This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
► Where relevant, performing walkthroughs of systems and processes for data aggregation and reporting ► Inquiring of management regarding key assumptions and the evidence to support the assumptions


► Validating the accuracy of calculations performed, on a sample basis, primarily through inquiry and analytical procedures


► Validating that data and statements had been correctly transcribed from corporate systems and/or supporting evidence into the Report through observation


Limitations of our work performed


Our procedures did not include providing conclusions in relation to: ► The completeness or accuracy of data sets or information relating to areas other than the subject matters ► Information reported by the Bank other than in its Report, such as information contained on its website ► Management’s forward looking statements ► Any comparisons made by the Bank against historical data


► The Report being in accordance with requirements of the GRI G3 or G3.1 Guidelines other than those contained within the scope of our work, as set out above, or to a particular application level


► The appropriateness, sufficiency or completeness of the internally developed criteria to convert tonnage of paper to hectares of forest to be conserved and the appropriateness of using forest conservation as an “offset” for paper purchases


► Whether the obligations of the Nature Conservancy of Canada (“NCC”) or The Nature Conservancy (“TNC”) under agreement with the Bank to help to protect an agreed-upon amount of forested area were fulfilled by the NCC and TNC


Our conclusions


Subject to the limitations of our scope noted above, and based on our work as described in this report, we conclude that nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that the three subject matters are not, in all material respects, fairly presented in accordance with the GRI G3 and G3.1 Guidelines and internally developed criteria.


March 4, 2013 Toronto, Canada


4


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93