB*OJQJ\^Jph'hp4h5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hp4h56B*OJQJ\^Jphh<hCJaJhp4hl%OJQJhp4hl%CJaJh<hl%CJaJ8z$7$8$@&H$Ifgd 8d^8gdhkdC$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytl%897ssd$If^gdzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt789:Vqr }tggZZ  & F dgd$c  & F dgd$cgd$cgd$c d^gdjkda$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt UVYpqr}3M     + : s t }        D c      ̆}}qhOeh$c6CJaJhOe5CJaJhOe6CJaJhOeCJaJh^h$c56CJaJh(mCJaJh^CJaJh$ch$c5CJaJh$ch$cCJaJh$ch$c6CJaJh$cCJaJh$cOJQJhp4h$cOJQJh$ch$c6OJQJ, t   D  Q   B   n,4v  & F dgdp  & F dgdZ=  & F dgdOe  & F dgdb  & F dgd$c  & F dgd$c    @ A K N b    ( 0 P X `           < A B       &-.mٶ٭ٶummhZ=CJaJhZ=hZ=5CJaJh(mCJaJh$ch$c5CJaJh$ch$c6CJaJh(mh$c6CJaJhb6CJaJhbhbCJaJhbhb5CJaJhOehb6CJaJhbCJaJhOeCJaJhOeh$c6CJaJh$ch$cCJaJ(mn+,346̽紬uj^jjPGhp5CJaJhphZ=56CJaJhphp>*CJaJhphpCJaJhphp5CJaJhphp56CJaJhpCJaJhp6CJaJh$chZ=5CJaJhZ=CJaJh$c5CJaJ jhZ=hZ=5CJaJhZ=5CJaJh(m5CJaJhOe5CJaJh$ch$c5CJaJhZ=h$c5CJaJ67:uvxy{} #-./9:ֳoWoW?W/hOehOe5B*OJQJ\^JmH phsH /hOeh$c5B*OJQJ\^JmH phsH 2hOeh$c56B*OJQJ\^JmH phsH h$ch$chXh hpCJaJh h CJaJh 6CJaJh h 6CJaJhphpCJaJhphp5CJaJhphp56CJaJhpCJaJhp5CJaJhp56CJaJV \Jd$If^gdbzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt{$7$8$@&H$Ifgd{gdX & F gd  & F dgdZ=:d@JLN{rfr^SK^S^ShOeCJaJh$chbCJaJhbCJaJh$ch$c5CJaJhb5CJaJh$ch$cOJQJ$hbh$cB*OJQJ\^Jph$hZ=hZ=B*OJQJ\^Jph!h)#5B*OJQJ\^JphhOeB*OJQJ\^Jphh)#B*OJQJ\^JphhZ=B*OJQJ\^Jph$h)#h)#B*OJQJ\^Jph^_ #/23@BGJ̷蟫Óymeh{CJaJh$chb5CJaJhZ=hb56CJaJhZ=hZ=5CJaJhZ=hb5CJaJhOehb5CJaJhbhb5CJaJhOehOe6CJaJhb6CJaJhOeCJaJhOehb6CJaJhbCJaJh$chbCJaJhbhb5CJaJ' 3Ljkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt{ & Fd$IfgdZ= & F d$Ifgdbd$If^gdb & Fd$Ifgdb 123jz ʶycyXTPKPD h8h$c h86h8hZ=h$chmOJQJ*hZ=hm56B*OJQJ\^Jph*hmhm56B*OJQJ\^Jph$hm56B*OJQJ\^Jph'hZ=hZ=5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hZ=hm5B*OJQJ\^Jphhmh#4= h$ch$chXh$ch$cOJQJhZ=h$cCJaJhZ=h{>*CJaJ3`qdWdd  & F dgd)#  & F dgd$czkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytm$7$8$@&H$IfgdmgdX.2U_`s*235=Ldl-`lmø藋藋skbh 6CJaJhHCJaJh h$c5CJaJh h$c6CJaJh h 6CJaJh CJaJhZ=h$c5>*CJaJhZ=h8CJaJhZ=h)#CJaJhZ=h$c5CJaJhZ=h35CJaJ *hZ=h$c6CJaJhZ=h$cCJaJhZ=h$c6CJaJ&n+P>>d$If^gd{wkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt{$7$8$@&H$Ifgd{ d^gd$c  & F dgd$c  & F dgd mnt}89DEûm\I9Ih"B*OJQJ\^Jph$h$ch$cB*OJQJ\^Jph!h;l5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h;lh;lB*OJQJ\^Jph!h 5B*OJQJ\^Jph'h$ch$c5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h$ch$c56B*OJQJ\^Jphh$ch$c5hZ=h$c56CJaJhZ=h$cCJaJhZ=h$c6CJaJhZ=h8CJaJhZ=h 5CJaJ \eܷmbVKCK;K3Kh CJaJh8CJaJh"CJaJhT,sh$cCJaJhT,sh$c5CJaJh$ch$cOJQJ$h$ch$cB*OJQJ\^Jphh B*OJQJ\^Jph'h h96B*OJQJ\^Jph$h9h9B*OJQJ\^Jph!h95B*OJQJ\^Jph'h"h;l5B*OJQJ\^Jph'h"hT&5B*OJQJ\^JphhT&B*OJQJ\^Jph+04=>GHS[dKLab~  ! "         !3!F!G!L!ʿʳʳʧʳwh 5CJaJh;l5CJaJh;lh$c5>*CJaJh;lCJaJhT,sCJaJh h$c6CJaJh h$c>*CJaJh h;lCJaJh h$cCJaJh h CJaJh CJaJhT,sh$cCJaJhT,sh$c5CJaJ.+0L   [!!")#g#d$Ifgd;l & F  d$If^`gd d$Ifgd{ & Fd$Ifgd{d$If^gd{ L!M!Z![!w!x!!!!""# #f#g#h#i#~####꽲p\I6$h{Ah$cB*OJQJ\^Jph$h{AhB*OJQJ\^Jph'h{Ah6B*OJQJ\^Jph'h{Ah$c6B*OJQJ\^Jphh$ch$c5h$ch$cOJQJhT,sh$cB*CJaJphh h$c6CJaJh h;lCJaJh h$cCJaJh;l5>*CJaJhT,sh$c5>*CJaJh;l5CJaJhT,sh$c5CJaJh 5CJaJg#h#i#$z$7$8$@&H$Ifgd{ d^gd$chkdC$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt{#######$$+$:$A$$$$$$$$$$%ڳ|||laUJ?4hHh$cCJaJh"hT&CJaJh"h$cCJaJh"h$c5CJaJh$ch$cOJQJhHB*OJQJ\^Jph'h$ch$c6B*OJQJ\^Jph$h$ch$cB*OJQJ\^Jphh"B*OJQJ\^Jph$h{Ah"B*OJQJ\^Jph'h{Ah$c6B*OJQJ\^Jph$h{Ah$cB*OJQJ\^Jph$h{AhB*OJQJ\^Jph$$7%>%z%%K&&'uucIIII & Fd$If^`gdH & Fd$Ifgd{d$If^gd{wkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt{%%(%*%6%>%V%_%%%%%%%% &&&&&J&K&&&&&&&&&''''''''꿰t$h56B*OJQJ\^Jph*h$ch$c56B*OJQJ\^Jphh$ch$c5h$ch$cOJQJh"h$cB*CJaJphhHh"CJaJhHCJaJhHh$c6CJaJhHh$c5CJaJhHh$cCJaJhHhT&CJaJ%'''(z$7$8$@&H$Ifgd{ d^gd$chkd\$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt{''''!(M(N(R(\(](u(((((((((ǷubQ>3h$ch$cOJQJ$hIh$cB*OJQJ\^Jph!hI6B*OJQJ\^Jph$hIhIB*OJQJ\^Jph!h6B*OJQJ\^JphhB*OJQJ\^Jph!hZn 6B*OJQJ\^JphhIB*OJQJ\^JphhZn B*OJQJ\^Jph$hZn hZn B*OJQJ\^Jph!hZn 5B*OJQJ\^Jph'h$ch$c5B*OJQJ\^Jph((+ ++,-.uucccc & Fd$Ifgd{d$If^gd{wkdٙ$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt{(()X)Z){))))**4*h*j*k**************+ +3+;+<+K+L+[+v+~++Ҿݲznchh"CJaJhh"5CJaJhh$c5CJaJhh5CJaJh6CJaJhhZn 6CJaJhhZn CJaJh7Lh$c5CJaJhCJaJh"h$c6CJaJh"hZn CJaJh"h$cCJaJh"hT&CJaJh"h$c5CJaJ&++++++++:,=,>,@,^,,,,- -J-L-^-i-}-~------5.=........੝t`t`'h$ch$c5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h$ch$c56B*OJQJ\^Jphh$ch$c5h$ch$cOJQJhh$c5CJaJhh"5CJaJhh$c6CJaJh6CJaJhhZn CJaJhh"CJaJhh$cCJaJhCJaJhh5CJaJ%.../z$7$8$@&H$Ifgd{ d^gd$chkdu$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt{.../ /K/]/f/~////////////"0$0;0F0I0`0b0000011 11P1ϻ𨝑zozozogzgzozozozgz[zhh$c6CJaJhCJaJhh7LCJaJhh$cCJaJhh7L5CJaJhh$c5CJaJh$ch$cOJQJ$h66Yh$cB*OJQJ\^Jph'hhI>*B*OJQJ\^JphhIB*OJQJ\^Jph!h66Y6B*OJQJ\^Jphh66YB*OJQJ\^Jph#//P1W112}22M3saOOOOO & Fd$Ifgd{d$If^gd{d$If^gd7Lzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt{P1W1b1111111111111122%202<2Q2222222(303=3K3e3l3n3o3vkh$ch$cOJQJhh5CJaJh5CJaJhh$c56CJaJhh$c>*CJaJhh$c6CJaJhh66YCJaJhCJaJhhICJaJhh7LCJaJhh$c5>*CJaJhh$cCJaJhh$c5CJaJ#M3n3o33h4wh$7$8$@&H$Ifgd{ & Fdgd$cjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt{ & Fd$Ifgdo3u3333333333333333Լ馒k[K:!h16B*OJQJ\^JphhHB*OJQJ\^Jphh1B*OJQJ\^Jph'hE h$c6B*OJQJ\^Jph$h$ch$cB*OJQJ\^Jph'h$ch$c5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h$ch$c56B*OJQJ\^Jph/hNh$c0J6B*CJOJQJ]aJph)h10J6B*CJOJQJ]aJph,h$ch$c0JB*CJOJQJ]aJph33045474g4h4i4p4q4t444444=5>5555555555̻zzozgzoz\QzQEQzhHh96CJaJhHh9CJaJhHhE CJaJhHCJaJhHh1CJaJhHh$cCJaJhHhHCJaJhHh$c5CJaJh$ch$cOJQJ'h1h$c6B*OJQJ\^Jph!hH6B*OJQJ\^Jph!h16B*OJQJ\^Jphh1B*OJQJ\^Jph$hHhHB*OJQJ\^Jphh4i455~66<77ssaaOa & F d$Ifgd{ & Fd$Ifgd{d$If^gd{zkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt{56666"6#6;6P6V6|666666666677;7<7L7S7v777777777uf[h$ch$cOJQJh;gh$cB*CJaJphhHh$cCJaJhHh1CJaJhHh95CJaJhHCJaJhHh~CJaJhHh96CJaJhHh9CJaJhHh$c6CJaJhHh16>*CJaJhHh$c6>*CJaJhHh$c>*CJaJhHh$cCJaJ"777E9w$7$8$@&H$Ifgd{ d^gd$cjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt{77777788C8q8r88888888999999D9E9ͺzziiYYF$hvh$cB*OJQJ\^JphhB*OJQJ\^Jph!hv6B*OJQJ\^Jphh^XB*OJQJ\^JphhhyB*OJQJ\^Jphh;gB*OJQJ\^JphhvB*OJQJ\^Jph$h$ch$cB*OJQJ\^Jph'h$ch$c5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h$ch$c56B*OJQJ\^Jphh$ch$c5E9F9:9;<<L===>uccuccVc & F$Ifgd~ & Fd$Ifgd{d$If^gd{wkd8$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt{ E9F9M9`999&:E::::::::::::';7;9;;;[;b;;;;;;;<<<<@<<<<===0=3=4=6=L=======:>ӴӨӨӨӨӍhh$cCJOJQJaJhh$c5CJaJhh$c6CJaJhh$c6CJaJhh;gCJaJhCJaJhh$cCJaJhh~CJaJhh$c5CJaJh$ch$cOJQJ5:>X>Y>^>>>>>2???????????)@;@@@@@@@@@A$A'A(AIAŶwŶhXXhhhy5CJOJQJaJhh^XCJOJQJaJhhv5CJOJQJaJhh$c>*CJOJQJaJhh~CJOJQJaJhh$c6CJOJQJaJhh$cCJOJQJaJhh$c5CJOJQJaJhh$cCJaJhCJaJhh~CJaJhh~5CJaJ >>??)@@@tAABCCD|DD E & Fd$Ifgda & F$Ifgd & F$Ifgd{ & Fd$Ifgd{IALAtAAAAAAAAABBB@BABlBmBnBBBBCCCCCDDDDDDддддߓߓЃti^ihhvCJaJhh$cCJaJhh^XCJOJQJaJhh$c5CJOJQJaJ"hh$c56CJOJQJaJhhvCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhh$c6CJOJQJaJhh$cCJOJQJaJhh$c5CJOJQJaJhh~5CJOJQJaJ DD E E EE,EDEEEEEEE7FJFKFLFqFzFFFFFFFFFFF¾²~riraVVVhXhXCJaJhCJaJhrAR6CJaJhrARhrAR>*CJaJhX5CJaJhrAR5CJaJhrARhX5CJaJhrARCJaJhrARhrAR56CJaJhrARhrAR5CJaJhxDhXhXCJaJh$ch$cOJQJhah$cB*CJaJphhhvCJaJhh$c6CJaJ E EEEEEEKFFFFFwwjj]]]  & FdgdX  & FdgdX  & FdgdXgdX d^gdhkdԝ$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt{ FFFFF G G9GPGGGGHHH6HEHFHHHHHIISIUIWIXIƹ}rҹjbbShxhXB*CJaJphhDaCJaJhCJaJhhCJaJh&6CJ^JaJ jh&h&CJ^JaJh&h&CJ^JaJh&CJ^JaJhCJ^JaJhhCJ^JaJhh6CJaJhh6CJ^JaJhXCJaJhXhXCJaJhXhX6CJaJF GFHHWIXI J JMwkdQ$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytX$7$8$@&H$IfgdX d^gdX  & FdgdX & Fgd & FgdXIrIIIIIIIIIIIIIII J J JJ)JhKiKKKĴĤĤĤĔmaYQIQYhrARCJaJh?eCJaJhXCJaJhXhX5CJaJ'hrARhX5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h0M#h0M#B*OJQJ\^Jphh`B*OJQJ\^Jphh0M#B*OJQJ\^Jphh."B*OJQJ\^Jph$h0M#hrARB*OJQJ\^Jph$h."56B*OJQJ\^Jph*hXhX56B*OJQJ\^Jph JKKLLLL[MeWH$7$8$@&H$IfgdX d^gdXhkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytX & Fd$Ifgd0M# & Fd$IfgdXd$If^gdXKKLLALLLLLLLLLDMFMZM˻vbO<,<h0M#B*OJQJ\^Jph$h0M#hrARB*OJQJ\^Jph$h0M#h0M#B*OJQJ\^Jph'h0M#hX5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h0M#hX56B*OJQJ\^Jph*hrARhX56B*OJQJ\^Jph hX5hXh0M#hX5CJOJQJaJhXhX5CJOJQJaJh?e5CJOJQJaJhXhXCJOJQJaJh?eCJOJQJaJh?eh?e5CJaJZM[M\M^M_M`MjMkMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNN'O{OOOOOOOO1P2P3P¶¥™™zrgrg_h&CJaJhp4h`OJQJh`OJQJ hX5hrARhX5CJaJhhrAR56CJaJhhrAR5CJaJhCJaJh6CJaJhhX6CJaJhhXCJaJhhrARCJaJh5CJaJhhX5CJaJhXhX7hXB*\^Jph"[M\MN}N'OOuucQ & Fd$IfgdrAR & Fd$IfgdXd$If^gdXwkdj$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytXOOO2P\PP/QyQQQQFRsssfsfff  & Fdgd`  & Fdgd`gd` d^gdXhkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytX 3PQP[P\P^PPPPPQQ4Q5Q:Q>QyQQRRRR@SASBSWSXSZSgSSSSul`Thr*Dh`6CJaJh`h`6CJaJh6CJaJ jh`h`CJaJh`h`5CJaJhr*Dh`>*CJaJheh`5>*CJaJhehe5>*CJaJheCJaJh`CJaJh&h`>*CJaJh`h`5>*CJaJh&CJaJh`h`>*CJaJh`h`CJaJFRRRSSSS/T0TMTwT`UaUUoVVWpX  & Fdgd^Q6  & Fdgd^Q6 d^gd^Q6 d^gd`gd=Gq  & Fdgd` 8d^8gdr*D  & Fdgd`SSSSSSSS/T0TDTLTMTvTwTzT~TTTTTTTTTTTTTT!U$U`UUUU VVvVwVxVVVVV׻␇{r{rh5CJaJhh`5CJaJh6CJaJhCJaJh^Q6h^Q6CJaJhh^Q6>*CJaJh^Q6h^Q65CJaJh^Q6h`5CJaJh`h`>*CJaJh=Gqh`h`CJaJh^Q6CJaJh^Q66CJaJh^Q6h`6CJaJ,VVVVWWpXxXXXXXXXXX Y Y Y9YYYYYYYYZ ZQZRZƻ߅ymaYaNh`h}CJaJhCJaJhh}>*CJaJhh}6CJaJhh}5CJaJh`CJaJh^Q6h`5CJaJh}CJaJh^Q6h^Q65CJaJh^Q6h^Q656CJaJh^Q656CJaJh^Q6h`56CJaJh`h`CJaJh^Q6CJaJh`h`6CJaJhh^Q65CJaJpXX YYYRZSZ`[~[\c\ ]V]] ^c^^ & F d^gd 8d^8gdy  & Fdgdy  & Fdgd=Gq  & Fdgd=Gq d^gd`  & Fdgd`  & Fdgd`RZSZZZZZZ@[L[R[W[_[`[}[~[[[\\b\c\\\\\ ]8]C]V]~]]]]]]^[^`^c^^^孤wohyCJaJhyhyCJaJhhCJaJhhy6CJaJhhyCJaJh5CJaJhhy5CJaJh=Gqh=Gq6CJaJhCJaJhh=Gq6CJaJh=Gqh=Gq>*CJaJh=Gqh=GqCJaJh=GqCJaJh`CJaJ(^^^@_]___l_m_n______Y``````ӽyfP:fy*h:ChD5>*B*OJQJ\^Jph*hU#hD5>*B*OJQJ\^Jph$hDhDB*OJQJ\^JphhDB*OJQJ\^JphhU#B*OJQJ\^Jphhh B*OJQJ\^Jph'hh hh 5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hh hh 56B*OJQJ\^Jphh=GqCJaJhCJaJhyhyCJaJhyCJaJhy6CJaJ^m_n_``9cc{dUCCCd$If^gdh wkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yth $7$8$@&H$Ifgdh d^gd` & F d^gd````@bAbbb.c6c9c@cQcccccccIdNdldydzd{ddddee&e5e6eoepeҾҲҦݝxpbbYh-5CJaJh0Fhh 5>*CJaJhDCJaJhDhD>*CJaJh0F6CJaJh-CJaJh0FCJaJhU#5CJaJhU#hh 6CJaJh0Fhh >*CJaJh0Fhh 6CJaJhU#CJaJh0Fhh CJaJh0Fhh 5CJaJhh $hDhh B*OJQJ\^Jph"{dpeffgggg$isn_$7$8$@&H$Ifgd-gd`hkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layth  & Fd$Ifgdh  & Fd$Ifgdh peqexe~eeeeeeeeffff$f:f;fFfKfSfufvfffffffff ggggg.ghggggggggg풎w$h=Gq56B*OJQJ\^Jphh=Gqhh hh hh CJaJh0Fh0FCJaJhDh0F>*CJaJhDhh >*CJaJhDhD>*CJaJh0Fhh 5CJaJhU#6CJaJh0Fhh 6CJaJh0Fhh CJaJhDCJaJ-ggghh h h hhhh;hDhPh\hhh#i$i%i+i,iiiiʺʺʺʺʺvg[RG?Gh=GqCJaJh=Gqh=GqCJaJh=Gq5CJaJh0Fh=Gq5CJaJhX7h=GqB*\^Jphhx$.h=GqB*\^Jphh}}B*OJQJ\^Jph!hx$.6B*OJQJ\^Jph'hU#hx$.>*B*OJQJ\^Jphhx$.B*OJQJ\^Jphh !rB*OJQJ\^Jph'h0M#h=Gq5B*OJQJ\^Jph!h=Gq5B*OJQJ\^Jph$i%iQk`kllmnucQQ?? & Fd$Ifgd=Gq & Fd$Ifgd=Gqd$If^gd-d$If^gd=Gqwkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt-iiii(j)j7j9jjjjjkkkk/k7kPkQkSk_k`kkkkkk^llllZmcm}mmmmmmmmmmmmn\n]nnż휆}h !r5CJaJh-h=Gq5>*CJaJh-CJaJh=Gqh=Gq5CJaJhU#CJaJh0Fh=Gq5CJaJhU#5CJaJhO5CJaJh0Fh=GqCJaJh=Gqh=Gq6CJaJhOCJaJh=Gqh=GqCJaJh=GqCJaJ1nnopppqsn_$7$8$@&H$Ifgd-gd`hkd8$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt-d$If^gd- & Fd$Ifgd=Gqnnnboooopppppppppppqo[K7K7K'hU#h%>*B*OJQJ\^Jphh%B*OJQJ\^Jph'h0M#h=Gq5B*OJQJ\^Jph!h=Gq5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h=Gq56B*OJQJ\^Jph$hU#56B*OJQJ\^Jphh=GqhrARh=Gq5CJaJh=Gqh=GqCJaJh-h-5CJaJh-h-CJaJhU#5CJaJh=Gqh-5CJaJh=Gqh-CJaJh=GqCJaJqqrsmt%uuuvBwucccuccQ & Fd$Ifgd=Gq & Fd$IfgdGd$If^gdGwkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt- qqqq(q6qUqqqqqqqrrrr sssSsTsbsesissssssssstt&tttttu$u%u,uZuluԵԩɕ}thU#5CJaJhU#h=Gq5CJaJhGhG5CJaJh0Fh=GqCJaJhG6CJaJhGhG6CJaJhU#hG5CJaJhU#CJaJh=GqhGCJaJhGCJaJhG5CJaJh0Fh=Gq5CJaJhX7h=GqB*\^Jph-luuuuuuuuuu"vjvlvvvvvvvvvAwKwNwwwwwwwwwwԿ࿩sg^gUh75CJaJhMj5CJaJh&h~5CJaJh&h~56CJaJh`hlFhrARh=Gq5CJaJh%h=GqCJaJh%5CJaJh=Gqh=Gq56CJaJh%CJaJh=Gqh=Gq5CJaJhG5CJaJhGhG5CJaJh=Gqh=GqCJaJhGCJaJhU#h=Gq5CJaJ Bwwwww&xxyy{fYYL  & FdgdQ  & Fdgd~ & Fhd^`hgd$(Ugd`gdlFhkdQ$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt- & Fd$Ifgd=Gqwwxxxx%x&xHxJxxxxxxxxyyyyz'z)zKzNzTzUzYz_z`zczizֿ|qh`WhM6CJaJhMCJaJhlF6CJaJhlFhlFCJaJh[?6CJaJhlFCJaJh[?CJaJh~h~5>*CJaJh~6CJaJh~CJaJh&h~CJaJh&h~5CJaJh756CJaJh75CJaJh$(Uh$(U5CJaJh$(U56CJaJh$(U5CJaJ yz`zz{[|w| }l}}}<~~< dgdQ  & Fdgd$(U  & FdgdMj  & Fdgd7 & Fgd~  & Fdgd}}  & FdgdlF  & FdgdQ  & Fdgd~izkzz{{{{={{{{{{?|C|w|||||}e}f}j}k}l}|}}}}}}}}}ƳƳƧƓwoocoh$(Uh$(U6CJaJh$(UCJaJh$(Uh$(UCJaJh76CJaJh7CJaJhQh~CJaJh~6CJaJh~h~6CJaJh~h~CJaJhQCJaJh~CJaJhlFhlFCJaJhlF6CJaJhlFCJaJhQhQCJaJhMhMCJaJ"}}%~:~;~=~X~x~~~~~~~.:;<Ael#ȹqaqhlFB*OJQJ\^JphhMB*OJQJ\^Jph'h0M#hQl*5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hQl*5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hQl*56B*OJQJ\^JphhQhlFB*CJaJphhlFhlFCJaJhMj6CJaJhMjCJaJh76CJaJh7CJaJh7h7CJaJ #CpqրCHTVmqŁǁ  $.01̹~u~mmbVhQhM5CJaJhlFhMCJaJhlFCJaJhM6CJaJhQhM6CJaJhlFhM>*CJaJhQhMCJaJhMCJaJh0FhQl*5CJaJhQl*$hd7hQl*B*OJQJ\^Jph'hd7hd75B*OJQJ\^Jphh?KB*OJQJ\^Jphhd7B*OJQJ\^JphoCnxfTBd$If^gdd7 & Fd$Ifgdd7d$If^gdMwkdΣ$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytQl*$7$8$@&H$IfgdQl*14'BCGHmnt{}-/VW҄[\ Ǽ۞tii`hF6CJaJhFhFCJaJh}}hF5CJaJhMhFCJaJhQhFCJaJhFCJaJhFhMCJaJhMhQl*CJaJhMCJaJhMhMCJaJhM5CJaJh0FhQl*CJaJhQhM6CJaJhQhMCJaJhlFhM5>*CJaJ%nW҄\P-R"Ŋ1 & Fd$If`gde & Fd$Ifgd}8d$If^8gdd7 & Fd$Ifgdd7 & Fd$Ifgdd7*/4NPk|҇Ӈԇ0vUp~ȿȿЩ{pdYNFh9CJaJh}h}CJaJh}h jCJaJh?Kh j5CJaJh}h}}CJaJ jh}h}CJaJh}CJaJh?Kh}}5CJaJh?Kh}5CJaJh}hFCJaJhMjhMjCJaJhMj6CJaJhMjCJaJh}h}>*CJaJh}}CJaJhF6CJaJhFhFCJaJhFCJaJ~ĊŊ1lopҋԋՋ׋23O[\]bՌڌύǾψzncUcJhd7hMCJaJh~hd756CJaJh}hFCJaJhh j5CJaJhh}56CJaJh5CJaJhOi6CJaJhOiCJaJh6CJaJhCJaJhh}CJaJh}6CJaJh}CJaJhh}5CJaJh}h}CJaJh$(UCJaJh9CJaJh96CJaJ1p]gNd$If^gdd7 & Fd$Ifgdd7 & Fd$Ifgdd78d$If^8gdd7 & Fd$If`gde & F   d$If^ gde ύލowَMNP̏ݏ 4STi˿xmi^V^VNVNV^V^h~CJaJhOiCJaJhOihOiCJaJhQl*hFhQl*CJaJh~hFCJaJh~hF5CJaJh~hMCJaJ jhQhMCJaJhMhM6CJaJhQhMCJaJh~hM5CJaJhd7hMCJaJhd75CJaJhd7hd75CJaJhd7CJaJhd7hM5CJaJNOPޏTwjj[$7$8$@&H$IfgdQl*  & FdgdOi  & FdgdOi d^gdOigd`hkdj$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytQl*!.rv’!#]^}~ғø}r}r}rfZZZrNrh[?h[?6CJaJh[?h[?5CJaJh7h[?5CJaJh[?h[?CJaJh[?CJaJh75CJaJh[?hQl*5CJaJ h[?hQl*hhQl*\^Jh6OJQJ\^JhOJQJ\^Jh:C6OJQJ\^Jh:COJQJ\^Jh[?hQl*5OJQJ\^J!h[?hQl*56OJQJ\^JhOi~w&ssaOOO & Fd$Ifgd[?d$If^gdVHd$If^gd7zkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytQl*3V]uvwx[\ ?INUfg{Ŗymm_WhVHCJaJ jh[?h[?CJaJh:Ch[?>*CJaJh:Ch:C6CJaJ jh:Ch:CCJaJh:C6CJaJh:CCJaJh[?h[?CJaJhCJaJh:C5CJaJh756CJaJh75CJaJh7h7CJaJh7h:C6CJaJh7h:CCJaJhVH5CJaJ"& ݗ* & Fd$IfgdVH & F d$If^gde & F d$If^gde & F d$If^gde1Ηܗ)*+,18CNQiouǴ}iYHY8hlB*OJQJ\^Jph!h6B*OJQJ\^JphhB*OJQJ\^Jph'h0M#h5B*OJQJ\^Jph!h5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hMj56B*OJQJ\^Jph$h56B*OJQJ\^Jph$h756B*OJQJ\^JphhQl* h[?hQl*hVHhQl*CJaJh[?h[?6CJaJh[?h[?5CJaJh[?h[?CJaJ*+,q$7$8$@&H$Ifgdgd`jkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytQl*ØGMnpqrxӜߜ'  2358\Ͽvvj^vh h 6CJaJhMjh >*CJaJh h 5CJaJh h CJaJh h06CJaJh h0CJaJh hCJaJh h5CJaJhhlh6B*\^Jph!hl6B*OJQJ\^JphhlB*OJQJ\^JphhMjB*OJQJ\^Jph!qrj38žucccuucc & Fd$Ifgd d$If^gd wkd $$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt CDRYes9?rLSYɻɻ}iU'h0M#hQl*5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hQl*hQl*5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hQl*5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hQl*hQl*56B*OJQJ\^Jphhh hCJaJhCJaJhMjh 6>*CJaJhMjh >*CJaJhMjhMj>*CJaJh h >*CJaJh h CJaJhMjCJaJDtsn_$7$8$@&H$IfgdQl*gd`hkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt & Fd$Ifgd  & Fd$IfgdMj'(+, V¥Υ<=źѧwnwcWKh$(UhQl*5CJaJh$(Uhl5CJaJh9hBCJaJh96CJaJh9CJaJhhl>*CJaJh9hl>*CJaJhBCJaJh$(UCJaJhlCJaJhlhQl*CJaJhlhlCJaJhlhl5CJaJhlhQl*5CJaJhQl*hX7hQl*B*\^JphhBB*OJQJ\^Jph(,=uucQ? & Fd$IfgdBd$If^gdl & Fd$IfgdQl*d$If^gdQl*wkd#$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytQl*=:CJ !"+58<`yiXiH9h3h3B*\^Jphhp*6B*OJQJ\^Jph!h36B*OJQJ\^Jphh3B*OJQJ\^Jph!h35B*OJQJ\^Jph$h356B*OJQJ\^Jphh3h7hQl*CJOJQJaJh7h;6CJOJQJaJh7h;CJOJQJaJh7hCJOJQJaJhQl*hBhCJaJhlhCJaJhCJaJ=!"q$7$8$@&H$Ifgdp*6gd`hkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytQl* & Fd$IfgdYŪmmm }ed$If^e`gd$(Uwkd<$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytp*6=>ĪŪǪΪު&'JXqwCLNWڬެ߬͸Ͱͬ~~rjbrWh5>*CJaJh*CJaJh*CJaJ*Ys:  $7$8$@&H$Ifgd` d^gd?m  & Fdgd_  & Fdgd$(U  & Fdgd  & Fdgd?m  & Fdgd*CJaJh'h'5CJaJh'h'CJaJh<CJaJh?mCJaJh'CJaJh'5CJaJh0Fh`5CJaJh`hX7h`B*\^Jph$h?mh?mB*OJQJ\^Jph!h?m6B*OJQJ\^JphhfB*OJQJ\^Jphh?mB*OJQJ\^Jphv15uccQ? & Fd$Ifgd?md$If^gd< & Fd$Ifgd'd$If^gd'wkdU$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt`ƴʹvwɵӵ1STdpry{Ѷ /578@߷ߢߖϮϖh?mh'5>*CJaJh<h'5CJaJh?mh?m5CJaJh?m5CJaJh<h<5CJaJh?mh<>*CJaJh?mCJaJh<CJaJh'h'CJaJh?m>*CJaJh?mh'>*CJaJ189))Npd$If^gdf & F ppd$If^pgdf & Fd$Ifgd' & Fd$Ifgd?m ķȷ89~Ƹ&ֹ׹()=@Lظxlchf6CJaJhW h<5CJaJhW hf5CJaJhfCJaJh?mh<CJaJhW 5CJaJh<h'5CJaJh<h<5CJaJh<5CJaJh<h<CJaJh?mh<>*CJaJh?mCJaJh<CJaJh'h'CJaJh'h'6CJaJ#LXY_()03?FKopqrĽᵪ᪓q^qJ'hW hJV5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h?m56B*OJQJ\^Jph*hJVhJV56B*OJQJ\^Jphh0CJaJh`hfh`CJaJhfh'6CJaJh'h'CJaJhfh'5CJaJhfhf>*CJaJh?mCJaJhfhf6CJaJhfCJaJh?mhf>*CJaJh'hfCJaJpqr$z$7$8$@&H$Ifgd d^gdhkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt`Ľƽ#$%*+`s  %&w}ѿҿ#2˺˦wwwk_kw_k_S_k_wwh_h_>*CJaJh_hl>*CJaJh_hW >*CJaJhW CJaJhlhlCJaJhW hJV5CJaJhW hW 5CJaJhJV'h_hJV5B*OJQJ\^Jph!h_6B*OJQJ\^Jphh_B*OJQJ\^Jph$hlhlB*OJQJ\^Jph!hl5B*OJQJ\^Jph $%+ ҿsaaaaO & Fd$Ifgd_ & Fd$Ifgdld$If^gdzkdn$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt2JNZ89Xbsy >Zdiٻ~ui^h_hlCJaJhW hl5CJaJhW 5CJaJh_hl5CJaJh_5CJaJh_hW 56CJaJh_hW 5>*CJaJh_hW 5CJaJhlCJaJhlh_CJaJh_h_CJaJh_CJaJhW CJaJh_hW >*CJaJhlhlCJaJ!d23Ljkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytHd$If^Hgd 7% & Fd$Ifgd_ & Fd$Ifgdld$If^gdW !1234568EFGƻƏ|qeqeqeYeKehJYh B5>*CJaJhJYhJY5CJaJhJYh B5CJaJh~h BCJaJh BCJaJhp4h BOJQJh BOJQJh_5CJaJhJVh!EhlCJaJh_h 7%5CJaJh 7%h 7%CJaJh 7%CJaJh_hl56CJaJh_hl5CJaJhlhlCJaJhlhl6CJaJ345FGZ"\&kLj  & Fdgd B  & FdgdJY  & Fdgd B  & Fdgd Bgd B d^gd 7%"8DK  +,MWXY}۽۽۲}l\H\'hR:hR:>*B*OJQJ\^JphhR:B*OJQJ\^Jph!h B5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hJY5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hAR5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h B56B*OJQJ\^Jphh 7%h BCJaJhJYh B5>*CJaJhARCJaJhJYCJaJh~h BCJaJhJYh B5CJaJhJYh B56CJaJ+,fgm[I7 & Fd$IfgdJYd$If^gdR:zkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt$7$8$@&H$Ifgd d^gd 7%  & Fdgd B !3[cdefglm  Xekl(బ|tkt|t|t|_|hR:hJY5CJaJhJY6CJaJhJYCJaJh~hJYCJaJhR:CJaJhARCJaJhR:hR:5CJaJhR:5CJaJhJVhJYhJVB*\^Jph!hJY6B*OJQJ\^JphhARB*OJQJ\^JphhR:B*OJQJ\^JphhJYB*OJQJ\^Jph! l(#|od$If^gdJY & Fd$IfgdJY & Fd$IfgdJY "#&:Ncz}noq脀m\K!h5B*OJQJ\^Jph!h B5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h B56B*OJQJ\^JphhJVh!EhJVCJaJhR:hJY5CJaJhARhJY5CJaJhARhJY>*CJaJh~hJY6CJaJhJYhJY>*CJaJhJYCJaJhJYhJY5CJaJhJY5CJaJh~hJYCJaJh~hJY>*CJaJopq$7$8$@&H$IfgdgdJVjkd2$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt .WXY!rz޾ynbZRIR=hShR:6CJaJh6CJaJhCJaJhSCJaJhShS5CJaJhShSCJaJhARhS5CJaJhARhR:5CJaJhShR:>*CJaJh~hR:CJaJhAR5CJaJhR:5CJaJhJVhhJVB*\^Jph!h6B*OJQJ\^JphhB*OJQJ\^Jph!h B5B*OJQJ\^JphY>saOO= & Fd$IfgdR: & Fd$IfgdR:d$If^gdSd$If^gdARzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt>  !   +7^_껯ǻ껍~vkvbvWh h OJQJh 6OJQJhp4h OJQJh OJQJhJVh!EhJVCJaJhhR:56CJaJhh>*CJaJhCJaJhh5CJaJhhR:5CJaJhh56CJaJhS5CJaJhShR:5CJaJh~hR:CJaJhhCJaJ> _3pkbUUM & Fgd *  & Fdgd *gd gdJVjkdU$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt & Fd$Ifgd & Fd$IfgdR:_23>AIJSiv   !"0Gbm :S[deǹǹljlj}uhR& CJaJhAh *>*CJaJhfh *56CJaJhfh *56>*CJaJh *hACJaJhACJaJhfh *5>*CJaJhfh *5CJaJh *h *56CJaJh *h *CJaJh *h *>*CJaJh *CJaJ+3 Y"m:e  & Fdgd *  & Fdgd *  & FdgdA 8d^8gd *  & Fdgd * & Fgd * & Fgd *0Bx>@RT¶¶ꨚri^iUJUihS56CJaJhS5CJaJh_56CJaJh_5CJaJhAhA5>*CJaJhAhA5CJaJhVgh *5>*CJaJhVghA5>*CJaJhVghVg5>*CJaJhAh *6CJaJhAhA6CJaJhACJaJhVgCJaJh *h *5CJaJh *h *CJaJh *hR& CJaJYI; d^gd  & FdgdKl  & FdgdA  & F/dgd_  & Fdgd_  & Fdgd_  & FdgdA  & FdgdA d^gdA HITr #'(;<;lm{h *CJaJh_CJaJhKlhA5CJaJhKlhA6CJaJhKlhKl>*CJaJhKlCJaJhKl6CJaJh_hA5CJaJhAhA6CJaJh_5CJaJhAhA5CJaJhAhACJaJhACJaJ+c  -EFnx)tu% & Fgd[4  & FdgdKl 7$8$@&H$gdrw d^gdKlgd gd d^gd  & F"dgd3 dck   ,-0CDEFcynfXf jhKlhKlCJaJhKlCJaJhAhKlCJaJ$hrwhKlB*OJQJ\^Jph*hrwhKl56B*OJQJ\^Jphh CJaJh_h h h h OJQJhp4h OJQJh3 dCJaJh_CJaJhhSh3 dCJaJh3 dh3 d6CJaJhhSh3 d5CJaJnwwx)*,STstuvv`M$hrwh[4B*OJQJ\^Jph*hrwh56B*OJQJ\^Jph*hrwh[456B*OJQJ\^Jphh h 5>*CJaJh 5>*CJaJh CJaJhKlhKl5hKl h h h hKlhKl6CJaJhAhKlCJaJhKlhKlCJaJh_CJaJhKlCJaJhKl6CJaJ%f >? Ĺخ~ulĹĹĹV*hrwhSs56B*OJQJ\^Jphh.(6CJaJh.(5CJaJh.(h.(5CJaJh.(5>*CJaJh h 5>*CJaJh 5>*CJaJhKl5>*CJaJh.(h.(CJaJh.(CJaJh_h[45CJaJh[4CJaJh_CJaJh[4h[4CJaJh[4h[45CJaJ ?@ K-" & FgdCp? & FgdSs & FgdSs 7$8$@&H$gdrw & Fdgd.(  & Fdgd.( d^gd d^gd.( & Fgd[4IJKp,-0Tag!|sh]]]hCp?hSsCJaJhCp?hCp?CJaJhCp?5CJaJhSs5CJaJh_CJaJhCp?CJaJhSshSs5CJaJhSsCJaJhSshSsCJaJ$hrwh.(B*OJQJ\^Jph$hrwhCp?B*OJQJ\^Jph$hrwhKB*OJQJ\^Jph$hrwhSsB*OJQJ\^Jph$"(.p[ $7$8$@&H$Ifgd[lH & Fgdh^hgd 7$8$@&H$gdrw & FgdCp?  (.lQmopZ[bd FG׻thShCJaJh5CJaJhSh>*CJaJhSh5CJaJhSCJaJhhCJaJhCJaJhh5CJaJhSB*OJQJ\^Jph$hrwhB*OJQJ\^Jph*hrwh56B*OJQJ\^Jph*"%;ehr34>ŵ~jfZQIAIhSCJaJh4.CJaJhS5CJaJhLCh4.5CJaJh4.'h0h06B*OJQJ\^Jph'hSh4.6B*OJQJ\^Jph$h4.h4.B*OJQJ\^Jphh0B*OJQJ\^JphhSB*OJQJ\^Jph!hS5B*OJQJ\^Jph'h4.h4.5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h4.h4.56B*OJQJ\^Jph?I$JPsaOOad$If`gdSd$If^gd4.d$If^gdSzkd׭$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt[lH>?GHy#IJPQU]x])1E|>ah 1Eܡܷܕhh4.5CJaJhIz}h4.CJaJhShSCJaJhS6CJaJhSCJaJhIz}h4.6CJaJh4.CJaJhh4.CJaJhIz}h4.5CJaJhSh4.5CJaJ7P]L}d$If^gd[lH & Fd$Ifgd4. & Fd$Ifgd4. LRT|}~+,=q^K@@@hGhGCJaJ$hrwh B*OJQJ\^Jph$hrwh%kB*OJQJ\^Jph*hrwh 56B*OJQJ\^Jphh 6CJaJh CJaJh h 5>*CJaJh 5>*CJaJh5>*CJaJh4.hLCh4.CJaJh[lHCJaJh4.5CJaJhLCh4.5CJaJhh4.CJaJhv|h4.5CJaJ}~, s ynnaaaa  & Fdgd 7$8$@&H$gdrw  & FdgdG d^gd jkdx$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt[lH =  G q $       h m r z |        0 2 U a     ( ÷̫̫àvjajYh0CJaJh0>*CJaJhG\ghG>*CJaJh%khG56CJaJh%khG5CJaJhG\gCJaJhO CJaJh%kh%kCJaJh0h%k>*CJaJh%kh%k6CJaJh%k6CJaJh%kCJaJh hG5CJaJhGhGCJaJh CJaJhGhG5CJaJ"s        H Q~$7$8$@&H$IfgdsPd@&^gdG\g  & FdgdP  & FdgdG d^gd%k  & Fdgd%k  & FdgdG & F pd^gde ( / G H r z      PQb~귫taP@h 01B*OJQJ\^Jph!hLC5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hLC56B*OJQJ\^JphhG\g56CJaJhPCJaJhGhPCJaJ jhPhPCJaJhPhPCJaJhPhP6CJaJhG5CJaJhG\gCJaJh%khG6CJaJhGhGCJaJh%khGCJaJh%khG5CJaJh%k5CJaJLhi.˷ۤۤۤ۔۔uqe]R]R]R]R]hGhLCCJaJhLCCJaJhLChLC5CJaJhLChLChLCB*\^Jphh<`?B*OJQJ\^JphhsPB*OJQJ\^Jph$h 01h 01B*OJQJ\^Jph'h<`?hLC6B*OJQJ\^JphhLCB*OJQJ\^Jphh 01B*OJQJ\^Jph'h 01h 01>*B*OJQJ\^Jph _kosaaaaOsad$If^gdLC & Fd$IfgdLCd$If^gdsPzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytsP kno  ] bfpy,-5?FGմ{{rrrrhsP5CJaJhsP6CJaJh 01CJaJhsPCJaJh 016CJaJhLChLC6CJaJhLChLCCJaJhGhLC5CJaJhLC5CJaJh 01hLC5CJaJhLChLC5CJaJhLCCJaJh(s>hLC6CJaJhGhLCCJaJ,]G/Ljkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytsPd$If^gdLC & Fd$IfgdsP & Fd$IfgdsP & Fd$IfgdLCG./57=FI ()*=zrrzzjW$hzI56B*OJQJ\^JphhGCJaJh<`?CJaJh<`?hG6CJaJh 01CJaJhGhGCJaJh,hG6CJaJh,hzI6CJaJhzICJaJhG\gCJaJhLChLChLCCJaJhLC5CJaJhLChLC5CJaJhLCCJaJhsPCJaJhGhLCCJaJ"=)*$7$8$@&H$Ifgdm/ d^gdzI  & Fdgd 01  & FdgdG d^gdG\g=IJK')/6q/]޻޻޻tkk__Whm/CJaJhzIhzI>*CJaJhzI5CJaJh 01hzI5CJaJhzICJaJhGhzICJaJh 015CJaJhzIhzI5CJaJhzIhzIhzIB*\^JphhPB*OJQJ\^Jph$hzIhzIB*OJQJ\^JphhYmB*OJQJ\^Jph!hzI5B*OJQJ\^Jph"]saaO= & Fd$Ifgdm/ & Fd$IfgdzId$If^gdzId$If^gd 01zkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytm/#iy    ( j k p x z ~      ,!̵̵xlaxlUxhoB>hoB>6CJaJhoB>hoB>CJaJhoB>hYm6CJaJhoB>CJaJhYmhYmCJaJhp4h OJQJh OJQJh CJaJhzIh!EhzICJaJhzIhzICJaJhzIhzI5CJaJhzICJaJhPhzI6CJaJhGhzICJaJhm/CJaJhPhm/6CJaJ  ( j  ,!tk^^Q  & FdgdoB>  & FdgdYmgd d^gd jkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytm/d$If^gdzI,!-!!!5#z#hVD & Fd$Ifgdcd$If^gdPzkd@$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytYm$7$8$@&H$IfgdYm d^gdYm,!-!L!M!W!X!Y!!!!!!!("""""""""""п}ymd\Q\Q\Q\I\Q\hPCJaJhYmhcCJaJhcCJaJhP5CJaJhchc5CJaJhYmh3hYmB*\^JphhPB*OJQJ\^Jph$hoB>hoB>B*OJQJ\^JphhcB*OJQJ\^Jph!hoB>5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hP56B*OJQJ\^Jph$hoB>56B*OJQJ\^JphhYm5CJaJ"##4#5#y#z#~####$!$"$D$$$$%%'%<%=%G%\%]%b%%%w&x&&&&&&''ȿȳ賚莳}rfr}rfhPh U>*CJaJhYmh UCJaJh UCJaJh U5CJaJhPhc>*CJaJhchcCJaJ jhYmhcCJaJhYmhc5CJaJhc5CJaJhchc5CJaJhPhc5CJaJhcCJaJhYmhcCJaJhhc>*CJaJ%z#~##D$$%=%]%%x&' & Fd$Ifgd U & Fd$Ifgd U & Fd$Ifgdc & Fd$Ifgdc & Fd$Ifgdcd$If^gdc ''''''(())))))))***********+9+>+Y+u+w++++ظذ~~~rc~~~h Uh UCJOJQJaJhPh U5CJaJh Uh U5CJaJh Uh UCJaJh{AOJQJhp4h OJQJh OJQJh nH tH h UCJaJhPhYm6CJaJh UhYm6CJaJhYmhYmCJaJhYmhYm5CJaJhYmh#h U5CJaJ#''''(())*g*yllyg^Q  & Fdgd Ugd gd  & FdgdYm  & FdgdYm d^gdYmjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytYm g***+?+v++++,$7$8$@&H$Ifgd# d^gd U  & Fdgd U & Fdgd U  & Fdgd U ++++, ,(,+,<,F,U,W,i,v,,,,,,-B----T.͹vri^R^R^Jh}aCJaJh Uh#5CJaJh Uh#CJaJh#5CJaJh UhfB*OJQJ\^Jphh UB*OJQJ\^JphhPB*OJQJ\^Jph$h Uh UB*OJQJ\^Jph'h Uh U5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h Uh U56B*OJQJ\^Jphh Uh UCJaJh UCJaJh U6CJaJ,,,--T.,/saOa9 & F $If^gded$If^gd}a & Fd$Ifgd#d$If^gd#zkdc$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt#T.r...//%/+/,/0/2/Y///0000)0+0/060G0H0O0P0"1׻׮|n`TL|L|L|hfCJaJhfh}a5CJaJhfh}a56CJaJhfh#56CJaJh Uh#CJaJh}aCJaJh}ah}a>*CJOJQJaJh}ah}aCJOJQJaJh}a5CJOJQJaJhf6CJOJQJaJhfhfCJOJQJaJhfCJOJQJaJh}aCJOJQJaJh}ah}a5CJOJQJaJ,/1/01233244V5 666S7 8d$If^gdz & Fd$Ifgd#d$If^gd}a & Fd$Ifgd}a & F $If^gde $If^gd}a"1&161=1w11111111c2s222223333331424<4L4a44ɺކ~rg[Phzh#CJaJh}ah#5CJaJh}ah}aCJaJh Uh#5CJaJhfCJaJhfh#>*CJaJh}ah}a5CJaJhfCJOJQJaJh}ah#6CJOJQJaJh Uh#CJOJQJaJhf6CJOJQJaJh}aCJaJh Uh#CJaJhfh#6CJaJhfh#CJaJ4444 5U5V5 6 66e66667)7+747:7>7?7Q7R7S7777 8!8÷÷ҟwocXMh!Eh UCJaJh Uh#CJaJhzh#>*CJaJhzCJaJh{A6CJaJh{Ah{ACJaJh{AhfCJaJhf6CJaJhfCJaJhzh#5CJOJQJaJhzCJOJQJaJhzh#CJOJQJaJhzh#CJaJhzh#5CJaJhzhz5CJaJhzhzCJaJ 8!8"8#8$8<89 :tofYJ$7$8$@&H$Ifgd_  & Fdgdgd gd d^gdjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt#d$If^gd{A!8"8#8$8%8'8.8;8<899#9192939 : : :::|:Ƴ|l|]YMA9hb-CJaJhb-h5CJaJhb-hb-5CJaJhhv.qhB*\^Jphhv.qB*OJQJ\^Jphh_B*OJQJ\^Jph!hv.q5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hv.qhv.q56B*OJQJ\^Jph$hv.q56B*OJQJ\^JphhhCJaJh{AOJQJhp4h OJQJh OJQJh nH tH h CJaJh U : ::|:><<<saasOd$If^gdb- & Fd$Ifgd_d$If^gd_zkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt_|: < <=<><s<t<<<<<= >>>>> ??0?J??@?@l@y@@@@@@@@CADAǼǼ||shhhdhh_h_CJaJh5CJaJh_5CJaJh_h_5CJaJhh_CJaJh_CJaJh."h_5CJaJh."hb-5CJaJhhb-CJaJhb-hb-5CJaJh."CJaJh."5CJaJhb-5CJaJhb-CJaJhb-hb-CJaJ"<=>i>>??@@CA & Fd$Ifgd_d$If^gd_d$If^gdb- & Fd$Ifgdb- & Fd$Ifgdb- CADAEABw$7$8$@&H$Ifgd_ d^gdjkd'$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt_DAEARASAZAdAeAgAABBB3BBBBBBBNC_CCCCCCCCC⾫uqe]R]R]RJRJRJRJR]J]h."CJaJhh:CJaJh:CJaJh."h:5CJaJh$h ahB*OJQJ\^Jph$h ah aB*OJQJ\^Jphh aB*OJQJ\^Jph$h:h:B*OJQJ\^Jph!h:5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h."56B*OJQJ\^Jph$h:56B*OJQJ\^JphhhCJaJBB#BBBCYDfDEsaaaOOad$If^gd: & Fd$Ifgd:d$If^gd."zkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt_CC+DXDYDfDyDzDEEEEFFFFFFGGGGHHHHHHYIZI[I\I^Iƻ氤۰氏氄xb*hrwh56B*OJQJ\^JphhCJaJhh!EhCJaJh ah:5CJaJh a6CJaJh ah:6CJaJhh:CJaJhh aCJaJh a5CJaJh:h:5CJaJh:h:CJaJh aCJaJh:CJaJh:5CJaJ EFFvGHZI[I\I^P d^gdjkdJ$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt_d$If^gd a & Fd$Ifgd: & Fd$Ifgd:^I_IvIwI|IIIIII JJJJJJJJKK8KNKXKiKKKxmemYmemememePeDYh[uh[u5CJaJh[u6CJaJh[uh5CJaJh[uCJaJhhCJaJ$hChCB*OJQJ\^JphhCB*OJQJ\^Jph!hC5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hrwh[u5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hrwh5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hrwh56B*OJQJ\^Jph*hrwh[u56B*OJQJ\^Jph\IIJ8KKL"M#MM6O7OTOOPPP Q  & Fdgd&  & Fdgd&  & Fdgd7gd gd  & Fdgde d^gd[u  & Fdgd  & Fdgd[u 7$8$@&H$gdrwKKbLkLlLLLLLL"M#MMNNNNN6O7O8O9OKOSOTOPPPPPPPPQwiw`Xh&CJaJh&5CJaJh7h&56CJaJh7h&5CJaJhm;_h&CJaJhm;_h&5CJaJhm;_heCJaJhCOJQJhp4h OJQJh OJQJhnH tH h[uh6CJaJhCh5CJaJhhCJaJh[uCJaJhh5CJaJ!QQ Q"Q*QYQQQQR4R5R;R*CJaJh *h&CJaJh7h&CJaJh&6CJaJ! QZQQQRFRqRRRSVSmSSTTT~U$7$8$@&H$Ifgd|V d^gdegd  & Fdgde  & Fdgd7  & Fdgde  & Fdgd&TTTTTTTTU+U7UCUDURUoUqU}U~UUVV/V2VKVLVrnc[cScKh[1CJaJh&CJaJhCJaJhm;_h&CJaJh&h&h&B*\^Jphh@MB*OJQJ\^Jphh[1B*OJQJ\^Jphh|VB*OJQJ\^JphhCB*OJQJ\^Jphh&B*OJQJ\^Jph$h&56B*OJQJ\^Jphh&5CJaJh h h heCJaJ~UUUVxVV@WOWss]]]Kd$If^gd8d$If^8`gd & Fd$Ifgd&zkd̵$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt|VLVUVfVnVxVzVVVVVW7W?W@WNWOWxWyWWWWWWȴzfJ;hh&CJOJQJaJ7hh&0J5CJOJQJ\aJfHq &hh&0J5CJOJQJ\aJ7hh&0J5CJOJQJ\aJfHq ӿ#hh&0JCJOJQJ\aJhh&5CJaJhh>*CJaJh[1CJaJhh&>*CJaJhCJaJh&h&6CJaJhm;_h&CJaJh[1h[15CJaJOWxWXXYYZJZZ [{[\r]]3_|| & Fd$If^`gd[1$-DIfM [$\$^gd$-DIfM [$\$^gd$-DIfM [$\$^gd & Fd$IfgdWWWWWWWWWWW=X>XIXJXUXXXXXYYYbYYYYZZZJZUZǧǧǧǧLJ{{kY"hCh&5>*CJOJQJaJhCh&5CJOJQJaJhCCJOJQJaJhh&5CJOJQJaJhh5CJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJ hh&0JCJOJQJaJhh&CJOJQJaJ1hh&0JCJOJQJaJfHq hh&0JCJOJQJaJUZkZZZ\\\\`]q]r]z]]]]]]]]F^G^^^2_3_7_:_=__৘ymymd\QIQIQymymyh[1CJaJh[1h[1CJaJhCJaJh[15CJaJhh&5CJaJhm;_h&CJaJhCCJaJhh5CJaJhm;_h&CJOJQJaJhCCJOJQJaJhC5CJOJQJaJhCh&5CJOJQJaJhh&6CJOJQJaJhh&CJOJQJaJhh&>*CJOJQJaJ3__``ata*CJaJh|VCJaJh[1CJaJhCJaJhm;_h&CJaJh|Vh|V5CJaJh|Vh&5CJaJ!*e+e,e(fw$7$8$@&H$Ifgd|V d^gdejkdm$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt|VGePeeeeeeef ff'f(f)f.f*CJaJh|Vh|V5CJaJh|Vh|V>*CJaJhm;_h|VCJaJh|VCJaJh&h|Vh&B*\^Jphh4B*OJQJ\^Jphh@MB*OJQJ\^Jphh~B*OJQJ\^Jphh[1B*OJQJ\^Jphh|VB*OJQJ\^Jph!h|V5B*OJQJ\^Jph(f)fPffff#g:ggg h-hssasaaaass & Fd$Ifgd|V & Fd$Ifgd|Vzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt|V gg hhhhhhhiiiiiii:jLjjj+k,k-k.kPk^kakkl\I$hshhshB*OJQJ\^JphhOB*OJQJ\^Jph'hOhO5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hOhO56B*OJQJ\^Jphh&CJaJh&h!Eh&CJaJh4h|V>*CJaJh|VCJaJh[1h|V5>*CJaJh[1h|V56CJaJh[1h|V5CJaJh|Vh|V>*CJaJhm;_h|VCJaJ-hwii:j,k-k.kllpbS$7$8$@&H$Ifgdsh d^gdejkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt|V & Fd$Ifgd|V & Fd$Ifgd|Vkkkkkkl&l4lflklllmlsltlllllll#m8mbmmmɹ𘅁uld[dSHSHdHdHhm;_hOCJaJh4CJaJh&~6CJaJh&~CJaJh45CJaJh&~h&~5CJaJhO$hshhOB*OJQJ\^Jphh;vB*OJQJ\^Jph!h46B*OJQJ\^JphhshB*OJQJ\^Jph$hshhshB*OJQJ\^Jph'h4h46B*OJQJ\^Jphh4B*OJQJ\^JphllmlmmoKoRosaKKad$If^`gdshd$If^gdshd$If^gdOzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytshmmmmmmnEnnnnnnoo5o*CJaJh&~CJaJhshCJaJhm;_hOCJaJh&~hO5CJaJ5RoDprqq r rrrspbSF  & Fdgded@&^gd;v d^gdejkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytsh & Fd$IfgdO & Fd$Ifgdsh r rrr3r:r;r@CJaJh:CJaJh:h:5CJaJh~he6CJaJhm;_heCJaJh4CJaJh4h!6CJaJh;vh!CJaJh;vh!5CJaJh;vh~5CJaJh;vh~56CJaJh;vhe56CJaJhe6CJaJhO"s tSuuu.vRwIx$yky~yy*CJaJhm;_he5CJaJh|)CJaJhm;_heCJaJh;vhe56CJaJh;vh8=CJaJh;vh|)CJaJh;vh|)56CJaJTzgzhzizzzzzzC{D{E{L{e{g{|{{{{|||!|/|:|=|Z|||B}y}z}}}}}\~]~^~ɹzzzzzzzrfrrrrhhhS5CJaJh!iCJaJhhSCJaJhhShhSCJaJh5CJaJhhSh!ihhSB*\^JphhB*OJQJ\^Jphh!iB*OJQJ\^Jph'hhShhS6B*OJQJ\^Jph!h!i6B*OJQJ\^Jph!hhS5B*OJQJ\^Jph&D{E{||_}}}^~saaaOOHd$If^Hgd!i & F"d$IfgdhSd$If^gdzkd5$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt!i^~~{=DEFGHrMx)9<z觛wskch OJQJhbOJQJhhSh!ihhS5CJaJhhShhS5CJaJh!ihhS6CJaJhh!i5CJaJhhhS5CJaJ jhhShhSCJaJhhSh!i5CJaJhhSh!iCJaJh!iCJaJhCJaJhhShhSCJaJhhhS>*CJaJ"^~~{r4ȁ< & F$d$IfgdhS & F"d$IfgdhS8d$If^8gd{< & F#d$IfgdhSHd$If^Hgd!i & Fd$Ifgd!i<{QyynnnccX & F&dgdb & F&dgdb & F&dgdbgd jkdֹ$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt!i & F$d$Ifgd!i ƒ؃߃56I`{01HL ,-ʾʮʞʮʎʂvfʮYIhShS>*CJOJQJaJhS>*CJOJQJaJhbhb5CJOJQJaJhSCJOJQJaJhbCJOJQJaJhShb5CJOJQJaJhbhb6CJOJQJaJhbhb>*CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhbhbCJOJQJaJh h OJQJh 6OJQJh OJQJhp4h OJQJ QULJ$7$8$@&H$Ifgd gdJV & F&dgdb & F&dgdb & F&dgdb -68DQuTUcLJԇ ȸȨțȋȸȸȸȇt^M!h&5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h&h&56B*OJQJ\^Jph$h&56B*OJQJ\^Jphhbh"h"5CJOJQJaJh"6CJOJQJaJhbhb5CJOJQJaJhbhb6CJOJQJaJhbhbCJOJQJaJhbCJOJQJaJhSCJOJQJaJhShb>*CJOJQJaJKNgňψ~޷ާxhx\MxM=hxSihxSi5CJOJQJaJhxSihxSiCJOJQJaJhj CJOJQJaJhxSihxSi>*CJOJQJaJhxSiCJOJQJaJhShS5CJOJQJaJh hEh B*\^JphhEB*OJQJ\^Jph$hEhEB*OJQJ\^Jph'hj hj >*B*OJQJ\^Jphhj B*OJQJ\^Jph!hE5B*OJQJ\^Jph/w5yiYYiYYi & F&d$IfgdxSi & F&d$IfgdxSi d$Ifgdj zkdX$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt /8_`w4567CPXԋ݋֔vfTfv"hj ht56CJOJQJaJhj ht5CJOJQJaJhtCJOJQJaJ"hxSihxSi5>*CJOJQJaJ" jhxSihxSiCJOJQJaJhxSihxSi5CJOJQJaJhxSihxSi6CJOJQJaJhxSihxSi>*CJOJQJaJhxSiCJOJQJaJhxSihxSiCJOJQJaJhj hxSiCJOJQJaJ'pq͌|ǍȍzjfWWKhZCJOJQJaJhZhZCJOJQJaJh hEh 5CJOJQJaJhEhECJOJQJaJhEhxSiCJOJQJaJhj CJOJQJaJhEhxSi>*CJOJQJaJhtCJOJQJaJhxSihxSiCJOJQJaJhxSihxSi5CJOJQJaJhEhxSi5CJOJQJaJhEhE5CJOJQJaJqKPjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt  & F&d$IfgdE & F&d$IfgdxSi & F&d$If^gdt8d$If^8gdxSi A()[O d$Ifgd"zkd{$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytwN$7$8$@&H$IfgdwNgdJV & F&dgdZ & F&dgdZ kuzǐ'()0goyjfVJJJhZCJOJQJaJh"h"5CJOJQJaJh&hZh&B*\^JphhZB*OJQJ\^Jph!hwN5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hwN56B*OJQJ\^Jph$h&56B*OJQJ\^JphhZh"CJOJQJaJhZhZ6CJOJQJaJhZhZCJOJQJaJhZhZ5CJOJQJaJБё%&n}~ȓŹչՙraP@h:YB*OJQJ\^Jph!h:Y5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hwN5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hwN56B*OJQJ\^Jphh&hGh&5CJOJQJaJhGhZ5CJOJQJaJh"hZ5CJOJQJaJhZCJOJQJaJh"hZ>*CJOJQJaJhZhZCJOJQJaJhZhZ5CJOJQJaJh"CJOJQJaJ&~3xsd$7$8$@&H$Ifgd gdJVjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytwN d$IfgdZ & Fd$Ifgd"ȓғ234:;Zdfmz{ޔ&^tȕ%&Ueorvy˿sgh:YhG6CJaJh:YhG>*CJaJh:Yh:Y>*CJaJhGhGCJaJh:Y6CJaJh:Yh:Y6CJaJh:YCJaJh:Yh 5CJaJh:Yh:Y5CJaJh h:Yh B*\^Jphh:YB*OJQJ\^Jph!h:Y6B*OJQJ\^Jph(34;{&rvSsaaaOaad$If^gd:Y & Fd$IfgdGd$If^gdGzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt іҖܖ R\hrs}=>@MWazĻvnfh"CJaJh;CJaJhd[6CJaJhd[CJaJhd[hd[5CJaJhd[hd[56CJaJhd[56CJaJh h!Eh CJaJh:Y5CJaJh:YhG5CJaJh:YhG6CJaJhGhGCJaJh:Y6CJaJh:YCJaJh"CJaJ#>?@ܚ}n`UUUU & F&dgdd[ d^gdd[d@&^gdd[gdJVjkd?$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt  & Fd$Ifgd:Y ϘҘ}~ՙؙ3wښۚܚM\]Uڴڄuh"h CJOJQJaJh"h 5CJOJQJaJhd[h 5CJOJQJaJh"hd[5CJOJQJaJhd[5CJOJQJaJhd[6CJOJQJaJhd[CJOJQJaJh h CJOJQJaJhd[hd[5CJaJhd[hd[CJaJ'ܚMrʜ͝3T&٠ڠ۠$7$8$@&H$Ifgd4gd & F&dgd; & F&dgdd[ & F&dgdd[dgdd[Unquʜ֜"#9jl͝ϝם23ФtdtRtBth;h;5CJOJQJaJ"h;h 56CJOJQJaJh;hd[5CJOJQJaJh;h 5CJOJQJaJh"h 5CJOJQJaJh"hd[5CJOJQJaJhd[CJOJQJaJhd[hd[5CJOJQJaJhd[h >*CJOJQJaJh h CJOJQJaJh"hd[>*CJOJQJaJh"h >*CJOJQJaJ37B}-T͟؟&ڠ۠ɹ}q^M=h4B*OJQJ\^Jph!h;5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h;56B*OJQJ\^Jphh CJOJQJaJ"h;h;56CJOJQJaJh;h;5CJOJQJaJh 5CJOJQJaJh5CJOJQJaJh;h 5CJOJQJaJh h CJOJQJaJh h;CJOJQJaJh;6CJOJQJaJh;CJOJQJaJ !mt¢Fo!,[ŤƤȤӤ٤ݤ˻tdRdR"h4h45>*CJOJQJaJh4h45CJOJQJaJhh7E5CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh7Eh7E5CJOJQJaJh7ECJOJQJaJh h;CJOJQJaJh7Eh;5CJOJQJaJh;h4h;B*\^Jphh4B*OJQJ\^Jph!h46B*OJQJ\^Jph mtp,[ȤgץyyiiiyiiY & F&d$Ifgd; & F&d$Ifgd; d$Ifgd7Ezkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt4 /:Cfg|֥ץ  ÷|xl`WLW`hs56OJQJhs5OJQJhshs5OJQJh;CJOJQJaJh;h4h;CJOJQJaJh46CJOJQJaJh h;>*CJOJQJaJh h;CJOJQJaJh4CJOJQJaJh4h7E5CJOJQJaJh456CJOJQJaJh45CJOJQJaJh4h45CJOJQJaJץ |tof[K(d^(`gds & F&dgds d@&gdsgd jkdb$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt4 & F&d$Ifgd4 & F&d$Ifgd;٧5YèĨ٨"U`ĩǩ񥓥l[KhsB*OJQJ\^Jph!hs5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hwNhs5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hs56B*OJQJ\^Jph"hshs56CJOJQJaJhshs5CJOJQJaJhsCJOJQJaJhshs6CJOJQJaJhhs>*CJOJQJaJh hs>*CJOJQJaJh hsCJOJQJaJ"VF & F&d$Ifgdszkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt7$7$8$@&H$Ifgd7gd & F&dgds(d^(`gds!2:A[\^ƪ;<EFGYZc|˿yiZMih6CJOJQJaJhh7CJOJQJaJhhs6CJOJQJaJhh76CJOJQJaJhhsCJOJQJaJh hsCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh7CJOJQJaJhsCJOJQJaJhshshsB*\^JphhsB*OJQJ\^Jph!hs6B*OJQJ\^JphF|}~to`$7$8$@&H$Ifgd7gd jkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt7 & F&d$Ifgd & F&d$Ifgds|}~ƫ   ɸnn^RF:h6CJOJQJaJh hs5CJaJh h 5CJaJh*Behs6B*\^Jph'hh*Be6B*OJQJ\^Jph$hh*BeB*OJQJ\^Jphh*BeB*OJQJ\^Jph$h*Beh*BeB*OJQJ\^Jph!h*Be5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hs5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hs56B*OJQJ\^Jphh hsCJOJQJaJhs Q#ҰHsccSccG d$Ifgd  & F&d$Ifgd6 & F&d$Ifgd6d$If^gd7zkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt7 !":>LRU_cdxQbSήE"56ϰаҰɹـhCJOJQJaJhh65CJOJQJaJhh 5CJOJQJaJh 6CJOJQJaJhh >*CJOJQJaJhh6>*CJOJQJaJh h6CJOJQJaJh6CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJ,Ұ9@HRSñ*]|}ʲ4]_ym[mKh*Beh6>*CJOJQJaJ" jh*Beh*BeCJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh h6>*CJOJQJaJh h66CJOJQJaJh*BeCJOJQJaJh h6CJOJQJaJh*Beh*Be>*CJOJQJaJh*Be>*CJOJQJaJ"h h 56CJOJQJaJh h 5CJOJQJaJHS}" & F&d$IfgdH| & F&d$Ifgd*Be & F&d$Ifgd6 & F&d$Ifgd d$Ifgd*Be{|Ѵٴ jt!"#$ĵvfWSDh h CJOJQJaJhshH|hsCJOJQJaJh h65CJOJQJaJh*Beh66CJOJQJaJhH|h6CJOJQJaJhH|hCJOJQJaJhH|h66CJOJQJaJhH|h6CJOJQJaJhH|h*BeCJOJQJaJh*BeCJOJQJaJh h6CJOJQJaJ"h*Beh*Be5>*CJOJQJaJ"#$v̸Թynni`U & F&dgdkgd gdJV & F&dgd & F&dgddgddgd6jkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt7 $+5;=BE#$-0DF/?@klĸĸĨvrj_jTh h OJQJhp4h OJQJh OJQJhwNh6hCJOJQJaJhH|h5CJOJQJaJ%hH|h56>*CJOJQJaJhh>*CJOJQJaJhH|CJOJQJaJh hCJOJQJaJhh6CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhh5CJOJQJaJ @hkӹԹ 25:=@P[t̺ٺGK:=Cghvjjh ]CJOJQJaJhkhk6CJOJQJaJ"hhk56CJOJQJaJh ]hk>*CJOJQJaJhhk>*CJOJQJaJhkhk>*CJOJQJaJhk5CJOJQJaJhkhk5CJOJQJaJhkhkCJOJQJaJhkCJOJQJaJ)Թ@/fhr ɽrD¿ & F&dgd ] & F&dgd ] & F&dgdkdgd ] & F&dgdk & F(dgdk & F&dgdkhrϼ   5:Ƚɽʽ_pϾ׾DVWĵѩ{k{k{{ѩ_hCJOJQJaJh ]hk>*CJOJQJaJh ]hkCJOJQJaJhkhk>*CJOJQJaJhkhkCJOJQJaJh ]CJOJQJaJh ]h ]CJOJQJaJh ]5CJOJQJaJhkhk5CJOJQJaJh5CJOJQJaJ"h ]h ]5>*CJOJQJaJ%WZ[¿*.<=a =@Gƹؚ{kYkk"hkhk5>*CJOJQJaJhkhk5CJOJQJaJhkhk6CJOJQJaJhkhkCJOJQJaJh ]hk5CJOJQJaJh ]h ]CJOJQJaJh ]5CJOJQJaJ"h ]h ]5>*CJOJQJaJh ]h ]5CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh ]CJOJQJaJ G=~h _ hd^hgdH< & F&dgdrE & F&dgd/v8 & F&dgd/v8 hd^hgd/v8dgd/v8gd gdJV & F&dgd ] & F&dgd ]%Ἥ}ujuj[O[O="hH<h/v85>*CJOJQJaJh/v8CJOJQJaJhkh/v8CJOJQJaJhp4h OJQJh OJQJhkhH<6CJOJQJaJhkhk6CJOJQJaJhkhkCJOJQJaJh ]5>*CJOJQJaJ"h ]h ]5>*CJOJQJaJ% jh ]h ]5CJOJQJaJh ]5CJOJQJaJ"h ]hk56CJOJQJaJ%=Ze~1;hxk\xkxxJ"hUBh/v856CJOJQJaJhrEhrECJOJQJaJhrE5CJOJQJaJhrECJOJQJaJhkh/v8>*CJOJQJaJhkh/v8CJOJQJaJ"hH<h/v85>*CJOJQJaJhH<CJOJQJaJh/v8CJOJQJaJ"h5Hh/v856CJOJQJaJh5Hh/v85CJOJQJaJhH<h/v8>*CJOJQJaJ )-PU^_ppaaUUB% jh7h/v85CJOJQJaJh/v8CJOJQJaJhH<h/v8CJOJQJaJhH<h 6CJOJQJaJhH<h/v86CJOJQJaJ"hH<h/v85>*CJOJQJaJhH<h >*CJOJQJaJhH<h CJOJQJaJhH<hH<CJOJQJaJhH<hH<5CJOJQJaJh h/v8CJOJQJaJhUBh/v85CJOJQJaJ Z[r=Tbǻǻ֬֏paOa" jhrEh/v8CJOJQJaJhrEh/v8CJOJQJaJh7h/v8CJOJQJaJh7h/v8>*CJOJQJaJh/v8>*CJOJQJaJhkh/v8>*CJOJQJaJhkh/v8CJOJQJaJhrECJOJQJaJh ]h/v8CJOJQJaJh/v8CJOJQJaJh7h/v85CJOJQJaJh/v85CJOJQJaJ[=W|}"ccOTU & F)dgdX dgdX & F)dgdX dgdeJ L^`Lgd/v8 & F&dgd/v8 & F&dgdH<ptuvw{|}~DG"5Cbkyz}~l]M]]MhX hX >*CJOJQJaJhX hX CJOJQJaJ"hX hX 5>*CJOJQJaJhrE6CJOJQJaJhrECJOJQJaJh0ghX CJOJQJaJhX CJOJQJaJheJ56CJOJQJaJheJh/v8CJOJQJaJh 56CJOJQJaJ"h/v8h/v856CJOJQJaJhkh/v8CJOJQJaJ%FIc2NOYclTUmy婖ufbheJhsheJB*\^Jphh`B*OJQJ\^Jph!heJ5B*OJQJ\^Jph$heJ56B*OJQJ\^JphhX 56CJOJQJaJhX 6CJOJQJaJhX hX >*CJOJQJaJhX hX 5CJOJQJaJh0ghX CJOJQJaJhX CJOJQJaJ#UxvdXH8 & F&d$Ifgdff & F&d$Ifgd` d$Ifgdffd$If^gdrEzkd*$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt`$7$8$@&H$Ifgd`*0M/]^_xƶygyZJZhffhff5CJOJQJaJh`5CJOJQJaJ" jhffhffCJOJQJaJhffCJOJQJaJ" jhrEhffCJOJQJaJhrEhff>*CJOJQJaJhrEhffCJOJQJaJhrEhff5CJOJQJaJhrEheJCJaJhrEhrECJaJhrEhffCJaJhrEhrE5CJaJhrEhff5CJaJBF\]ĸĸĸĜ{kYIh`hff>*CJOJQJaJ"h`hff5>*CJOJQJaJh`hff5CJOJQJaJ"h`h`5>*CJOJQJaJh`5>*CJOJQJaJh`5CJOJQJaJhffhffCJOJQJaJh`CJOJQJaJhffCJOJQJaJheJhffCJOJQJaJhffhff5CJOJQJaJhffh`5CJOJQJaJ]^;<=>JVY̽xi]QB6hrECJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJhheJ5CJaJhh5CJaJhsheJB*\^JphhB*OJQJ\^Jph!heJ5B*OJQJ\^Jph!h5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hJc56B*OJQJ\^JphheJ56CJOJQJaJheJhrEheJCJOJQJaJheJhffCJOJQJaJ" jheJhffCJOJQJaJ<=>tl]$7$8$@&H$Ifgd`dgdeJjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt` & F&d$Ifgd` & F&d$Ifgdff: lscccSGc d$Ifgd5H & F&d$Ifgd & F&d$Ifgdd$If^gd`zkdM$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt` "/89:& UVkltuv}ĸīċ|ma|TGTGh>*CJOJQJaJh5H>*CJOJQJaJh5HCJOJQJaJh5Hh5HCJOJQJaJh5HhCJOJQJaJh5Hh5H>*CJOJQJaJhh5CJOJQJaJh5H5CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJhrEh>*CJOJQJaJhrECJOJQJaJhrEhrE>*CJOJQJaJln|FXPdgdeJjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt` d$Ifgd5H & F&d$Ifgd & F&d$Ifgd & F&d$Ifgd` Knx~#.>SUŵץוzmz]NNzNNzhhCJOJQJaJhh5CJOJQJaJh5H>*CJOJQJaJh5HCJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJhh5CJOJQJaJh5Hh5CJOJQJaJhh>*CJOJQJaJ"hh6>*CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhh5CJOJQJaJU|#5CDEFMᥖtaP?!heJ5B*OJQJ\^Jph!h0g5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h0g56B*OJQJ\^Jphh56CJOJQJaJheJh5HheJCJOJQJaJh5HhCJOJQJaJh5Hh5CJOJQJaJ"hh5>*CJOJQJaJh5H5CJOJQJaJh5CJOJQJaJhh5CJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJDEFMOYg );MVlͽ||jXHh0gh}4y>*CJOJQJaJ" jh0gh}4yCJOJQJaJ"h}4yh}4y5>*CJOJQJaJh}4y>*CJOJQJaJh}4y6CJOJQJaJh}4yCJOJQJaJh5HCJOJQJaJh0gh}4yCJOJQJaJh0gh}4y5CJOJQJaJheJhsheJB*\^Jphh}4yB*OJQJ\^Jphh0gB*OJQJ\^JphEFMYvjZZJ & F)d$Ifgd}4y & F)d$Ifgd5H d$Ifgd}4yzkdp$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt`$7$8$@&H$Ifgd`YA/01EXSSgd0gjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt` & F)d$Ifgd5H d$IfgdX  & F)d$Ifgd}4y & F)d$Ifgd}4ylm)3AHJ|e-./0EPUW٨~l_OCh,CJOJQJaJh,h,6CJOJQJaJh,6CJOJQJaJ"h0gh0g5>*CJOJQJaJheJh5HheJ5CJOJQJaJ h0gh}4yh5Hh}4yCJOJQJaJh5HhX CJOJQJaJhX h}4y5CJOJQJaJ" jhX hX CJOJQJaJhX CJOJQJaJh0gh}4yCJOJQJaJh}4yCJOJQJaJW_v $cmpsyz78FP|};ƶ֖ֆzn^֖zn^֖h0gh5e5CJOJQJaJh5eCJOJQJaJh0gCJOJQJaJh,h0g6CJOJQJaJh,h0g>*CJOJQJaJh,h,>*CJOJQJaJh@Oh0g5CJOJQJaJh0gh0g5CJOJQJaJh0gh0gCJOJQJaJh,CJOJQJaJh,h0gCJOJQJaJEz8}GWX$7$8$@&H$Ifgd dgd, d^gd5e 8d^8gd, & F)dgd0g ;FGVWXhqtķĘuaP@1-h hsh B*\^Jphh B*OJQJ\^Jph!h 5B*OJQJ\^Jph'h h 5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h h 56B*OJQJ\^Jphh0g5CJOJQJaJh,h,5CJOJQJaJh,h,CJOJQJaJh,6CJOJQJaJh,CJOJQJaJh0gh0gCJOJQJaJh0gh0g5CJOJQJaJh0gh0g6CJOJQJaJD'/yiiiyiY & F)d$IfgdtX & F)d$IfgdtX d$IfgdtXzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt BDox'569>@R[\/2:=WYi}ಢ|l|l]lh`h`CJOJQJaJh`h`>*CJOJQJaJh`>*CJOJQJaJh`CJOJQJaJhtX5CJOJQJaJh htX5CJOJQJaJ"h htX5>*CJOJQJaJhtXCJOJQJaJhhtX>*CJOJQJaJh htXCJOJQJaJhhtX5CJOJQJaJ 4gi㩥uufZfJfZhKihtX6CJOJQJaJhkeCJOJQJaJhtXhtXCJOJQJaJhp4htXOJQJhtXOJQJh0gh 5CJOJQJaJh 5CJOJQJaJh hkeh CJOJQJaJh`h`>*CJOJQJaJh`h`CJOJQJaJhtXCJOJQJaJh`CJOJQJaJh`htX>*CJOJQJaJxtllcX & F)dgdtXgdtXdgd,jkd4$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt  & F)d$Ifgd` & F)d$IfgdtX^z6.FwHe & F)dgdke & F)dgdt & F)dgdt & F)dgdt & F)dgdke & F)dgdtX'+,IJZ]^tyz~6!'-.  ӷӫǛӛӫǎǫ|llǎlӫhhke>*CJOJQJaJ"hthke5>*CJOJQJaJht6CJOJQJaJhthke6CJOJQJaJhkeCJOJQJaJhthke>*CJOJQJaJhtCJOJQJaJhtXhkeCJOJQJaJhhke5CJOJQJaJht5CJOJQJaJ* #'6defgRSnqrs{ɷ{eTC!htX5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hKi5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hKihKi56B*OJQJ\^Jph$hKi56B*OJQJ\^JphhtXCJOJQJaJht6CJOJQJaJhhke5CJOJQJaJ" jhhkeCJOJQJaJhkeCJOJQJaJhhke>*CJOJQJaJhtXhkeCJOJQJaJhtCJOJQJaJe:z$rs+$7$8$@&H$IfgdHgdtX & F)dgdke & F)dgdke hd`hgdke *+,12)c-]^}}qbSbDhthtXCJOJQJaJhthKiCJOJQJaJhthCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhthKi5CJOJQJaJhKihKiCJH*OJQJaJhtCJOJQJaJhKiCJOJQJaJhKihtX5CJaJhKihKi5CJaJhtXhshtXB*\^JphhB*OJQJ\^JphhKiB*OJQJ\^Jph+,2F)^sccWccG & F&d$Ifgdt d$IfgdKi & F&d$IfgdHd$If^gdHzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytH$7$8$@&H$IfgdHgdtXjkdW$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytH#&/!GNPTYͼ}qeVI9VeVeVhth(cp5CJOJQJaJh(cp5CJOJQJaJhtXh(cpCJOJQJaJh(cpCJOJQJaJh(cphtX5CJaJh(cph(cp5CJaJhtXhshtXB*\^JphhtB*OJQJ\^Jphh(cpB*OJQJ\^Jph!htX5B*OJQJ\^Jph!h5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hh56B*OJQJ\^JphhtXCJOJQJaJ!VsccWccG & F&d$Ifgd(cp d$Ifgd(cp & F&d$Ifgd(cpd$If^gdHzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytHY5TV ;ɹɪp\K;hm{B*OJQJ\^Jph!htX5B*OJQJ\^Jph'h(cphtX5B*OJQJ\^Jph'h(cph(cp5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h(cph(cp56B*OJQJ\^JphhtXCJOJQJaJhtXhkehtXCJOJQJaJh(cph(cp5CJOJQJaJhtXh(cpCJOJQJaJhtCJOJQJaJhth(cp5CJOJQJaJh(cpCJOJQJaJRxsd$7$8$@&H$IfgdHgdtXjkdz$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytH d$Ifgd(cp & F&d$Ifgd(cp;QRSXZ  /)*+,?͕yj[O9*h(cph(cp56B*OJQJ\^JphhtXCJOJQJaJhkehtXCJOJQJaJhkeh(cpCJOJQJaJhp+h(cp5CJOJQJaJhHCJOJQJaJhtXh(cpCJOJQJaJhthm{5CJOJQJaJhm{CJOJQJaJht5CJOJQJaJhm{hm{5CJOJQJaJhtXhshtXB*\^Jphh y B*OJQJ\^JphRS /ym]]MMM & F&d$Ifgd(cp & F&d$Ifgd(cp d$Ifgdm{ d$Ifgdtzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytH*+,to`$7$8$@&H$IfgdHgdtXjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytH & F&d$Ifgdke & F&d$Ifgd(cp?FGIyNOCx @ M          Ĵyj^jRjRjRjBjRjRjRh y h y 5CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJh y CJOJQJaJhtXh y CJOJQJaJh htX5CJaJh h 5CJaJhtXhshtXB*\^Jphh B*OJQJ\^Jphh y B*OJQJ\^Jph!htX5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h(cph(cp56B*OJQJ\^Jph'h(cph(cp5B*OJQJ\^Jph   f   & sccWccccc d$Ifgd  & F&d$Ifgd y d$If^gdHzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytH   f j k     -]^nq񪛗xi]iQAiQiQhghp+>*CJOJQJaJhgCJOJQJaJhp+CJOJQJaJhghgCJOJQJaJhghg>*CJOJQJaJhtXhtXCJOJQJaJhtXhp+htXCJOJQJaJhp+h y CJOJQJaJh y CJOJQJaJhtXh y >*CJOJQJaJh y h y 5CJOJQJaJh CJOJQJaJhtXh y CJOJQJaJ& .Ztoj__K d^`gdg & F)dgdggdggdtXjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytH & F&d$Ifgdp+ & F&d$Ifgd y P.0;]^vw2COdghwxԸԸԴ{ll\hp+ha#6CJOJQJaJhXuha#CJOJQJaJhp+ha#5CJOJQJaJh1(6CJOJQJaJh1(CJOJQJaJhtXnH tH htXOJQJheJhghg6CJOJQJaJhp+CJOJQJaJhghgCJOJQJaJhgCJOJQJaJhghg>*CJOJQJaJZvwOd+qndgda#Xd^X`gdpc & F)dgdp+ XXd^X`gdp+gda# & F)dgdXugdtXgdtXgdeJ d^`gdgx{|?gy,6ijopqķИЌߌķЌČČ|m]ha#ha#6CJOJQJaJha#ha#CJOJQJaJhpcha#6CJOJQJaJha#CJOJQJaJhp+ha#>*CJOJQJaJhp+hp+CJOJQJaJhp+6CJOJQJaJhp+CJOJQJaJhXuha#CJOJQJaJhp+ha#6CJOJQJaJhp+hp+6CJOJQJaJ$07Jnu񡑡u_N>h1(B*OJQJ\^Jph!h1(5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h1(h1(56B*OJQJ\^Jphh1(CJOJQJaJha#ha#5CJOJQJaJhp+hpc5CJOJQJaJhpcCJOJQJaJhXuha#6CJOJQJaJha#6CJOJQJaJhXuhp+CJOJQJaJha#CJOJQJaJhp+CJOJQJaJhXuha#CJOJQJaJnou)\nbRRB & F&d$Ifgd1( & F&d$Ifgd1( d$Ifgd1(zkdB$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytr-$7$8$@&H$Ifgdr-dgd1(WmnouE\&4AIJ_cdf޿ppdTddddddh1(h1(6CJOJQJaJh1(CJOJQJaJhp+h1(>*CJOJQJaJhp+CJOJQJaJhp+h1(5CJOJQJaJhXuh1(CJOJQJaJh1(h1(5CJOJQJaJh1(h1(h1(B*\^Jphhr-B*OJQJ\^Jphh1(B*OJQJ\^Jph!h1(6B*OJQJ\^JphI J K h`dgd1(jkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytr- & F&d$Ifgdr- & F&d$Ifgd1( d$Ifgd1(  MW%=nH I J K ҶҦҖ҆vgWgvHDh1(hr-h1(CJOJQJaJh=h1(6CJOJQJaJh=h1(CJOJQJaJhXuh1(5CJOJQJaJh=h1(>*CJOJQJaJh=h1(5CJOJQJaJh1(h1(6CJOJQJaJh1(CJOJQJaJhp+h1(>*CJOJQJaJhXuh1(CJOJQJaJh1(h1(5CJOJQJaJh1(h1(CJOJQJaJK ^ j m       ! ! !!!!!!!˻tpdXMA5dh=h@6CJaJh=h=6CJaJh=h@CJaJh=h=5CJaJh=h@5CJaJh1(hsh1(B*\^Jphh=B*OJQJ\^Jph'h@h@6B*OJQJ\^Jph'h@h@>*B*OJQJ\^Jphh@B*OJQJ\^Jph!h1(5B*OJQJ\^Jph!h@5B*OJQJ\^Jph$h@56B*OJQJ\^JphK  ! !!_"#$vdXHH & F&d$Ifgdr- d$Ifgd@d$If^gd=zkde$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytr-$7$8$@&H$Ifgdr-!."4"_"a"#!#m#}#~###$+$$$$$$$$ο{ίl]YM7*hAhA56B*OJQJ\^JphhXuCJOJQJaJh1(h=h1(CJOJQJaJh=hCJOJQJaJ"h=h@5>*CJOJQJaJ"hXuh@5>*CJOJQJaJhXuh@5CJOJQJaJh=h@>*CJOJQJaJhXuh@CJOJQJaJh=h@CJOJQJaJ"h=h@56CJOJQJaJh=h@5CJOJQJaJ$$$$%p$7$8$@&H$Ifgdr-gd1(jkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytr- & F&d$Ifgd=$% %%%D%T%%%%%%&&&&&&&K'P'_'ʹʹʪ~nbnSGS7ShAhA6CJOJQJaJh=CJOJQJaJhXuhACJOJQJaJhACJOJQJaJhAhA5CJOJQJaJhAh1(CJaJhACJaJhA5CJaJhAhA5CJaJh1(h8h1(B*\^Jph!h86B*OJQJ\^Jphh8B*OJQJ\^Jph!h1(5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hAhA5B*OJQJ\^Jph%%&&&K''S(sggWWG & F&d$Ifgd= & F&d$IfgdA d$IfgdAd$If^gdr-zkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytr-_'''''"(R(S(T(U(V(W(a(b((((((((>)L)Ŷ|j|[K;hehe>*CJOJQJaJh=~he>*CJOJQJaJheh=~CJOJQJaJ" jhK*EhK*ECJOJQJaJhK*ECJOJQJaJheheCJOJQJaJhp4htXOJQJhtXOJQJhXunH tH h1(h=h1(CJOJQJaJh=hA5CJOJQJaJh=CJOJQJaJh=hA6CJOJQJaJh=hACJOJQJaJS(T(U(b(((())*{ppeZe & F)dgd=~ & F)dgde & F)dgde & F)dgdK*EgdtXgdtXjkd)$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytr- L))))))))**)***M*N*k*u*}*~*****K+ŶyiWiJiWih=~5CJOJQJaJ"hehe5>*CJOJQJaJhehe5CJOJQJaJh=~h=~5CJOJQJaJhK*E56CJOJQJaJ"hehe56CJOJQJaJhK*ECJOJQJaJhK*EhK*ECJOJQJaJh=~CJOJQJaJhehe6CJOJQJaJhehe>*CJOJQJaJheheCJOJQJaJ**K+++++|,,T--#.F../'//0_00  & F0dgd*  & F*dgd*  & F*dgd  & F*dgd & F*dgde & F)dgde & F)dgdeK+\+]+++++++++++|,,,,-Q-S-T-r---znzbVHh6`h*5>*CJaJh6`h*5CJaJh6`h5CJaJhFh6CJaJhFhCJaJh0hCJaJhCJaJh6CJaJhhe5CJOJQJaJhehe5CJOJQJaJheheCJOJQJaJ"hK*Ehe5>*CJOJQJaJhK*E5CJOJQJaJhK*Ehe5CJOJQJaJ-----..!.#.$.6.7.B.D.E.F...../////&/'/(////////0000_0000O1P111ѽ٥ٝтwhNZ7hCJaJhNZ7hCJOJQJaJh6`h*6CJaJh6`CJaJh*h*>*CJaJh6`h5CJaJh/hCJaJh*6CJaJh*CJaJh*h*CJaJh6`h*5>*CJaJh6`h5>*CJaJ.0P1Q1112f22 3 4$7$8$@&H$IfgdP:{gde  & F*dgd d^gdgd  & F*dgd 1111222O22 3 3)3H3K3P33 4 4444ʴo_PL@4h=~hP:{5CJaJh=~h=~5CJaJhP:{hshP:{B*\^Jphh;B*OJQJ\^JphhB*OJQJ\^JphhkB*OJQJ\^Jph!hP:{5B*OJQJ\^Jph'h=~h=~5B*OJQJ\^Jph*h=~h=~56B*OJQJ\^Jph h$chehehFhCJaJhFCJaJhNZ7hCJaJhNZ7h>*CJaJ 4444S5 6666sccccSG d$Ifgdk & F&d$IfgdP:{ & F&d$Ifgd=~d$If^gdP:{zkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytP:{4 4!44444505R55566666666667788Z8\888ͽͽفtdUdUh=~hkCJOJQJaJh=~hk5CJOJQJaJhk5CJOJQJaJh=~hK*ECJOJQJaJhK*E5CJOJQJaJhK*Eh05CJOJQJaJhK*Ehk5CJOJQJaJhkhk5CJOJQJaJhkCJOJQJaJhK*ECJOJQJaJh=~CJOJQJaJh=~h=~CJOJQJaJ66778899#::;l;<1<L<< & F&d$IfgdP:{ & F&d$Ifgd & F&d$IfgdK*E & F&d$Ifgd0 & F&d$IfgdK*E & F&d$IfgdK*E & F&d$IfgdP:{8899991949=9B9L9O99999":#:::::;#;%;j;k;;;0<1<K<ȼנננueUhh5CJOJQJaJhK*Eh05CJOJQJaJh0h05CJOJQJaJh0h0CJOJQJaJhK*ECJOJQJaJhK*EhZr5CJOJQJaJhZrCJOJQJaJhkCJOJQJaJhK*EhK*ECJOJQJaJhK*EhK*E5CJOJQJaJhK*E5CJOJQJaJh0CJOJQJaJK<L<<<<<<<<5=6=7=8=^=h=k======ĵzjZKG7hNZ7hNZ75CJOJQJaJhehsheB*\^JphhzB*OJQJ\^JphhNZ7B*OJQJ\^Jph!he5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hNZ7hNZ75B*OJQJ\^Jph*hNZ7hNZ756B*OJQJ\^Jphh=~h=~CJOJQJaJhP:{hhP:{CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhhP:{5CJOJQJaJ<6=7=8==|m$7$8$@&H$Ifgdedgd;jkdL$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytP:{ & F&d$Ifgd===>???=@@DAVAyiiiyiiiY & F&d$IfgdNZ7 & F&d$IfgdNZ7 d$IfgdNZ7zkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yte ==>B?|?~???????@@'@S@e@o@x@@@@@@@DAABuBvBwB婇whYUhehheCJOJQJaJhhNZ7CJOJQJaJhNZ7hNZ75CJOJQJaJ" jhFhFCJOJQJaJh 7hNZ75CJOJQJaJhFCJOJQJaJhNZ7hNZ7>*CJOJQJaJhFhNZ75CJOJQJaJhFhNZ7>*CJOJQJaJhNZ7hNZ7CJOJQJaJhNZ7CJOJQJaJVAAAAHBvBwBxBCd_P$7$8$@&H$IfgdegdtXjkdo$$Ifl$h% t0644 layte & F&d$Ifgd & F&d$IfgdNZ7 & F&d$IfgdNZ7wBxBBBBB;C@CCCCCCCCCCD+D-DYD[Dνso_SDSDSD8D8hFCJOJQJaJhhzCJOJQJaJhzCJOJQJaJhzhz5CJOJQJaJhe$hz}heB*OJQJ\^Jph'hz}hz}>*B*OJQJ\^Jph$hz}hz}B*OJQJ\^Jphhz}B*OJQJ\^Jph!he5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hzhz5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hzhz56B*OJQJ\^JphhenH tH CCCDDZEE(FuFFFyiYiiiiyy & F&d$Ifgdz & F&d$Ifgdz d$Ifgdzzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yte [DrDtDDDDDDDEZEEGFbFtFuF|FFFFFFFFF_GH$H&HH񶪛|j|ZZhhz5CJOJQJaJ" jhFhzCJOJQJaJhFhzCJOJQJaJhzhz5CJOJQJaJhzhzCJOJQJaJhFCJOJQJaJhF5CJOJQJaJhzhz>*CJOJQJaJ" jhzhzCJOJQJaJhzCJOJQJaJhhzCJOJQJaJF G6G_GuGGGHIIId_gdtXjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layte & F&d$Ifgdz} & F&d$Ifgdz & F&d$Ifgdz HHHIIIIIIII'J(J)J/J0JziVC7+hUhU5CJaJhUh 85CJaJ$h4heB*OJQJ\^Jph$h4h4B*OJQJ\^Jph!he5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hCUP5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hCUP56B*OJQJ\^Jph*hCUPhCUP56B*OJQJ\^JphhenH tH hehz}heCJOJQJaJhhzCJOJQJaJhhz5CJOJQJaJ"hFhz5>*CJOJQJaJI(J)JJFKgK|KvdXH8 & F&d$Ifgde & F&d$Ifgde d$Ifgd 8d$If^gdUzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yte$7$8$@&H$Ifgde0JJJJFKfKgKLLLLL$M&MFMSMxMyMMMMMM NNʾwwhd`YNChm1h] CJaJh6`h] CJaJ h$cheh] hehUheCJOJQJaJhUCJOJQJaJh4h 8CJOJQJaJhU5CJOJQJaJh 8h 85CJOJQJaJh heCJOJQJaJh 8CJOJQJaJhUh 8CJOJQJaJhUh 85CJOJQJaJhUh 85CJaJhUh 8CJaJ|KKKKLLcMMMMd_gdejkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layte & F&d$Ifgd]  & F&d$Ifgd 8 & F&d$Ifgde NN^NaNhNqNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOPP8P9P:PEPXPYP³ҳubRhm1CJOJQJaJnH tH $hm1hm1CJOJQJaJnH tH hTKhm15OJQJnH tH $hm1heCJOJQJaJnH tH hm1hm1CJOJQJaJhm1CJOJQJaJhm1h] CJOJQJaJhm1hm15CJOJQJaJhm1h] 5CJOJQJaJhm1hm1CJaJhm1h] CJaJhm1CJaJMhNqNNNNN)OOO9P:PEPYPPIQeRR & F&dgdxP & F&dgddd^`gd6`gdtX & F,dgd] & F,dgdm1dgdm1  & F,dgd]  & F,dgdm1  & F,dgd] YP`PpPrP{P|PPPPQ!Q4Q5Q9Q;QCQGQIQLQ_QeRRRVSWSSSSTTT=T>TFTXTTֽ֭֡ֈyyyyiyyZhxPhxPCJOJQJaJh6`hd>*CJOJQJaJhdhdCJOJQJaJhdCJOJQJaJhxP6CJOJQJaJhxPCJOJQJaJhm1hm16CJOJQJaJhAYCJOJQJaJhm16CJOJQJaJhm1CJOJQJaJhxPhm15CJOJQJaJh6`5CJOJQJaJ#RWST>TT.UVWWAXBX[zkd7$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yte$7$8$@&H$IfgdegdtX & F&dgdxP & F&dgdxP TTTTTT$U,UUU/VaVVVVVVVVVPWWWWWWյե՘եՅraP!he5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hm15B*OJQJ\^Jph$hm156B*OJQJ\^Jph$hm1hm1CJOJQJaJnH tH hxP5CJOJQJaJhxPhxP5CJOJQJaJhxPhxP>*CJOJQJaJhxPhxP6CJOJQJaJhxPhxPCJOJQJaJh6`hxP>*CJOJQJaJhxPCJOJQJaJW+X,X@XAXBXIXJXNXmXzX|XmYnYYY"ZBZ[G[Y[\[d[m[[[?\B\H\O\\\\\\\schAYhxP>*CJOJQJaJhc.hxP6CJOJQJaJhc.hxPCJOJQJaJhxPhxPCJOJQJaJhxPCJOJQJaJhxPhxP5CJOJQJaJhehsheB*\^JphhxPB*OJQJ\^Jphhm1B*OJQJ\^JphhAYB*OJQJ\^Jph#BXIXnY [\[[o\\]^0_1_hjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layte & F)d$IfgdxP & F)d$IfgdxP d$IfgdxP \\4]a]i]]]]]/_0_1_2_>_?_`________ɼɬteYeIet9h!Dh!D5CJOJQJaJh!Dh#6CJOJQJaJhAYCJOJQJaJhxGh#CJOJQJaJh!DCJOJQJaJhTKhxP5OJQJnH tH hTKh#5OJQJnH tH henH tH hehxPhe5CJOJQJaJhxP5CJOJQJaJhxPhxP5CJOJQJaJhxPCJOJQJaJhxPhxPCJOJQJaJhc.CJOJQJaJ1_2_?_`__/```Yaaa+c$7$8$@&H$IfgdedgdxG & F)dgdAY & F)dgd#gdtX __`-`/`<```````````Yakaqaaaaaab'b(b)bӴߖĨĆzgVEV!he5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hxG5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hxG56B*OJQJ\^JphhxGCJOJQJaJhxGh#5CJOJQJaJ"hxGh#56CJOJQJaJhAYCJOJQJaJhAYhAY5CJOJQJaJhxGh#CJOJQJaJh!DCJOJQJaJh!Dh!D5CJOJQJaJh!Dh#5CJOJQJaJ)b*c+c,c3cMcOcQc~ddddd(e)e*e+eLeOeeeeeeeeeefRffff%ghggggͽ|͡͡llhxGhxG>*CJOJQJaJhxG5CJOJQJaJhxGCJOJQJaJhAYCJOJQJaJhxGhxGCJOJQJaJhxG6CJOJQJaJhxGhxG6CJOJQJaJhxGhxG5CJOJQJaJhehxGheB*\^JphhxGB*OJQJ\^Jph%+c,c3cdddfggyiiyYYY & F)d$IfgdxG & F)d$IfgdAY d$IfgdxGzkdZ$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytegggg'hBhLhMhTh\hbhghphvhhhi%iii7jJjjjο}m]M=hAlhTK>*CJOJQJaJhAlhTK6CJOJQJaJhTKhTK5CJOJQJaJhTKhTK6CJOJQJaJhAlCJOJQJaJh!D6CJOJQJaJhVCJOJQJaJhV6CJOJQJaJh!DhTK6CJOJQJaJhTKhTKCJOJQJaJhTKhTK5OJQJ$hTKheCJOJQJaJnH tH hehxGheCJOJQJaJggg'hwhiiKjrk.lll|qqffffq & F)dgdTK & F)dgdTK & F)dgdVdgdTKgdtXjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layte jqkrkyk-l.l*CJOJQJaJhV>*CJOJQJaJhfahTK5CJOJQJaJhVCJOJQJaJhfaCJOJQJaJhTKhTK6CJOJQJaJhfahTKCJOJQJaJhAlhTK6CJOJQJaJhAlhTK5CJOJQJaJhAlCJOJQJaJhTKhTKCJOJQJaJllnQn!oJo{oo^ppq-r.rs$7$8$@&H$Ifgd!DgdTK & F @ HH^Hgd><gd%n & F)dgdTK zoooooooooopp+p,pKp\p]p^pppppqqq񴢖zn_nPAhh><CJOJQJaJh><h><CJOJQJaJhVhCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh><h%nCJOJQJaJh><6CJOJQJaJh><CJOJQJaJ" jh><h><CJOJQJaJhVh%nCJOJQJaJhhVCJOJQJaJhh%n6CJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJhh%nCJOJQJaJqqqqrr r"r,r-r.rArJrLrrrssss³xhThEA5h.h.5CJaJhTKhshTKB*\^Jph'hVhV>*B*OJQJ\^JphhVB*OJQJ\^Jph!hTK5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hfahfa5B*OJQJ\^Jph*hfahfa56B*OJQJ\^Jphh%n56CJOJQJaJhhTKCJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJhh%nCJOJQJaJhh6CJOJQJaJsssst(uuuscccWG & F)d$Ifgd. d$Ifgd. & F&d$Ifgd!Dd$If^gd!Dzkd}$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt!Dssssetftjtktqttt(u.upuuuuuuu}vvvvvvvvvwwVwWwwwww<h*5CJOJQJaJh*CJOJQJaJhdhdCJOJQJaJh><hd5CJOJQJaJhd5CJOJQJaJhdhd>*CJOJQJaJhdhd6CJOJQJaJhTKhdCJOJQJaJhdCJOJQJaJhdhTK5CJaJhdhd5CJaJ'}~J~K~U~V~w~}~~~AKLMNOPdefzԤzhXL=hTKhCCJOJQJaJhCCJOJQJaJhChC5CJOJQJaJ"hChC56CJOJQJaJhTKCJOJQJaJhTKh!EhTKCJaJh hTKCJOJQJaJhdhd5CJOJQJaJhdhd6CJOJQJaJhdhd>*CJOJQJaJhdCJOJQJaJhTKhdCJOJQJaJh><hd6CJOJQJaJ}MNOPeԁfaYN & F)dgdCdgdCgdTKjkdA$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt!Dd$If^gd!D d$Ifgdd & F&d$IfgddzӁ Ђڂ݂$KɶscSD@4hChC5CJaJhTKhE?hTKB*\^Jphh0VB*OJQJ\^JphhCB*OJQJ\^Jph!hE?6B*OJQJ\^JphhE?B*OJQJ\^Jph!hTK5B*OJQJ\^Jph!hE?5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hE?56B*OJQJ\^JphhTKCJOJQJaJhChC6CJOJQJaJhTKhCCJOJQJaJhCCJOJQJaJԁO܄fTDD & F&d$Ifgd!Dd$If^gd!Dzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt!D$7$8$@&H$Ifgd!DgdTK & F)dgdC܄/څۅ?rsy}ņQRӇև  |}缬ڼ獼}pa}RGh!EhTKCJaJh0Vh0VCJOJQJaJhMZ]hMZ]CJOJQJaJhMZ]5CJOJQJaJhTKhC5CJOJQJaJhChC>*CJOJQJaJh hTKCJOJQJaJhChC5CJOJQJaJhTKhCCJOJQJaJhChCCJOJQJaJhC5CJOJQJaJhCCJOJQJaJhChTK5CJaJ܄ۅsyRև |}d$If^gd!D & F&d$Ifgd0V & F&d$IfgdC d$IfgdC & F&d$Ifgd!D & F&d$Ifgd!D }~Ոe p{pp```{d^`gdvy & F-dgdvy & F-dgdvygdtXgdTKjkdd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt!D }~ɈՈވ߈8Rdeiljɉʉˉ  LVgjsЊ2ĵĵĵĵĵāĵĵĵqahvyhvy5CJOJQJaJhvyhvy>*CJOJQJaJ"hFqhvy6>*CJOJQJaJhFqhvy>*CJOJQJaJ"hvyhvy5>*CJOJQJaJhFqhvyCJOJQJaJhvyCJOJQJaJhvy6CJOJQJaJhp4htXOJQJhtXOJQJhTKCJOJQJaJhTK&2_op2DETŒČƌ  wǺǮǢwjwZwKhiha'iCJOJQJaJhihi6CJOJQJaJha'i6CJOJQJaJhiCJOJQJaJhFqha'iCJOJQJaJha'iha'i5CJOJQJaJha'iCJOJQJaJhY(CJOJQJaJhvy6CJOJQJaJhvyCJOJQJaJhvyhvy5CJOJQJaJha'i56CJOJQJaJha'i5CJOJQJaJpWX_[Id$If^gdFqzkd$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap ytFq$7$8$@&H$IfgdFqgdvy & F&dgda'i & F-dgda'iw,VWX^_؎Nʷwk_OBO_3hFqhm9CJOJQJaJhvy5CJOJQJaJhvyhvy5CJOJQJaJhvyCJOJQJaJhvyhFq5CJaJhvyhvy5CJaJhFqhshFqB*\^JphhvyB*OJQJ\^Jph!hFq5B*OJQJ\^Jph$hFq56B*OJQJ\^JphhvyhvynH tH hFqha'i5CJOJQJaJhFqha'iCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJ_؎N3XPdgdFqjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytFq & F&d$Ifgd & F&d$Ifgdm9 d$Ifgdvy & F&d$IfgdFq&FNґӑԑۑD|}ҿ{lhXLM>hX(hX(CJOJQJaJhX(CJOJQJaJhFqhe'CJOJQJaJ"he'he'5>*CJOJQJaJhFqhe'5CJOJQJaJhe'CJOJQJaJhihX(5CJOJQJaJhihe'5CJOJQJaJhih>*CJOJQJaJhiCJOJQJaJ" jhhCJOJQJaJhh>*CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJKMi{j4Yǚ& & F&d$Ifgda'i & F-d$IfgdX( & F&d$IfgdX( & F&d$Ifgde' & F&d$IfgdY( z{i%&Ûěțɛ#ƷyeTATATA$hhB*OJQJ\^Jph!h5B*OJQJ\^Jph'hh5B*OJQJ\^Jphh0h`6 h06h0 hJVh0htXhtXnH tH hFqhFqnH tH hY(CJOJQJaJhY(ha'ihY(CJOJQJaJhFqhe'CJOJQJaJhX(hX(5CJOJQJaJhX(hX(CJOJQJaJhX(CJOJQJaJěN}n$7$8$@&H$Ifgd0gd BgdtXgdFqdgdFqjkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 laytY(#%(MNOϜ )vܝqÞ ).cpdh0CJOJQJaJ hph06B*CJaJphhph0B*CJaJphhph0>*CJaJhph05>*CJaJhph0CJaJhph05CJaJh$ch0OJQJ$hh0B*OJQJ\^Jph!h5B*OJQJ\^JphhB*OJQJ\^Jph%NO ݝ^p^^LLLLd$If`gd0d$If^gd0$d$If^a$gd0zkd,$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt0(_z{x  4|L$If^`Lgd0L$If^`Lgd0 h$If^hgd0 $Ifgd0d$If`gd0z{΢Ԣ%-5գ'/13:BJäפ`w!7uyʷ৕৕৕৕৕৕৕h$(Uh05CJOJQJaJ"hph05>*CJOJQJaJhph0>*CJOJQJaJ%hph0B*CJOJQJaJph+ jhph0B*CJOJQJaJphhph0CJOJQJaJhph05CJOJQJaJ2S}֦"6f`A yzЫd$If^gd0L$If^`Lgd0L$If^`Lgd0L$If^`Lgd0ШҨ_`owcȸ~k~\M;M;M"hph05>*CJOJQJaJhph0CJOJQJaJhh0CJOJQJaJ%hhB*CJOJQJaJph"h6B*CJOJQJaJph%hHhHB*CJOJQJaJph(hHhH6B*CJOJQJaJphhB*CJOJQJaJphhHB*CJOJQJaJph%hph0B*CJOJQJaJph(h h06B*CJOJQJaJphc~CyzϫЫ0jŬԭ٭\_ͮ#.¯ï̯˼˱zf'h$ch05B*OJQJ\^Jphh05CJaJh0hNxh$ch0OJQJhE h0B*CJaJphhph0>*CJaJhph0CJaJhph0B*CJaJphhph05CJaJh&5CJaJhph0CJOJQJaJhph0>*CJOJQJaJ!TϮL¯ïD}}o`$7$8$@&H$Ifgd0 d^gdgd0jkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt0hd$If^hgd0 ̯ͯ *CDEF ,9nsJ~׳Ǽwk_kVwMkhp5CJaJh 5CJaJhph06CJaJhph0>*CJaJhph05CJaJhph00JCJaJ#jhph0CJUaJhph0CJaJjhph0CJUaJh$ch0OJQJ'hh05B*OJQJ\^Jph$heh0B*OJQJ\^Jph!h05B*OJQJ\^JphDE tK~uugggggggd$Ifgd0d$If^gd0wkdO$$Ifl$h%  t 0644 lap yt0 ~fggfsϹqr8d$If^8gd0d$Ifgd0d$If^gd0d$If^gd d$If^gdp׳fgkȵBX׶jŷKrs.]:;<=>@ACDFGIJPQRT{{wh h0J$jh0J$Uh_`jh_`U h0h0h$ch0OJQJh$Th0CJaJhh05CJaJh5CJaJh h0>*CJaJhph0>*CJaJhph05CJaJh CJaJhph0CJaJ,սXſ[};d$If^gd0d$If^`gd8d$If^8gd0d$Ifgd0;<=?@BCEFHIRST{r#h]hgdlF #&`#$gdlF d^gdphkd$$Ifl$h% t0644 layt0 TU[\^_`bcd¾ h0h0h_`h%hB0J$CJOJQJaJmHnHu hlFh0J$CJOJQJaJ)jhlFh0J$CJOJQJUaJ T`abcd d^gdp#h]hgdlF #&`#$gdlF5 01h:plF/ =!n"n#$% }DyK _Toc373923625}DyK _Toc373923625}DyK _Toc373923626}DyK _Toc373923626}DyK _Toc373923627}DyK _Toc373923627}DyK _Toc373923628}DyK _Toc373923628}DyK _Toc373923629}DyK _Toc373923629}DyK _Toc373923630}DyK _Toc373923630}DyK _Toc373923631}DyK _Toc373923631}DyK _Toc373923632}DyK _Toc373923632}DyK _Toc373923633}DyK _Toc373923633}DyK _Toc373923634}DyK _Toc373923634}DyK _Toc373923635}DyK _Toc373923635}DyK _Toc373923636}DyK _Toc373923636}DyK _Toc373923637}DyK _Toc373923637}DyK _Toc373923638}DyK _Toc373923638}DyK _Toc373923639}DyK _Toc373923639}DyK _Toc373923640}DyK _Toc373923640}DyK _Toc373923641}DyK _Toc373923641}DyK _Toc373923642}DyK _Toc373923642}DyK _Toc373923643}DyK _Toc373923643}DyK _Toc373923644}DyK _Toc373923644}DyK _Toc373923645}DyK _Toc373923645}DyK _Toc373923646}DyK _Toc373923646}DyK _Toc373923647}DyK _Toc373923647}DyK _Toc373923648}DyK _Toc373923648}DyK _Toc373923649}DyK _Toc373923649}DyK _Toc373923650}DyK _Toc373923650}DyK _Toc373923651}DyK _Toc373923651}DyK _Toc373923652}DyK _Toc373923652}DyK _Toc373923653}DyK _Toc373923653}DyK _Toc373923654}DyK _Toc373923654}DyK _Toc373923655}DyK _Toc373923655}DyK _Toc373923656}DyK _Toc373923656}DyK _Toc373923657}DyK _Toc373923657}DyK _Toc373923658}DyK _Toc373923658}DyK _Toc373923659}DyK _Toc373923659}DyK _Toc373923660}DyK _Toc373923660}DyK _Toc373923661}DyK _Toc373923661}DyK _Toc373923662}DyK _Toc373923662}DyK _Toc373923663}DyK _Toc373923663}DyK _Toc373923664}DyK _Toc373923664}DyK _Toc373923665}DyK _Toc373923665}DyK _Toc373923666}DyK _Toc373923666}DyK _Toc373923667}DyK _Toc373923667}DyK _Toc373923668}DyK _Toc373923668}DyK _Toc373923669}DyK _Toc373923669}DyK _Toc373923670}DyK _Toc373923670}DyK _Toc373923671}DyK _Toc373923671}DyK _Toc373923672}DyK _Toc373923672}DyK _Toc373923673}DyK _Toc373923673}DyK _Toc373923674}DyK _Toc373923674}DyK _Toc373923675}DyK _Toc373923675}DyK _Toc373923676}DyK _Toc373923676}DyK _Toc373923677}DyK _Toc373923677}DyK _Toc373923678}DyK _Toc373923678}DyK _Toc373923679}DyK _Toc373923679}DyK _Toc373923680}DyK _Toc373923680}DyK _Toc373923681}DyK _Toc373923681}DyK _Toc373923682}DyK _Toc373923682}DyK _Toc373923683}DyK _Toc373923683}DyK _Toc373923684}DyK _Toc373923684}DyK _Toc373923685}DyK _Toc373923685}DyK _Toc373923686}DyK _Toc373923686}DyK _Toc373923687}DyK _Toc373923687}DyK _Toc373923688}DyK _Toc373923688}DyK _Toc373923689}DyK _Toc373923689}DyK _Toc373923690}DyK _Toc373923690}DyK _Toc373923691}DyK _Toc373923691}DyK _Toc373923692}DyK _Toc373923692}DyK _Toc373923693}DyK _Toc373923693}DyK _Toc373923694}DyK _Toc373923694}DyK _Toc373923695}DyK _Toc373923695}DyK _Toc373923696}DyK _Toc373923696}DyK _Toc373923697}DyK _Toc373923697}DyK _Toc373923698}DyK _Toc373923698}DyK _Toc373923699}DyK _Toc373923699}DyK _Toc373923700}DyK _Toc373923700}DyK _Toc373923701}DyK _Toc373923701}DyK _Toc373923702}DyK _Toc373923702}DyK _Toc373923703}DyK _Toc373923703}DyK _Toc373923704}DyK _Toc373923704}DyK _Toc373923705}DyK _Toc373923705}DyK _Toc373923706}DyK _Toc373923706}DyK _Toc373923707}DyK _Toc373923707}DyK _Toc373923708}DyK _Toc373923708}DyK _Toc373923709}DyK _Toc373923709}DyK _Toc373923710}DyK _Toc373923710}DyK _Toc373923711}DyK _Toc373923711}DyK _Toc373923712}DyK _Toc373923712}DyK _Toc373923713}DyK _Toc373923713}DyK _Toc373923714}DyK _Toc373923714}DyK _Toc373923715}DyK _Toc373923715}DyK _Toc373923716}DyK _Toc373923716}DyK _Toc373923717}DyK _Toc373923717}DyK _Toc373923718}DyK _Toc373923718}DyK _Toc373923719}DyK _Toc373923719}DyK _Toc373923720}DyK _Toc373923720}DyK _Toc373923721}DyK _Toc373923721}DyK _Toc373923722}DyK _Toc373923722}DyK _Toc373923723}DyK _Toc373923723}DyK _Toc373923724}DyK _Toc373923724}DyK _Toc373923725}DyK _Toc373923725}DyK _Toc373923726}DyK _Toc373923726}DyK _Toc373923727}DyK _Toc373923727}DyK _Toc373923728}DyK _Toc373923728}DyK _Toc373923729}DyK _Toc373923729}DyK _Toc373923730}DyK _Toc373923730}DyK _Toc373923731}DyK _Toc373923731}DyK _Toc373923732}DyK _Toc373923732}DyK _Toc373923733}DyK _Toc373923733}DyK _Toc373923734}DyK _Toc373923734}DyK _Toc373923735}DyK _Toc373923735}DyK _Toc373923736}DyK _Toc373923736}DyK _Toc373923737}DyK _Toc373923737}DyK _Toc373923738}DyK _Toc373923738}DyK _Toc373923739}DyK _Toc373923739}DyK _Toc373923740}DyK _Toc373923740}DyK _Toc373923741}DyK _Toc373923741}DyK _Toc373923742}DyK _Toc373923742}DyK _Toc373923743}DyK _Toc373923743}DyK _Toc373923744}DyK _Toc373923744}DyK _Toc373923745}DyK _Toc373923745}DyK _Toc373923746}DyK _Toc373923746}DyK _Toc373923747}DyK _Toc373923747}DyK _Toc373923748}DyK _Toc373923748}DyK _Toc373923749}DyK _Toc373923749}DyK _Toc373923750}DyK _Toc373923750}DyK _Toc373923751}DyK _Toc373923751}DyK _Toc373923752}DyK _Toc373923752}DyK _Toc373923753}DyK _Toc373923753}DyK _Toc373923754}DyK _Toc373923754}DyK _Toc373923755}DyK _Toc373923755}DyK _Toc373923756}DyK _Toc373923756$$If!vh555n5 #v#v#vn#v :V l t06555n5 ayt*v$$If!vh555n5 #v#v#vn#v :V l t06555n5 ayt*v$$If!vh555n5 #v#v#vn#v :V l t06555n5 ayt*v$$If!vh555n5 #v#v#vn#v :V l t06555n5 ayt*v$$If!vh555n5 #v#v#vn#v :V l t06555n5 ayt*v$$If!vh555n5 #v#v#vn#v :V l t06555n5 ayt*v$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt*v$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt*v$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt*v{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt*v$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt*v$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt*v$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt#$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt#$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytyA{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytyA$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytX{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytX$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytX{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytX$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt`$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt`$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytl%{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytl%$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytl%{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytl%$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytm$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt{{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt{{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt{{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt{{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytX{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytX$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytX{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytX$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yth {$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yth $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt-{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt-$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt-{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt-$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytQl*{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytQl*$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytQl*$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytQl*$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytQl*{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytQl*$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytp*6{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytp*6$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt`{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt`$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt[lH$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt[lH$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytsP$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytsP$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytm/$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytm/$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytYm$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytYm$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt#$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt#$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt_$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt_$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt_$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt_$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt|V$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt|V$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt|V$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt|V$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytsh$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytsh$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt!i$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt!i$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytwN$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytwN$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt4$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt4$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt7$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt7$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt7$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt7$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt`$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt`$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt`$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt`$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt`$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt`$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt $$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytH$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytH$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytH$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytH$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytH$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytH$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytH$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytH$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytr-$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytr-$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytr-$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytr-$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytr-$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytr-$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytP:{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytP:{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yte$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yte$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yte$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yte$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yte$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yte$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yte$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yte$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yte$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yte$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt!D$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt!D$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt!D$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt!D$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt!D$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt!D$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytFq$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytFq$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p ytY($$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%ytY($$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt0$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt0$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l  t 065h%p yt0#DyK yK http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/168_2009_00yX;H,]ą'c{$$If!vh5h%#vh%:V l t065h%yt0&@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH ^@^ kh Heading 1$d<@&5CJ KH OJQJaJtH \@\ kh Heading 2$d<@&56CJOJQJaJtH V@V u} Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJJ@J m Heading 4$<@&5CJ\aJDA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No ListXOX khHeading 1 Char#5CJ KH OJQJ_HmH sH tH VV khHeading 2 Char"56CJOJQJ_HmH sH tH ^^ *B*ph.@. p4TOC 3 ^,X@, $cEmphasis64O4 edefdd[$\$PJ(W@( eStrong5"O" eterm2BOB eapple-converted-space"O" eterm3"O" eterm16O6 eparadd[$\$PJ<O< esubpara dd[$\$PJ"O" eterm0H"H 0g Balloon Text"CJOJQJ^JaJ4 @24 lFFooter # !.)@A. lF Page Number4@R4 lFHeader % !dEFeʑ00Tz0& 0,6STfgP/ 9 . CPa/y'< ""#$%x% '(d))+,R./0@113&4z456o77088`9: ;;Y=`>@AmASBBC(DrEpFGcGGH$JKLMM,OOPQR;STTUWVVWWXY Z[ZV[^\"]]^_`Maaa5c'demf#ggBiljklTmm o`o-pp\q}qqqNrr$sCsasssss;t{tttmu*v3vSv\v~vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvwwwwwfww>xxxyyrz]{{| |q| }[}}~l~~~~&ՁցijW ؊`ϋ֋\Xx,/ӑ3ABH:Ζ<1#z7fghp2lmNOxʟJl%ˤPyǦIuJUŮ:;<"aE0Ͼ,-.?@VnF3\'8M*+,F UzK!s hmW-/ABt{+%JKLK[Q !"()*+568aqr|\Zj'(,R45&*89789:Vqrt DQBn,4vV         33`n+0L[)ghi7>zK  # ##$%&&&''P)W))*}**M+n+o++h,i,--~..>>>> ?F@@WAXA B BCCDDDD[E\EF}F'GGGG2H\HH/IyIIIIFJJJKKKK/L0LMLwL`MaMMoNNOpPP QQQRRSR`S~STcT UVUU VcVVmWnWXX9[[{\p]^^____$a%aQc`cddeffghhhiijkml%mmmnBooooo&ppqqr`rrs[twt uluuu _3 Y"m:eYI;c  -EFnx)tu%?@ K-"(.p[ ?I$JP]L}~,sHQ~ _   k o  ]G/=)*](j,-5z~D=]x  !!"g"""#?#v####$$$%%T&,'1'()*++2,,V- ...S/ 0!0"0#0$0<01 2 22|2>44456i667788C9D9E9::#:::;Y<f<=>>v?@ZA[A\AAB8CCD"E#EE6G7GTGGHHH IZIIIJFJqJJJKVKmKKLLL~MMMNxNN@OOOxOPPQQRJRR S{STrUU3WW`XYtY?@ܒMrʔ͕3T&٘ژۘmtp,[Ȝgם |"F|}~ Q#ҨHS}"#$v̰Ա@/fhr ɵrD· Gعٹ=~ʺhݼ _ؾ[=W|}"ccOTUx<=>: ln|FEFMYA/01Ez8}GWXD'/x^z6.FwHe:z$rs+,2F)^!VRS /*+,f&.Z Z v w   O d  +qnnou)\IJK  _KS T U b    !!""K#####|$$T%%#&F&&''''(_((P)Q)))*f** + ,,,,S- .....//0011#223l3414L446575855556777=88D9V9999H:v:w:x:;;;<<Z==(>u>>> ?6?_?u???@AAA(B)BBFCgC|CCCCDDcEEEEhFqFFFFF)GGG9H:HEHYHHIIeJJWKL>LL.MNOOAPBPIPnQ S\SSoTTUV0W1W2W?W`WW/XXXYYYY+[,[3[\\\^____'`w`aaKbrc.ddddfQf!gJg{gg^hhi-j.jkkkkl(mmmAn\oop-q.q/q#r$r*r)sstttuwwMyNyOyPyeyyzz{{{O||}}s~y~~R |}~Հe pWX_؆N3Ӊԉۉ}G؍KMi{j4Yǒ&ēNO ݕ^(_z{x  4|S}֞"6f`A yzУTϦL§çDE tK~fggfsϱqrյXŷ[}չ;<=?@BCEFHIRST`abe000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\q0}q 0}q 0q}q 0q}q 0}q0}q0}q0}q 0}q 0s}q 0s}q 0s}q 0s}q 0}q 0t}q 0t}q0}q0}q0}q0}q0}q0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q  0mu}q 0mu}q 0mu}q 0}q0}q0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q0}q0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}}q0}q0}q 0}q 0}}q 0}}q 0}}q 0}q 0}q 0}q0}q0}q 0}q 0}q0}q0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q 0}q0}q 0}q 0}q0}q 0}q 0}q0}q 0}q 0}q 0 }q 0 }q 0}q 0}q0\q 0 0  0  0X 0 0X 0  0  0 0 00(00B 0B 0B0B0B 0 B 0B 0 B 0 B 0ΖB 0ΖB 0B 01B 01B 0B 0B 0B 0B 0B 0B 0B(0 0 h 0h 0h0h80h 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m0m0m 0m 0m0m0m 0m 0m 0m0m 0m (0(0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00 0 0Ǧ 0 0Ǧ 0Ǧ 0 0 0Ǧ 0Ǧ 0Ǧ 0Ǧ 0Ǧ 0Ǧ 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Ǧ 0 Ǧ 0 0 Ǧ 0 Ǧ 0 Ǧ 0 0(080.80. 0@ 0@ 0@0@ 0@ 0@0@0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0 @ 0 @ 0@ 0'@ 0@ 0M@ 0M@ 0@ 0@ 0@0\q 0 , 0!, 0", 0#, 0$, 0%, 0&,(0, 0' 0( 0) 0* 0+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0m 0m 0 0 0 0 0 0000 000 0  0!0 0 000 000 0" 0# 0$ 0% 0 000 000 0& 0 0 0' 0( 0)0 0 000 0(0,(0,0+0+0+0+0+ 0+ 0r+ 0+ 0+ 0|+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+ 0+0+0+0+ 0+0+ 0+ 0+0+ 0+ 0+0+ 0+ 0+0+0+0+0+ 0+ 0+0+0+ 0+0+ 0+ 0+0+00:0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0tV 0tV 0V 0V 0V 0QV 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0V 0 V 0V 0V 0V 0 V 0V 0V(0V0  0  0  0*  0+ 0 0  0  0,  0-  0  (0V0 0 (0V 0  0 0  0  0 000 0 000 0. 0/ 00 010 0 00 02 03 04 0 00000 05 06 07 08 09 0 00000 0: 0; 0< 0= 0 00000 0> 0? 0@ 0A 0B 0C 0  00 0 00 0D 0E 0n 0F 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0L5 0 0  06 06 0  07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 0  0  0  0 0(0V 0= 0= 0== 0== 0= 0= 0= 0= 0>= 0>= 0=0=0= 0=0=0= 0G= 0H= 0= 0=0= 0=0=0= 0I= 0J= 0= 0=0: 0G 0G 0G 0HG 0G 0yIG 0yIG 0yIG 0G0G0G 0FJG 0FJG(0G0K0K0K 0K 0K0K0K 0K 0K 0oNK 0oNK 0oNK 0pPK 0pPK 0pPK 0pPK0K 0 K 0SRK 0SRK 0 K 0TK 0 K0K0K0K 0 UK 0 UK0K0K 0K0K0K0K 0KK 0LK 0 UK 0 UK 0MK 0K 0K0K 0K 0K0K 0NK 0OK 0dK 0dK 0PK 0QK0K 0K 0K0K 0K 0K 0RK 0SK 0TK0K 0UK 0VK 0WK 0 UK 0K 0K(0G 0o 0oo 0oo 0o 0qo 0o 0ro 0ro 0ro 0ro 0ro 0ro 0o 0luo 0luo 0luo 0luo 0luo0o0o 0o 0o 0Xo0o 0o 0n{o 0n{o 0n{o 0o 0\}o 0\}o 0o 0o0o0o0o0o 0o 0o 0o 0o 0o 0o0o 0o 0o 0o 0o0o 0o 0o0o 0 o 0o 0o0o0o 0o 0o0o0o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0o 0o 0o 0o 0o 0 o 0o 0o0o 0o 0o 0Yo 0Zo 0[o0o0o 0\o 0]o 0o 0o 0o 0^o 0o 0o0o 0o 0o0o 0_o0o 0`o 0ao 0o 0o0o0o 0o 0o0o0o 0o (0G 0 0 00 0 0 0f 0 0f 0Y 0Y 0Y 0Y 0 000 00 0b 0c0 0d 0 0 0e 0 0 0 0f 0g 0 0 0h 0i0 0 00 0 0 0j 0k 0l 0m 0n0 0o 0p 0q 0r0 0 00005 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 0k5 05 05 05 05 05 050505 05 05 05 05 05 0 5 0 5 05 0505 05 05 0505 05 0505 05 0505 05 05 05 05 05 05 050 0  0  0  0  0  0  0   0   0 0  0Y 0  0Y 0  0Y  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 0  0  0  0  0Y  0Y  0Y / 0  0!  0  0"  0;  0;  0; 0 " 0 " 0 " 0 0 0 (0 0-80- 0F 0F 0F 0F(0 0)0)80) 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0080) 0 0  0 0 0  0 0 0 080)0 0  0  0 0 0 0 00 0 00000 0# 0$ 0] 0] 0] 0% 0 0& 0' 0( 0)0 0 00 0*80)80) 0+ 0, 0- 0. 0 0 0/ 0000 01 02 0 0 0380)0~ 0~ 0~ 04~ 05~ 06~ 07~0~0~ 08~ 09~ 0 ~ 0:~ 0;~ 0<~0~ 0~ 0~ 0=~ 0>~ 0?~ 0@~0~0~ 0~ 0~0~0~ 0s~ 0t~0~ 0~ 0~0  0A 0B 0j00 0 0 0u0 0v 0w 0x 0D 0D 0 0 0 0y 0 0 0C 0 0 0D00  0E! 0"! 0"! 0F! 0"! 0"! 0"! 0G!0!0! 0! 0! 0z!0! 0{! 0!0! 0! 0|! 0! 0}!0! 0~! 0! 0! 0! 0!0! 0! 0!0! 0! 0!0!0  0H$00$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$00$00$0 0I$0 0$00$00$00$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$0 0$00$0 0$0 0$0 0J$0 0K$0 0L$00$00$0 0M$0 0f<$0 0N$0 0O$0 0P$00$0 0$0 0$080$0 0Q\A 0R\A 0S\A 0T\A 0U\A0\A 0V\A 0W\A0\A0  0X7G 0Y7G 0Z7G 07G 0H7G 0H7G 0H7G 0H7G 0H7G 07G 0J7G 0J7G 07G 0J7G 07G 0K7G 0K7G 07G(07G0L0L 0L  0[L 0\L0L0L0L0L 0]L0L0L0L0L0L0L0L0L0L0L0L 0^L 0_L 0`L0L 03WL0L! 0L0L0L0L! 0L! 0L 0aL 0L 0L0L 0L  0L 0L 0\L 0L 0\L 0\L 0\L 0\L 0L 0L 0\L 0\L 0\L 0L 0L 0L0L 0L 0L0L0L0L0L 0bL 0cL 0dL 0eL 0L 0L80L 0fj 0gj 0hj 0ij0j80L 0jm 0km 0lm 0mm(07G" 0kq" 0kq0kq0kq 0kq 0kq" 0kq" 0kq" 0kq0kq0kq 0$qkq 0$qkq 0$qkq 0$qkq0kq# 0kq0kq" 0_ukq" 0_ukq" 0_ukq" 0_ukq" 0_ukq" 0_ukq0kq$ 0kq$ 0kq 0kq 00& 0{& 0{& 0{& 0|{& 0|{& 0Q}{& 0Q}{& 0|{& 0|{& 0{& 0 ~{& 0{& 0{& 0{& 0{0{0{ 0{ 0{& 0{& 0{& 0{& 0 {& 0{& 0{& 0 {0{& 0{0{& 0{& 0{& 0{& 0 {& 0 { 0{ & 0 {& 0{& 0{& 0A{0{0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{0{ 0{ 0{0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{ 0{80{0@& 0@& 0@& 0@& 0@0@& 0@& 0M@& 0M@& 0@& 0ʔ@& 0ʔ@& 0ʔ@& 0@& 0T@& 0@0@0@0@ 0@ 0@0@& 0@& 0@& 0@0@& 0@& 0@& 0Ȝ@& 0Ȝ@& 0Ȝ@& 0@ 0@ 0@80{& 000& 0& 0 & 0!00 0 & 0"& 0#& 0 0 00 0 0& 0$& 0%& 0Q& 0&& 0'00& 0(& 0)& 0*0& 0+& 0,& 0- 0 00& 0.& 0& 000& 0/& 00& 01& 02& 03( 0& 0( 0& 0& 040& 05& 0r& 0 & 0r& 0ɵ& 06& 0& 07& 0D& 0·& 0·& 0D& 0G000ٹ0ٹ& 0Dٹ& 0=ٹ& 0=ٹ& 0=ٹ& 0=ٹ0ٹ0ٹ& 0Dٹ& 0Dٹ& 0_ٹ& 0Dٹ0ٹ0ٹ0ٹ0ٹ& 0Dٹ& 0Dٹ0ٹ) 0ٹ) 0ٹ0ٹ) 0ٹ) 0ٹ) 0cٹ) 0cٹ) 0ٹ) 0cٹ) 0ٹ) 0ٹ0ٹ0ٹ 0ٹ 0ٹ0ٹ& 08ٹ& 09ٹ& 0:ٹ& 0;ٹ 0ٹ 0ٹ0ٹ 0ٹ 0ٹ& 0<ٹ& 0=ٹ& 0>ٹ& 0:ٹ0ٹ& 0?ٹ& 0@ٹ& 0Aٹ& 0Bٹ& 0nٹ& 0nٹ& 0nٹ0ٹ 0ٹ 0ٹ0ٹ 0ٹ 0ٹ) 0ٹ) 0ٹ) 0 ٹ) 0ٹ) 0ٹ) 0 ٹ0ٹ) 0 ٹ 0ٹ 0ٹ0ٹ) 0 ٹ) 0 ٹ0ٹ0ٹ0ٹ0ٹ0ٹ) 0ٹ0ٹ0ٹ 0ٹ 0ٹ) 0ٹ) 0ٹ) 0ٹ0ٹ) 0ٹ) 0ٹ) 0/ٹ) 0/ٹ) 0ٹ 0ٹ 0ٹ0ٹ0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 00) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 000 0 0& 0C& 0D0& 0E& 0F& 0) 0 00 0 0& 0G& 0H0& 0I& 0J& 0& 0& 00 0 00 0 00& 0K& 0L& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0M 0 00 0 0& 0N& 0O0& 0P& 0Q& 0R& 0S& 0T& 0U& 0V 0 00) 0) 00000000w ) 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w ) 0 w ) 0 w ) 0 w 0w 0w 0w 0w  0w  0w & 0Ww & 0Xw & 0)w 0w & 0Yw & 0Zw & 0[w & 0\w & 0]w & 0^w & 0_w  0w  0w 0w  0w  0w 0w & 0`w & 0aw & 0bw  0w  0w 0w  0w  0w 0w 0w & 0cw & 0dw & 0ew  0w  0w 0) 0U ) 0U ) 0U ) 0 U ) 0 U ) 0 U ) 0!U ) 0 U ) 0 U * 0U * 0U * 0U * 0U * 0#U * 0U * 0U * 0T%U * 0T%U 0 0U 0 0U * 0T%U 0 0U 0 0U 0 0U 0 0U * 0U 0U 0U 0U 0U 0U * 0(U (0U 0* 0* 0*& 0f*& 0g*& 0h*& 0i*& 0j*0*& 0k*& 0.*& 0.*& 0l*& 0/*& 0m*& 00*& 00*& 00*& 0n*& 02*& 02*& 02*& 0o*& 014*& 014* 0* 0*0* 0* 0*& 0p*& 0q*& 0r*0*& 0s*& 0t*& 0u*& 08*& 08*& 08*& 08*& 0v*& 0w* 0* 0*0* 0* 0*& 0x*& 0;*& 0y*& 0z*& 0{*& 0|*0*0*& 0}*& 0>*& 0>*& 0>*& 0>*& 0>*& 0~*& 0* 0* 0*0* 0* 0*0*& 0*& 0FC*& 0FC*& 0FC*& 0FC*& 0*& 0*& 0*& 0D* 0* (0U , 0E, 0EE, 0EE, 0EE, 0EE0E, 0E, 0E, 0E, 0E0E0E0E0E0E& 0DE& 0IIE& 0IIE& 0IIE& 0IIE& 0DE& 0>LE& 0>LE& 0>LE0E0E 0E 0E) 0E) 0 E) 0!E0E) 0"E) 0#E) 0$E) 0%E) 0UE 0E 0E0E) 0&E) 0'E) 0(E) 0)E) 0/XE) 0*E) 0XE0E0E 0E 0E) 0+E) 0,E0E) 0-E) 0.E) 0/E 0E 0E0E) 00E) 01E) 02E) 0aE) 0aE) 0aE) 0aE) 03E) 0dE) 0dE) 0dE) 0dE0E 0wE 0wE 0wE 0wE 0wE 0wE00 0 0& 0& 0& 00) 0000& 00 0 00 0 0& 0& 00& 0& 0& 0& 0& 000 0 00) 0) 000 0 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 00& 0& 0& 0& 0& 00 0 00- 0- 0- 0000- 0- 0- 0& 000 0 0& 00& 0& 0& 0 0 00 0 0& 0& 00& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0& 0 0 00000 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0000֦00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0@00ȑ00L@00ȑ00L@00ȑ00L@00ȑ00L@#01@#0@0@#0@#0@0ȑ00 #L,6STfg}qqqNrr$sCsasssss;t{tttmu*v3vSv\v~vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvwwwwwfww>xxxyyrz]{{| |q| }[}}~l~~~~&ՁցijW ؊`ϋ֋\Xx,/ӑ3ABH:Ζ<1#z7fghp2lmNOxʟJl%ˤPyǦIuJUŮ:;<"aE0Ͼ,-.?@VnF3\'8M*+,F UzK!s hmW-/ABt{+%JKLK[Q !"()*+568aqr|\Zj'(,R45&*89789:Vqrt DQBn,4vV         33`n+0L[)ghi7>zK  # ##$%&&&''P)W))*}**M+n+o++h,i,--~..>>>> ?F@@WAXA B BCCDDDD[E\EF}F'GGGG2H\HH/IyIIIIFJJJKKKK/L0LMLwL`MaMMoNNOpPP QQQRRSR`S~STcT UVUU VcVVmWnWXX9[[{\p]^^____$a%aQc`cddeffghhhiijkml%mmmnBooooo&ppqqr`rrs[twt uluuu _3 Y"m:eY;c  -EFnx)tu%?@ K-"(.[ ?I$JP]L}~,sH~ _   k o  ]G/)*](j,-5z~D=]x  !!"g"""#?#v####$$$%%T&,'1'()*++2,,V- ...S/ 0!0"0#0$0<01 2 22|2>44456i667788C9D9E9::#:::;Y<f<=>>v?@ZA[A\AAB8CCD"E#EE6G7GTGGHHH IZIIIJFJqJJJKVKmKKLLL~MMMNxNN@OOOxOPPQQJRR S{STrUU3WW`XYtY?@ܒMrʔ͕3T&٘ژۘmtp,[Ȝgם |"F|}~ Q#ҨHS"#$v̰Ա@/fhr ɵrD· Gعٹ=~ʺ _ؾ[=W|}"ccOTUx<=>: ln|FEFMYA/01E8}GWXD'6.FwHe:z$s+,2F)^!VRS /*+,f&.Z Z v w   O d  qnnou)\IJK  _KS T U b    !""K#### + ,,,//00123L4657555567v:w:x:;;AAA(B)BgC|CCCCEEE)GG9H:HEHYHHIIL.MNOAPBPIP0W1W2W+[,[\^___dfQf!gJg{g-jkkk-q.q#r$r*rMyNyOy{{{O||}}s~|}~WX_ӉԉēNO yϦLDEgչ;<e0000000 00kn0n 0n 0nn 0nn 0n0n0n0n 0n 0pn 0pn 0pn 0pn 0n 0qn 0qn0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n0n 0n 0n0n0n0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0|rn 0|rn 0|rn 0n0n0n0n0n 0n 0n0n0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0zn0n0n 0n 0zn 0zn 0zn0n0n 0n0n0n0n0n0n0n 0n 0n 0n 0n0n0n0n0n0n0n 0n 0n0n 0n 0n 0 n 0 n0n0n0kn 0 0  0  0o 0 0o 0  0  0 0 00"00Y 0Y 0Y0Y0Y 0 Y 0Y 0 Y 0 Y 0Y 0Y 0Y 0HY 0HY 0Y 0Y 0Y 0Y 0Y 0Y 0Y*0 0  0 00:0 0 0 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 00 0 *0*0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 00 0 0ޣ 0 0ޣ 0ޣ 0 0 0ޣ 0ޣ 0ޣ 0ޣ 0ޣ 0ޣ 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 ޣ 0 ޣ 0 0 ޣ 0 ޣ 0 ޣ 0 0"0:0L:0L 0^ 0^ 0^0^ 0^ 0^0^0^ 0^ 0^ 0^ 0^ 0^ 0^ 0 ^ 0 ^ 0^ 0P^ 0^ 0v^ 0v^ 0^ 0^ 0^0kn 0 U 0!U 0"U 0#U 0$U 0%U 0&U*0U 0' 0( 0) 0* 0+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0G 0G 0G 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 000 0  0!0 0 00 0 000 0" 0# 0$ 0% 0 00 0 000 0& 0 0 0' 0( 0)00 000 0*0U*0U0d0d0d0d0d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0$d 0$d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d0d0d0d 0d0d 0d 0d0d0d 0d0d0d 0d0d0d0d0d0d 0d0d0d 0d0d0d 0d0d 00s0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0"00'0' 0' 0*' 0+'0'0' 0' 0,' 0-'0' "00H 0H  "0 0  0O 0  0  0 0000 000 0. 0/ 00 010 0 00 02 03 040 000 00 05 06 07 08 090 000 00 0: 0; 0< 0=0 000 00 0> 0? 0@ 0A 0B 0C0  000 00 0D 0E 0 0F0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 02 0 0  03 03 0  0)5 0)5 0)5 0)5 0)5 0)5 0)5 0)5 0  0  0  0 0*0 0G: 0G: 0:G: 0:G: 0G: 0G: 0G: 0G: 0&<G: 0&<G: 0G:0G:0G: 0G: 0G:0G: 0GG: 0HG: 0G: 0G:0G: 0G: 0G:0G: 0IG: 0JG: 0G: 0G:0s 0WE 0WE 0WE 0FWE 0WE 0FWE 0FWE 0FWE 0WE0WE0WE 0GWE 0GWE*0WE0;I0;I0;I 0;I 0;I0;I0;I 0;I 0;I 0K;I 0K;I 0K;I 0M;I 0M;I 0M;I 0M;I0;I 0 ;I 0O;I 0O;I 0 ;I 0mQ;I 0 ;I0;I0;I0;I 0|R;I 0|R;I0;I0;I 0;I 0;I0;I0;I 0K;I 0L;I 0|R;I 0|R;I 0M;I 0;I 0;I0;I 0;I0;I0;I 0N;I 0O;I 0b;I 0b;I 0P;I 0Q;I0;I 0;ID 0;I0;I 0;I0;I 0R;I 0S;I 0T;I0;I 0U;I 0V;I 0W;I 0|R;I 0;ID 0;I*0WE 0m 0mm 0mm 0m 0nm 0m 0\om 0\om 0\om 0\om 0\om 0\om 0m 0rm 0rm 0rm 0rm 0rm0m0m 0m 0m 0Xm0m 0m 0xm 0xm 0xm 0m 0zm 0zm 0m 0m0m0m0m0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m0m 0m 0m 0m 0m0m 0m 0m0m 0 m 0m 0m0m0m 0m 0m0m0m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0?m 0m 0?m 0?m 0?m 0 m 0m 0m0m 0m 0m 0Ym 0Zm 0[m0m0m 0\m 0]m 0m 0m 0m 0^m 0m 0m0m 0m 0m0m 0_m0m 0`m 0am 0m 0m0m0m 0m 0m0m0m 0m *0WE 0a 0a 0a0a 0a 0a 0¢a 0a 0¢a 0a 0aB 0a 0  0? 0 0  0   0z  0{ 0  0}  0  0~  0  0  0  0 0  0  0 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 0  0  0  0  0 0  0  0  00 0 0 0= 0= 0 0 0e 0 0 0 0" 0 0Ż 0׻ 0׻ 0Ż 0Ż00 0 0 0 0 0 0Ŀ 0Ŀ 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0  00 0  0! 0W 0W 0W 0 0 0 0Y 0Y 0Y 0fY 0fY 0Y 0\Y 0\Y 0Y0Y 0Y0Y 0Y0Y 0Y 0Y 0Y 0&Y 0&Y 0&Y 0&Y 0cY0Y 0"Y 0Y 0Y 0VY 0$Y 0Y 0%Y 06Y 06Y 06Y0Y" 0Y" 0Y" 0Y0Y0Y"00 :0  0- 0- 0- 0-"00 0 :0  0x 0x 0x 0x0x0x0x0x 0x 0x 0x0x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` H 0a H0 H0 H0 H0 H 0b H0 H0 H0 H0 H0 H0 H0 H0 H0 H0 H 0c H 0d H 0e H0 H 0Q H0 H! 0 H0 H0 H0 H! 0 H! 0 H 0f H 0 H 0 H0 H 0 H  0 H 0 H 0V H 0 H 0V H 0V H 0V H 0V H 0 H 0 H 0V H 0V H 0V H 0 H 0 H 0 H0 H 0 H  0h H0 H0 H0 H0 H 0i H 0j H 0k H 0l H 0 H 0 H:0 H 0mc 0nc 0oc 0pc0c:0 H 0q|g 0r|g 0s|g 0t|g"0B" 0k" 0k0k0k 0k " 0k" 0k" 0k" 0k0k0k 0jk 0jk 0jk 0jk0k# 0k0k" 0eok" 0eok" 0eok" 0eok" 0eok" 0eok0k$ 0k$ 0k 0k  0 0& 0v& 0v& 0v& 0.wv& 0.wv& 0wv& 0wv& 0.wv& 0.wv& 0v& 0mxv& 0v& 0v& 0v& 0v0v0v 0v & 0{v& 0 v& 0.|v& 0.|v& 0 v& 0}v& 0}v& 0 v0v& 04~v0v& 04~v& 04~v& 04~v& 0 v& 0 v 0v & 0v& 0v& 0v& 0v0v0v 0v & 0v& 0v0v 0v 0v0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v0v 0v 0v0v 0v 0v20v0& 0& 0& 0& 00& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0000 0 00& 0& 0& 00& 0& 0& 0&& 0&& 0&& 0 0 0:0v& 0 P0P0P& 0!P& 0"P& 0#P0P0P 0P & 0$P& 0%P0P 0P 0P0P 0P 0P& 0&P& 0'P& 0P& 0(P& 0)P0P0P& 0 P& 0+P0P& 0,P& 0-P& 0/P 0P 0P0P& 00P& 0MP& 0MP0P 0& 02 & 03 & 04 & 05 & 06 ( 0 & 0 ( 0 & 0 & 07 0 & 08 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0۰ & 09 & 0 & 0: & 0V & 0Ҳ & 0Ҳ & 0V & 0W 0 0 00& 0V& 0F& 0F& 0;0& 0& 0& 0& 00000& 0& 00) 0) 00) 0) 0) 0f) 0f) 0) 0f) 0) 000 0 & 0=0& 0>& 0?& 0@0 0 00 0 0& 0B& 0C& 0D& 0A& 00& 0E& 0F& 0G& 0& 0& 00 0 00 0 0) 0) 0) 0') 0') 0 00 0 00) 0 ) 0 000) 0 00 0 0) 0) 0) 000 0 000 ) 0) 0@) 0@) 0A) 0B) 0;B) 0;A) 0B) 0@) 0@) 0A) 0A) 0A) 0A) 0A) 0A) 0A) 0@0@) 0A) 0A) 0A) 0A) 0A) 0A) 0A) 0A) 000 0 0& 0H& 0J0& 0K& 0L0 0 00 0 0& 0M& 0N0& 0O@& 0PA& 0& 0& 00 0 00 0 & 0Q0& 0R& 0S& 0& 0& 0& 0& 00 0 00 0 0& 0U& 0V0& 0W& 0X& 0Y& 0Z& 0[& 0\0 0 00) 0) 0000000 0) 00000) 00000 0 0& 0^& 0_& 0X0& 0a& 0b& 0c& 0d& 0e& 0f& 0g 0 00 0 & 0i0& 0j& 0k0 0 00 0 000& 0m& 0n0 0 00 @) 0#) 0") 0$) 0H) 0H) 0$ ) 0H) 0H* 0* 0"@0@0 @0 @007qA& 0ʑ07sʑ0 7s07sA& 0@& 0$@& 0$@0 @0 @0 @0 007Q1^007P007N@0 @0 ‘07@0 @0 @0 @0 ‘07@0 @0 @& 0$ʑ0"7]#^ʑ0"7\ʑ0"7[ʑ0"7Z@0 @0 "@00)7L0)7J"@0ʑ0.7Iʑ0.7G@0‘0j6T097A017I2L^097A097?06@0 @0 097A@0 @0 097C@0 @0 0;7B<^0;7A0;7?@0 @0 0B7>C(^0B7=0B7;0B79@0@0@0@0 @0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0 @0A& 0@0 @0 @0 @0 @00X7@Y^0X7?0X7>@& 0$A& 00B76@0 @0 0`7"@0@0 @0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 ʑ0j7k^@0_/@0_/00000 00$00#‘014$‘01‘0100@0 0000 0~0)0~0&0000‘01$‘01‘010000 0 %%%(q    0XOpA2"R P!"0$% ''](7*h+,:--V/0124)5s67:9*;;s<=>??@ACCRE_FHHIrJK!LkMiNNOPRRSUVKWWYYZk[\(]]v^__`a+bb;dee/fgh+iiQjlmfnDopJrstMuuwwLx9yz{|߃։4tؠWYAx@E9BV U m6:mL!#%'(+.P1o3357E9:>IADFXIKZM3PSVRZ^`peginqluwiz}#1~ύ=+LĽ2_>=( G=,!"'+T."14!8|:DAC^IKQTLVWUZ_Gegkm ruTz^~-ȓU3| Ұ$hW%]UlW; Y;? xK !$_'L)K+-148K<=wB[DH0JNYPTW\_)bgjzoqs@ACEGIJLNPRUVX[]_`bdgikmnprtuwy{}   !#&')+-/14679<?x-H]lr{~~~~~~߃։֓XΞf;,,+J(r487 +g#$'(./M3h47E9> EF J[MOFRpX^{d$inqBwyn1N&*q=Yp$3o>3"P}s ,!z#'g*,,/ 8 :<CABE\I Q~UOW3_*e(f-hllRosD{^~<3ܚץH"ԹUlYEe+R& K $%S(*0 46<=VACFI|KMRBX1_+cglsu#z}ԁ܄}p_KND~;Td &>V_abcdefikmoqsuvy{~   #%')+-/13579=?BDFHKMOQSTWYZ\^acefhjloqsvxz|~   "$%(*,.02358:;=>@cg/KMNPp_{}~'r*,-/O^z}~   3 6 7 9 Y ( + , . N i r!=@ACc4.JMNPp  0?[^_a ),-/OWsvwy 1!$%'G 6 9 : < \ !""""9"q""""""g######$$$$$$$%%%%;%V%r%u%v%x%%&' ' ' ','((((((B)^)a)b)d))))))))****+ +,,,,,,0.L.O.P.R.r.//////0000001:1=1>1@1`13+3.3/313Q34 4#4$4&4F4X4t4w4x4z44555556666666M7i7l7m7o777777778*8-8.808P8888888>9Z9]9^9`999::::&::; ; ; ;,;;;;;;<7=S=V=W=Y=y=>>Z>]>^>`>>?@@@@'@@@AAA#AKAgAjAkAmAA1BMBPBQBSBsBBBBBBCCCCCCCD"D%D&D(DHDPElEoEpErEENFjFmFnFpFFFFGGG#GAG]G`GaGcGGGGGGGGHHHHHIJJ!J"J$JDJKKKKKKLLLLLLjMMMMMMMMMMMN O&O)O*O,OLOuOOOOOOPPPPPPqQQQQQQgRRRRRRS5S8S9S;S[SjTTTTTTTTTTTUnUUUUUU5VQVTVUVWVwVVVVVVVVWWWW4WWWWWWWhXXXXXXeYYYYYYYZ Z Z Z,Z9ZUZXZYZ[Z{Z4[P[S[T[V[v[<\X\[\\\^\~\]]] ]"]B]]]]]]]] ^ ^^^0^^____5__````7`+aGaJaKaMama{aaaaaaaaaaabc/c2c3c5cUcd!d$d%d'dGd|eeeeeeKfgfjfkfmffgg g!g#gCggggggg ioZo]o^o`oo p'p*p+p-pMpvpppppp:qVqYqZq\qEd X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%X%̕X !(!!8@(  J  # "?B S  ?6dt  _Hlt373954196 _Hlt373954197 _Toc373855687 _Toc373923625 _Toc373855688 _Toc373923626 _Toc353698033 _Toc373855689 _Toc373923627 _Toc373855690 _Toc373923628 _Toc373855691 _Toc373923629 _Toc373855692 _Toc373923630 _Toc373855693 _Toc373923631 _Toc373855694 _Toc373923632 _Toc373855695 _Toc373923633 _Toc373855696 _Toc373923634 _Toc373855697 _Toc373923635 _Toc373855698 _Toc373923636 _Toc373855699 _Toc373923637 _Toc373855700 _Toc373923638 _Toc373855701 _Toc373923639 _Toc373855702 _Toc373923640 _Toc373855703 _Toc373923641 _Toc373855704 _Toc373923642 _Toc373855705 _Toc373923643 _Toc373855706 _Toc373923644 _Toc373855707 _Toc373923645 _Toc373855708 _Toc373923646 _Toc373855709 _Toc373923647 _Toc373855710 _Toc373923648 _Toc373855711 _Toc373923649 _Toc373855712 _Toc373923650 _Toc373855713 _Toc373923651 _Toc373855714 _Toc373923652 _Toc373855715 _Toc373923653 _Toc373855716 _Toc373923654 _Toc373855717 _Toc373923655 _Toc373855718 _Toc373923656 _Toc373855719 _Toc373923657 _Toc373855720 _Toc373923658 _Toc373855721 _Toc373923659 _Toc373855722 _Toc373923660 _Toc373855723 _Toc373923661 _Toc373855724 _Toc373923662 _Toc373855725 _Toc373923663 _Toc373855726 _Toc373923664 _Toc373855727 _Toc373923665 _Toc373855728 _Toc373923666 _Toc373855729 _Toc373923667 _Toc373855730 _Toc373923668 _Toc373855731 _Toc373923669 _Toc373855732 _Toc373923670 _Toc373855733 _Toc373923671 _Toc373855734 _Toc373923672 _Toc373855735 _Toc373923673 _Toc373855736 _Toc373923674 _Toc373855737 _Toc373923675 _Toc373855738 _Toc373923676 _Toc373855739 _Toc373923677 _Toc373855740 _Toc373923678 _Toc373855741 _Toc373923679 _Toc373855742 _Toc373923680 _Toc373855743 _Toc373923681 _Toc373855744 _Toc373923682 _Toc373855745 _Toc373923683 _Toc373855746 _Toc373923684 _Toc373855747 _Toc373923685 _Toc373855748 _Toc373923686 _Toc373855749 _Toc373923687 _Toc373855750 _Toc373923688 _Toc373855751 _Toc373923689 _Toc373855752 _Toc373923690 _Toc373855753 _Toc373923691 _Toc373855754 _Toc373923692 _Toc373855755 _Toc373923693 _Toc373855756 _Toc373923694 _Toc373855757 _Toc373923695 _Toc373855758 _Toc373923696 _Toc373855759 _Toc373923697 _Toc373855760 _Toc373923698 _Toc373855761 _Toc373923699 _Toc373855762 _Toc373923700 _Toc373855763 _Toc373923701 _Toc373855764 _Toc373923702 _Toc373855765 _Toc373923703 _Toc373855766 _Toc373923704 _Toc373855767 _Toc373923705 _Toc373855768 _Toc373923706 _Toc373855769 _Toc373923707 _Toc373855770 _Toc373923708 _Toc373855771 _Toc373923709 _Toc373855772 _Toc373923710 _Toc373855773 _Toc373923711 _Toc373855774 _Toc373923712 _Toc373855775 _Toc373923713 _Toc373855776 _Toc373923714 _Toc373855777 _Toc373923715 _Toc373855778 _Toc373923716 _Toc373855779 _Toc373923717 _Toc373855780 _Toc373923718 _Toc373855781 _Toc373923719 _Toc373855782 _Toc373923720 _Toc373855783 _Toc373923721 _Toc373855784 _Toc373923722 _Toc373855785 _Toc373923723 _Toc373855786 _Toc373923724 _Toc373855787 _Toc373923725 _Toc373855788 _Toc373923726 _Toc373855789 _Toc373923727 _Toc373855790 _Toc373923728 _Toc373855791 _Toc373923729 _Toc373855792 _Toc373923730 _Toc373855793 _Toc373923731 _Toc373855794 _Toc373923732 _Toc373855795 _Toc373923733 _Toc373855796 _Toc373923734 _Toc373855797 _Toc373923735 _Toc373855798 _Toc373923736 _Toc373855799 _Toc373923737 _Toc373855800 _Toc373923738 _Toc246472631 _Toc373855801 _Toc373923739 _Toc373855802 _Toc373923740 _Toc373855803 _Toc373923741 _Toc373855804 _Toc373923742 _Toc373855805 _Toc373923743 _Toc373855806 _Toc373923744 _Toc373855807 _Toc373923745 _Toc373855808 _Toc373923746 _Toc373855809 _Toc373923747 _Toc373855810 _Toc373923748 _Toc373855811 _Toc373923749 _Toc373855812 _Toc373923750 _Toc373855813 _Toc373923751 _Toc373855814 _Toc373923752 _Toc373855815 _Toc373923753 _Toc373855816 _Toc373923754 _Toc373855817 _Toc373923755 _Toc373855818 _Toc373923756TT^q^q}q}qxxxցց BBHHhhmmOO<<..@@,,LL""++((::VV    33ii&&++//==XAXADDGGKKnWnW__hhooww,,""  rr55,,qq    --FF))**--!!##$0$011E9E9\A\A7G7GLLLL,],].c.cjjmmkqkq=r=r{{@@ۘۘ~~ٹٹUU>>XXss,,w w KKU U Q)** + +8585x:x:AAEEOOYY.j.j/q/qzzēēççe@@  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~   TT|q|qqqxyyhhGGoo>>EE@@''443377UUpp    11  ''g,g,D1D1D=D= B BZEZE1H1HKKXX#a#aiiooxxoo&&##EEdd  ^^,,DDssJJ''''""$$;0;0 2 299AAKGSGLLRM}M]'^kdkdjj-n-n}q}qrCs{{''22CC**QQ  mm a a ~) + + , ,55;;'B'BEE@P@P*[*[jk"r"r{{VV҉ÓÓMMCCeWWhXXeYYY Z9ZYZ4[T[<\\\] ]]]]^^__`+aKa{aaaac3cd%d|eeKfkfg!ggg i@iJjjjkkll2mRmmmn o>o^o p+pvpp:qZq==??@@BCEFHIQT_`beWWhXXeYYY Z9ZYZ4[T[<\\\] ]]]]^^__`+aKa{aaaac3cd%d|eeKfkfg!ggg i@iJjjjkkll2mRmmmn o>o^o p+pvpp:qZq==??@@BCEFHIQT_beWWhXXeYYY Z9ZYZ4[T[<\\\] ]]]]^^__`+aKa{aaaac3cd%d|eeKfkfg!ggg i@iJjjjkkll2mRmmmn o>o^o p+pvpp:qZq==??@@BCEFHIbe1h&! y2vQ0L8V3nt3d((p ,Wܸ" @  $! \'|_TzΨNR)HT:L^= n h0W!$!\(y-R"b(.v>D>.irufp4:K}6@AA],pAv.[3BF \B&t}CVYY6yWDr>I!\>}I2 T#K d|/LDS7 O0y[P8  ?URZ6_EwSh:ZUU X_ WVL~kW*}W=jF}mY`\`M\$P"1 ':^*j<m`P~h ^nl`dnsԬI =$u(rH%v!(v&;B ^`OJQJo(^`^Jo(.pLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J. ^`OJQJo(^`^Jo(. p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(opLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`o()L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J.h^`OJQJo(hH   ^ `hH.  L ^ `LhH. xx^x`hH. HH^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`OJQJo(^`^Jo(. p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o pLp^p`LOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(op^p`^Jo(. @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`RH^Jo(. ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`^Jo(.pLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J.^`OJPJQJRHo(-^`OJPJQJ^J) pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`^J.pLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(opLp^p`L^J)@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J.h$ $ ^$ `OJQJo(hH   ^ `OJQJo(oL^`L^J.^`^J.dd^d`o()4L4^4`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.  ^ `OJQJo( `^``OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(o ` ^` `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo(^`OJQJRHo( ^`OJQJo(opp^p`^Jo(. @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo(^`OJPJQJRHo(- ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h^`OJQJRHo(hH^`OJPJQJ^J) pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(pLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J. ^`OJQJo(^`^Jo(. 0 ^ `0o() @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(h ^`o(hH. p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`^Jo(.pLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J. ^`OJQJo(^`^Jo(. p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJo( `^``OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(  ^ `OJQJo(o ` ^` `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo(^`OJQJRHo( ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo(^`OJPJQJRHo(- ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hHoh  ^ `OJQJo(hHhxx^x`OJQJo(hHhHH^H`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(ohpp^p`OJQJo(hH @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(oh$ $ ^$ `OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `^J.^`o()L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(pLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J.p0p^p`0o()   ^ `hH.  L ^ `LhH. xx^x`hH. HH^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`OJPJQJRHo(-h^`OJQJRHo(hH pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hH^`^J.pLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(opLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hH^`^J.pLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(opLp^p`L^J.@ @ ^@ `^J.^`^J.L^`L^J.^`^J.^`^J.PLP^P`L^J.h^`OJQJRHo(hH^`OJPJQJ^J) pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(^`OJPJQJo(- ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o p^p`OJQJo( @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o P^P`OJQJo(1 WV ':^>}IN y_EwS3 \BH%v(v@AAK}6$! " }C(y-Q0~hT#K ?URV3`M\<m`6yWD[3BhF}mYD>.7 Ob(.|_p ^ufp4y[P}WH>I,pA?~kW  !$ns =$unln  |/LZUU11                      \P                                                                   f^                                      \P          f   ^                           6t)                                                                  f                        \P             zp        fLȲ                                                                                         ^       2X                                   XzR:><f0 slp4.(gX ] j y  GP $ E Zn  4e?UV2Cj| *xP?JV.[17d0^X7Em(m_d7yA`: R& O W !""."#`")#0M#U#Z#/% 7%T&1(X(*b*[*Ql*L,%6-b-r-x$.4.m/ 11 013[4p*6^Q6 7NZ7q}7/v8<<{<8=#4=oB>(s>9y><`?Cp? @>@A}5A5Ce6C:CxD'Dr*DK*E0FGxGG[lHM*InIeJ xJTK7L@MYNwN)PCUPsPrARARmS$T UU$(U|V:Y66Yd[w\ ] Q]MZ] j]^m;_>`_`faF aW%aDaibb?ۘ|}~"#U<=>EF/0Xs+,RS*+,noIJK  S T  + ,,65758555v:w:x:;;AAA(B)BEEOAPBP0W1WY+[,[__.jkk-q.q/q#r$rNyOyz{{}~WXӉԉēNOçDE;<e@d@@UnknownG:Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Cx Arial7&@Calibri;Wingdings7@Cambria5& >[`)Tahoma?5 :Cx Courier New"1hVG)7%gl+l+qnx4dVV 2QHP ?kh2LAW 325: CONFLICT OF LAWSVeronicaVeronica1                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 Oh+'0  , L X d p|LAW 325: CONFLICT OF LAWS VeronicaNormal Veronica17Microsoft Office Word@zI@*&v@,L@Rl+՜.+,D՜.+,H hp  ToshibaV' LAW 325: CONFLICT OF LAWS Title\* 8@ _PID_HLINKSA*rSMhttp://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/168_2009_005_Toc3739237565_Toc3739237555_Toc3739237545_Toc3739237535_Toc3739237525_Toc3739237515_Toc3739237505_Toc3739237495_Toc3739237485_Toc3739237475_Toc3739237465_Toc3739237455_Toc3739237445_Toc3739237435_Toc3739237425_Toc3739237415_Toc3739237405_Toc3739237395_Toc3739237385_Toc3739237375_Toc3739237365_Toc3739237355_Toc3739237345_Toc3739237335_Toc3739237325~_Toc3739237315x_Toc3739237305r_Toc3739237295l_Toc3739237285f_Toc3739237275`_Toc3739237265Z_Toc3739237255T_Toc3739237245N_Toc3739237235H_Toc3739237225B_Toc3739237215<_Toc37392372056_Toc37392371950_Toc3739237185*_Toc3739237175$_Toc3739237165_Toc3739237155_Toc3739237145_Toc3739237135 _Toc3739237125_Toc3739237115_Toc3739237105_Toc3739237095_Toc3739237085_Toc3739237075_Toc3739237065_Toc3739237055_Toc3739237045_Toc3739237035_Toc3739237025_Toc3739237015_Toc3739237004_Toc3739236994_Toc3739236984_Toc3739236974_Toc3739236964_Toc3739236954_Toc3739236944_Toc3739236934_Toc3739236924_Toc3739236914_Toc3739236904_Toc3739236894|_Toc3739236884v_Toc3739236874p_Toc3739236864j_Toc3739236854d_Toc3739236844^_Toc3739236834X_Toc3739236824R_Toc3739236814L_Toc3739236804F_Toc3739236794@_Toc3739236784:_Toc37392367744_Toc3739236764._Toc3739236754(_Toc3739236744"_Toc3739236734_Toc3739236724_Toc3739236714_Toc3739236704 _Toc3739236694_Toc3739236684_Toc3739236674_Toc3739236664_Toc3739236654_Toc3739236644_Toc3739236634_Toc3739236624_Toc3739236614_Toc3739236604_Toc3739236594_Toc3739236584_Toc3739236574_Toc3739236564_Toc3739236554_Toc3739236544_Toc3739236534_Toc3739236524_Toc3739236514_Toc3739236504_Toc3739236494_Toc3739236484_Toc3739236474_Toc3739236464z_Toc3739236454t_Toc3739236444n_Toc3739236434h_Toc3739236424b_Toc3739236414\_Toc3739236404V_Toc3739236394P_Toc3739236384J_Toc3739236374D_Toc3739236364>_Toc37392363548_Toc37392363442_Toc3739236334,_Toc3739236324&_Toc3739236314 _Toc3739236304_Toc3739236294_Toc3739236284_Toc3739236274_Toc3739236264_Toc373923625  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ACDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"$%&'()*,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ORoot Entry F"QData B1Table(WordDocument7SummaryInformation(#DocumentSummaryInformation8++CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q