Thread: Non-isolated grounds and neutrals

I thought I saw a conversation not to far back about not allowing a ground and a neutral sharing the same tap. What's the problem with this? If it is a problem, I can't find any code pertaining to this...

Similar Threads:

• Condo #2 Grounds/Neutals
• condo - grounds / neutrals
• Equipment grounds to panel
• Multiple neutrals under same lug
• Grounds and Neutrals

This was in the instruction label normally inside the panel that allowed grounding conductors to share a hole in the buss. Grounded conductors were required to be one per hole. This was added to the NEC in recent editions so that the info was more available and enforceable.

If the screw were loose you would loose both the return path for current as well as the fault clearing ability should a hot contact a metallic surface.

From the 2006 IRC

E3606.4 Grounded conductor terminations.

Each grounded
conductor shall terminate within the panelboard on an individual
terminal that is not also used for another conductor, except
that grounded conductors of circuits with parallel conductors
shall be permitted to terminate on a single terminal where the

terminal is identified for connection of more than one conductor

Regardless of the double tapping issue I dont think this is proper at all. Distrbution grounds and neutrals should not be bonded together. Exception is at the service entrance where the neutral conductor and the system ground conductor(to water pipe etc) is bonded. Not allowed to bond in the distrbution side of the box.

Originally Posted by Doug P Jones

Regardless of the double tapping issue I dont think this is proper at all.

With the exception you noted, which is perfectly okay.

Exception is at the service entrance where the neutral conductor and the system ground conductor(to water pipe etc) is bonded.

.

Not allowed to bond in the distrbution side of the box.

That is confusing.

I believe you mean it IS allow, in fact required, to bond *IN* the distribution *side* of the box, implying that you are talking about the service equipment enclosure.

It would be better stated as not allowed to bond the neutral and grounds downstream (after) "the service equipment", meaning that "in the service equipment box" ("in the service equipment enclosure").

ALL grounds and neutrals *IN* that enclosure are required to be bonded to ground. Once you leave that enclosure, then *NOPE* not allowed.

Originally Posted by Doug P Jones

Regardless of the double tapping issue I dont think this is proper at all. Distrbution grounds and neutrals should not be bonded together. Exception is at the service entrance where the neutral conductor and the system ground conductor(to water pipe etc) is bonded. Not allowed to bond in the distrbution side of the box.

Doug, that is a Canadian rule only. Be aware of the many differences while reading these message boards. In the US, they can use the same bus , I think, if the panel has the service coming in to it.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Doug, that is a Canadian rule only. Be aware of the many differences while reading these message boards. In the US, they can use the same bus , I think, if the panel has the service coming in to it.

John,

I'm confused.

Here in the states, yes, the neutral is bonded to ground at the service equipment and at the service equipment only.

Is it different up there? And what is different?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

John,

I'm confused.

Here in the states, yes, the neutral is bonded to ground at the service equipment and at the service equipment only.

Is it different up there? And what is different?

Maybe I'm confused too.
We install a separate bus for the grounding wires in the service panel. The neutral bus carrys only the white wires, whether it is bonded or not. But I'm no expert.

Perhaps I am also confused or just plane wrong... or it is different in Canada.

I always understood that distribution grounds and neutrals had to be kept separated, meaning on different terminal blocks and no connection between them. The only bonding between white and ground happens right at the service entrance and not allowed anywhere else. But feel free to set me straight.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

From the 2006 IRC

E3606.4 Grounded conductor terminations. Each grounded
conductor shall terminate within the panelboard on an individual
terminal that is not also used for another conductor, except
that grounded conductors of circuits with parallel conductors
shall be permitted to terminate on a single terminal where the

terminal is identified for connection of more than one conductor

JP: I cannot find the corresponding NEC citation.

Originally Posted by Doug P Jones

Perhaps I am also confused or just plane wrong... or it is different in Canada.

I always understood that distribution grounds and neutrals had to be kept separated, meaning on different terminal blocks and no connection between them. The only bonding between white and ground happens right at the service entrance and not allowed anywhere else. But feel free to set me straight.

DJ: They do not require separation at the main distribution panelboard, but thereafter at the remote distribution panelboards.

They may not require "separation" as in different bus bars but each grounded conductor needs its own screw.

Here's my doubled neutral comment:
-----------

The problem(s) discovered in the main electric panel such as
· Yada, yada
· more than one "grounded conductor" (neutral /white) wire per screw on the neutral bus bar (double tapped/lugged) Each "grounded conductor" is supposed to have its very own screw on the bus bar, no other "grounded conductor" or "equipment grounding conductor" (bare copper wire) should be under the screw with the "grounded conductor".
{Some electricians (who haven't done their homework) will tell you that it is OK to have more than one neutral (white) wire under a screw on the bus bar. They are wrong. It has long (at least as far back as 1967) been required by manufacturer's instructions and Underwriters Laboratories Standard 67 for panelboards. See this link for a narrative description of the reason for single neutral wire - single screw. Double Lugged Neutral Narrative Also see this link for a visual interpretation. Double Lugged Neutrals Visual}. Ensure the electrician is familiar with UL Standard 67 requirements [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']· yada, yada
· and this one too?
and any other problems that an electrician may discover while performing repairs need correcting. I recommend that you have a licensed electrician repair these issues.
============

Some electricians (who haven't done their homework) will tell you that it is OK to have more than one neutral (white) wire under a screw on the bus bar. They are wrong. It has long (at least as far back as 1967) been required by manufacturer's instructions and Underwriters Laboratories Standard 67 for panelboards. See this link for a narrative description of the reason for single neutral wire - single screw. Double Lugged Neutral Narrative Also see this link for a visual interpretation. Double Lugged Neutrals Visual. Ensure the electrician is familiar with UL Standard 67 requirements

EC: Nice comment, now hijacked by me.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Maybe I'm confused too.
We install a separate bus for the grounding wires in the service panel. The neutral bus carrys only the white wires, whether it is bonded or not. But I'm no expert.

John,

Question: Is the neutral bonded to ground at the service equipment as Doug stated below?

Originally Posted by Doug P Jones

Perhaps I am also confused or just plane wrong... or it is different in Canada.

I always understood that distribution grounds and neutrals had to be kept separated, meaning on different terminal blocks and no connection between them. The only bonding between white and ground happens right at the service entrance and not allowed anywhere else. But feel free to set me straight.

Doug,

Sounds like the only thing you are stating which is different than what I am stating is that the neutrals and ground must be on DIFFERENT terminal buses EVEN IN the service equipment, where they are BONDED TOGETHER.

In which case, if they are bonded together, why is there is requirement to keep them on different buses in the service equipment.

Here, they can be on the same bus (what better way to "bond them together"?), but in separate TERMINALS ... not sure if that is what your electrical code says ... separate TERMINALS ... not separate buses?

It sounds to me like we are close to saying the same thing, with that one point of what-does-it-say - separate terminals or separate buses.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

From the 2006 IRC

E3606.4 Grounded conductor terminations. Each grounded
conductor shall terminate within the panelboard on an individual
terminal that is not also used for another conductor, except
that grounded conductors of circuits with parallel conductors
shall be permitted to terminate on a single terminal where the

terminal is identified for connection of more than one conductor

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: I cannot find the corresponding NEC citation.

From the 2008 NEC.
- 408.41 Grounded Conductor Terminations.
- - Each grounded conductor shall terminate within the panelboard in an individual terminal that is not also used for another conductor.
- - - Exception: Grounded conductors of circuits with parallel conductors shall be permitted to terminate in a single terminal if the terminal is identified for connection of more than one conductor.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

DJ: They do not require separation at the main distribution panelboard, but thereafter at the remote distribution panelboards.

Yes, they do.

There you go again, trying to keep using that term "main" distribution panelboard and there it goes again causing confusion.

Aaron, trying NOT using that term "main" and see what your answer would be, such as: "They do not require separation at the distribution panelboard, but thereafter at the remote distribution panelboards."

If you stated that, you would KNOW that it was wrong, correct.?

However, as soon as you through that word "main" in there, you get confused, seems to happen to everyone who insists on using "main" and it partner in crime "sub".

There are two types to remember: 1) "service equipment"; 2) not service equipment, i.e., "panels", "distribution panels", "loadcenters".

Now say what you said with the correct term and you will be correct: 'They do not require separation at the SERVICE EQUIPMENT, but thereafter at the panelboards.'

In fact, in stead of saying "They do not require separation at the service equipment", the more correct way to say it would be "They REQUIRE bonding together at the service equipment." One statement implies that while they are not required to be separated, *they may be separated* there - which is completely in correct.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yes, they do.

There you go again, trying to keep using that term "main" distribution panelboard and there it goes again causing confusion.

Aaron, trying NOT using that term "main" and see what your answer would be, such as: "They do not require separation at the distribution panelboard, but thereafter at the remote distribution panelboards."

If you stated that, you would KNOW that it was wrong, correct.?

However, as soon as you through that word "main" in there, you get confused, seems to happen to everyone who insists on using "main" and it partner in crime "sub".

There are two types to remember: 1) "service equipment"; 2) not service equipment, i.e., "panels", "distribution panels", "loadcenters".

Now say what you said with the correct term and you will be correct: 'They do not require separation at the SERVICE EQUIPMENT, but thereafter at the panelboards.'

In fact, in stead of saying "They do not require separation at the service equipment", the more correct way to say it would be "They REQUIRE bonding together at the service equipment." One statement implies that while they are not required to be separated, *they may be separated* there - which is completely in correct.

JP: 98% of the installations in my service area consist of only a main distribution panelboard. And that is what it is called in the NEC. It is not the meter socket and it is not a remote distribution panelboard, so that is all there is left.

The term "load center", though perhaps an official one, draws blank stares from all, inlcuding some "electricians".

By the say, I did not use the term "sub" in any shape form or fashion. I may apply it to you is some manner though, if you do not stop harping about this non issue. Crankier and crankier you become with each new white hair . . .

If there is not a "John Doe Jr", then there is no need to have a "John Doe Sr".

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

If there is not a "John Doe Jr", then there is no need to have a "John Doe Sr".

RC: And if there is a Sr., you cannot just skip right over to the III.

Originally Posted by Erby Crofutt

They may not require "separation" as in different bus bars but each grounded conductor needs its own screw.

Here's my doubled neutral comment:
-----------

The problem(s) discovered in the main electric panel such as
· Yada, yada
· more than one "grounded conductor" (neutral /white) wire per screw on the neutral bus bar (double tapped/lugged) Each "grounded conductor" is supposed to have its very own screw on the bus bar, no other "grounded conductor" or "equipment grounding conductor" (bare copper wire) should be under the screw with the "grounded conductor".
{Some electricians (who haven't done their homework) will tell you that it is OK to have more than one neutral (white) wire under a screw on the bus bar. They are wrong. It has long (at least as far back as 1967) been required by manufacturer's instructions and Underwriters Laboratories Standard 67 for panelboards. See this link for a narrative description of the reason for single neutral wire - single screw. Double Lugged Neutral Narrative Also see this link for a visual interpretation. Double Lugged Neutrals Visual}. Ensure the electrician is familiar with UL Standard 67 requirements [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']· yada, yada
· and this one too?
and any other problems that an electrician may discover while performing repairs need correcting. I recommend that you have a licensed electrician repair these issues.
============

Not true in the slightest. I have posted pictures on panels and there info tags in those panels where it states for a fact that you can have more than one neutral wire under the same screw as long as it is of the same size and particular size. Ground screws the same thing. I believe that that pic and info was for the main service panel. There was a remote panel that they messed up slightly but the main panel was fine.

For whom ever wishes, don't give me the technical jargon for all the panel names...... Been over that too many times and yes I undestand, you are right...feel better now

You cannot make such a blatant statement that handles every panel type. I think the last picture I posted of the info was a Square D but I will have to check.

Edit here. Ground and neutral wires under the same screw on the same bar.....NO.

I have posted pictures on panels and there info tags in those panels where it states for a fact that you can have more than one neutral wire under the same screw as long as it is of the same size and particular size. Ground screws the same thing.

TM: Post them again please.

TM:

408.41 Grounded Conductor Terminations.
Each grounded conductor shall terminate within the panelboard in an individual terminal that is not also used for another conductor.
In accordance with their listing and the requirement of 110.14(A), conductor terminations are suitable for a single conductor unless the terminal is marked or otherwise identified as suitable for more than one conductor. This requirement applies to the termination of grounded conductors in panelboards. The use of a single termination point within a panelboard to connect more than one grounded conductor or to connect a grounded conductor and an equipment grounding conductor can be problematic when it is necessary to isolate a particular grounded conductor for testing purposes. For example, if the grounded conductors of two branch circuits were terminated at a single connection point and it were necessary to isolate one branch circuit for the purposes of troubleshooting, the fact that the circuit not being tested remained energized could create an unsafe working condition for service personnel disconnecting the grounded conductor of the circuit being tested. In some cases, panelboard instructions are provided that permit the use of a single conductor termination for more than one equipment grounding conductor. See 408.40 for the requirements on panelboard terminations for grounded and equipment grounding conductors.
Exception: Grounded conductors of circuits with parallel conductors shall be permitted to terminate in a single terminal if the terminal is identified for connection of more than one conductor.

I'm looking, I'm looking

Trust me. I have even begun to check old threads from last year. They are there some where/ I'll find them.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

I'm looking, I'm looking

Trust me. I have even begun to check old threads from last year. They are there some where/ I'll find them.

TM: Relax. I know they exist, I just have not run across one recently.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: 98% of the installations in my service area consist of only a main distribution panelboard. And that is what it is called in the NEC. It is not the meter socket and it is not a remote distribution panelboard, so that is all there is left.

Quite incorrect.

The NEC *does not* call it a "MAIN distribution panelboard".

The NEC *does* call that "SERVICE EQUIPMENT".

Look it up.

The term "load center", though perhaps an official one, draws blank stares from all, inlcuding some "electricians".

I agree, which is why I only occasionally use it here, and only when discussing why there are no "sub" thingys and no "main" thingys.

By the say, I did not use the term "sub" in any shape form or fashion.

Excellent!

Now just stop using the word "main" as it does not exit with regard to panels either.

What you are describing that you see all the time is "service equipment", and, yes, it has a "panelboard" section in it, but "main" does not come into play at all, and what you are looking at is "service equipment" ... whether or not there is a "panelboard" in that same enclosure.

The neutral IS NOT bonded to ground there because there is a panelboard in that enclosure. The neutral IS bonded to ground there because that is the "service equipment".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Quite incorrect.

The NEC *does not* call it a "MAIN distribution panelboard".

The NEC *does* call that "SERVICE EQUIPMENT".

Look it up.



I agree, which is why I only occasionally use it here, and only when discussing why there are no "sub" thingys and no "main" thingys.



Excellent!

Now just stop using the word "main" as it does not exit with regard to panels either.

What you are describing that you see all the time is "service equipment", and, yes, it has a "panelboard" section in it, but "main" does not come into play at all, and what you are looking at is "service equipment" ... whether or not there is a "panelboard" in that same enclosure.

The neutral IS NOT bonded to ground there because there is a panelboard in that enclosure. The neutral IS bonded to ground there because that is the "service equipment".

JP: Alright then, I will concede. It is plian that "main" is going down the drain.

Pardon the lack of spell checking. It is corrupted and I need to reinstall it. Later.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

John,

Question: Is the neutral bonded to ground at the service equipment as Doug stated below?

Yes it is bonded to ground always.

In which case, if they are bonded together, why is there is requirement to keep them on different buses in the service equipment.

Here, they can be on the same bus (what better way to "bond them together"?), but in separate TERMINALS ... not sure if that is what your electrical code says ... separate TERMINALS ... not separate buses?

It sounds to me like we are close to saying the same thing, with that one point of what-does-it-say - separate terminals or separate buses.

I can only say here that in relatively recent installations, post 70's, in Canada, the grounding conductors do not share the neutral bus, but are terminated under screws to the panel back or on a dedicated grounding bus. Why? Maybe to keep them from being mixed up, shoved into the same holes, twisted together, with neutrals?
Had to search for a non Federal example.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Yes it is bonded to ground always.I can only say here that in relatively recent installations, post 70's, in Canada, the grounding conductors do not share the neutral bus, but are terminated under screws to the panel back or on a dedicated grounding bus. Why? Maybe to keep them from being mixed up, shoved into the same holes, twisted together, with neutrals?
Had to search for a non Federal example.

You will also see similar setups here in the states, and if you look for that you will see it often.

That said, "at the service equipment" there would be no problem using those unused screws in the neutral terminal bus for the equipment grounds. After all, they ARE one and the same by being bonded together, so why not "bond them" together very well on the same terminal bus.

In looking at your photo, I don't see a bonding screw or a bonding jumper, so how is the neutral bonded to ground in that photo?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

You will also see similar setups here in the states, and if you look for that you will see it often.

Here it is always, hence the comment from Douglas.

That said, "at the service equipment" there would be no problem using those unused screws in the neutral terminal bus for the equipment grounds. After all, they ARE one and the same by being bonded together, so why not "bond them" together very well on the same terminal bus.

That is a question for the authorities. Questions require this termination..... <?>

In looking at your photo, I don't see a bonding screw or a bonding jumper, so how is the neutral bonded to ground in that photo?

The screw is there behind the red wire, we hope.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

That is a question for the authorities. Questions require this termination..... <?>

No comphrendo.

That is only a question for the authorities *IF* they have addressed the issue, otherwise it would be allowed ... so I'm not sure what the last part you said meant?

Have you talked to "the authorities" and asked?

What was their answer?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No comphrendo.

That is only a question for the authorities *IF* they have addressed the issue, otherwise it would be allowed ... so I'm not sure what the last part you said meant?

Have you talked to "the authorities" and asked?

What was their answer?

Jerry, that was a slam on your punctuation skills. See the ?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No comphrendo.

That is only a question for the authorities *IF* they have addressed the issue, otherwise it would be allowed ... so I'm not sure what the last part you said meant?

Have you talked to "the authorities" and asked?

What was their answer?

It is simply not allowed. I see no need to question the authorities about it. I like the rule. You were asking why. I do not know other than what I said above, it helps to avoid poor neutral connections.

Other Canadian rules - Service wires may never cross roofs, period. No switches within 3 feet of the tub. Only 12 outlets or light fixtures on a 15 amp branch circuit. Split duplex for 15 A kitchen outlets, to name a few.

Ok, I found that bonding screw.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Yes it is bonded to ground always.I can only say here that in relatively recent installations, post 70's, in Canada, the grounding conductors do not share the neutral bus, but are terminated under screws to the panel back or on a dedicated grounding bus. Why? Maybe to keep them from being mixed up, shoved into the same holes, twisted together, with neutrals?
Had to search for a non Federal example.

Would it be of any help (or detriment) to have the Neutrals and Grounds isolated in case the bond is missing?

Hi Micheal,

Look at your picture, panel doesn't look like a SDQO or HOMELINE
That being said usually MFG. listing of panel boards require on one
netural, AKA: grounded conductor underneath one termination screw.
And the same MFG. with allow two grounding conductor underneath
one termination screw.

I seen a lot on panels wired just the way your picture shows.
But if your wiring to the NEC code rules, your panel would must likely
not pass inspection.

I believe the their was a reason although not correct for the way they
did the wiring in your picture panel, its so they know actually where the
ends of the circuit is located.

I like to see one white / two grounds / one white, this is the correct
way and you would still know where the end of each individual circuit
is located inside the electrical panel.

Ground bar are commonly used in panels beyond the service panel.
They are not electrical connected to the termination bar that connects
the netural/ground conductor. These panels have four conductor, two
hots, one netural/ground and one grounding.

Good luck with your report - Robert

Originally Posted by John Kogel

It is simply not allowed.

That is what I am asking: WHAT is "simply not allowed"?

You have yet to post anything which says that is "simply not allowed", or, for that matter, "complexly not allowed" either.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

In Canada,
We install a separate bus for the grounding wires in the service panel. The neutral bus carrys only the white wires.

Mixing grounding and grounded wires on the same bus is simply not allowed.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

We install a separate bus for the grounding wires in the service panel. The neutral bus carrys only the white wires, whether it is bonded or not.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

It is simply not allowed.

John,

You've really got me confused now.

You say "We install ... " and then say "It is simply not allowed.", then point back to "We install ... " as though "We install" somehow is supposed to mean "is not allowed"???

You really, really, really have lost me there John.

NO WHERE have you said what is not allowed, only the way it is done.

Heck, THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE ... is what keeps us in business ... because they are done wrong - so just because that is "how things are done" does not make them correct, allowed, or required.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

John,

You've really got me confused now.

You say "We install ... " and then say "It is simply not allowed.", then point back to "We install ... " as though "We install" somehow is supposed to mean "is not allowed"???

You really, really, really have lost me there John.

NO WHERE have you said what is not allowed, only the way it is done.

Heck, THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE ... is what keeps us in business ... because they are done wrong - so just because that is "how things are done" does not make them correct, allowed, or required.

Mixing Grounding and Grounded branch wires on the same bus bar, which was the subject of this discussion, is simply not allowed in Canada. So it is NOT "done that way".

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Mixing Grounding and Grounded branch wires on the same bus bar, which was the subject of this discussion, is simply not allowed in Canada.

Now we are getting somewhere ... don't know where just yet, but we are going in some direction now ...

That is what I have been asking you ... WHAT states that it "is simply not allowed in Canada"? Because you made that statement you MUST have something to back it up, right?

THAT is what I am asking about, your back up documentation - what is it and what ... exactly ... does it state?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

WHAT states that it "is simply not allowed in Canada"? Because you made that statement you MUST have something to back it up, right?

THAT is what I am asking about, your back up documentation - what is it and what ... exactly ... does it state?

Ok, you sure you want me to quote Canadian code and confuse 99% of the readers here?

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Ok, you sure you want me to quote Canadian code and confuse 99% of the readers here?

That's what I've been asking you for, yes.

I am sure that we here in the states are not so dumb as to not understand that we are discussing the Canadian code BY NOW, but if some are, then they are too dumb to make use of code anyway.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That's what I've been asking you for, yes.

No, you asked me to question the authorities. Well I don't have a code book, will get back to you.

As I said before, I am no expert, was simply correcting Douglas P. Jones, who has bailed out and left me no recourse but to defend the entire Canadian League of Eectrical Workers all by myself. Anyway, here is a link to check out.
Ultimate Guide to Home Repair ... - Google Books

Originally Posted by John Kogel

No, you asked me to question the authorities. Well I don't have a code book, will get back to you.

No, YOU stated it was not ALLOWED, which indicates knowledge of the code and what is NOT ALLOWED.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

As I said before, I am no expert, was simply correcting Douglas P. Jones, who has bailed out and left me no recourse but to defend the entire Canadian League of Eectrical Workers all by myself. Anyway, here is a link to check out.
Ultimate Guide to Home Repair ... - Google Books

And that reference is NOT an authority just because it states 'this complies with' the Canadian code.

It seems that you are repeating third hand information and do not know the actual requirements, and, as you said, Douglas left us to figure what we cannot figure out without the Canadian code, so, I guess this is left at 'you think it is NOT ALLOWED because that is what you have heard/been told'. You may be correct, we just do not know.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No, YOU stated it was not ALLOWED, which indicates knowledge of the code and what is NOT ALLOWED.
It seems that you are repeating third hand information and do not know the actual requirements, and, as you said, Douglas left us to figure what we cannot figure out without the Canadian code, so, I guess this is left at 'you think it is NOT ALLOWED because that is what you have heard/been told'. You may be correct, we just do not know.

You are correct, it is 3-hand info. I am confident that I am also correct. If you require proof, remember the X-files?. The proof is out there.

Don't know if I will ever move to Canada but since I might, I become an "inquiring mind", and inquiring minds want to know.

Looks like the ball is in John's court. Hope he returns to make a serve very soon.

Originally Posted by Mitchell Toelle

Don't know if I will ever move to Canada but since I might, I become an "inquiring mind", and inquiring minds want to know.

Looks like the ball is in John's court. Hope he returns to make a serve very soon.

Someone else on another thread was just quoting tennein. Is there something going on in the tennis world today.