Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Case Law Naming Convention

Great work on the Canadian law materials, Spinboy. Nonetheless, I'd like to discuss the issue of case naming convention. I would like to suggest that we adopt the Uniform Legal Citation style for these types of articles (it's partially described in the court citation article, sourced from the "Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation"). It has been around for about 7 years or so and has since become the de-facto standard for all legal writing. The style is being heavily pushed by the legal community and is likely to become even more prevalent in the future. Indeed, I don't see too much reason to try to reinvent the wheel by designing a new convention, nor would it be wise to apply older standards that are likely to be phased-out. And as for following past practice; the courts, in the past, have not been entirely consistent in style so they are not always a helpful measure to go by.

The part of the style, however, that I think you'll likely find problematic is that reference cases are to be named "Reference Re" and not "Re". I believe the rationale is that "Re" cases generally are used for Will and Estate cases, while the "Reference Re" distinguishes the case as a constitutional reference. It seems reasonable to me and I don't see any harm in following that rule.

In any event, I hope you'll give my suggestion some thought, and perhaps you can provide some input on why you might prefer to keep the style as it is. I think based on the prominence of the Uniform Legal Citation style and the fact that the convention would immediately solve any case naming controveries off the bat makes it tempting option. Cheers! --PullUpYourSocks 03:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Encyclopedia

The Canadian Encyclopedia has a significant number of law and legal history articles that would be great to have here. Take a look. [1] --PullUpYourSocks 15:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{LawUnref}}

Note - I have created a modification of the {{unreferenced}} template for law articles - {{LawUnref}}, which puts articles into Category:Law-related articles lacking sources. I have substituted this for the regular unref template on some law articles in Category:Articles lacking sources. Please use this as a resource to note law-related articles that require references. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian law topics

I've done a bit of work creating stub articles on basic Canadian law topics. My hope is to have articles on all the core areas of law in a Canadian context that exist in parallel with the "canadian sections" found in country-neutral law articles. The idea is that it would be far easier to read a full article on say "Canadian criminal procedure" rather than a bunch of subsections on canada on general criminal procedure topics. However, these Canada-specific articles should only address uniquely Canadian issues in a given field such as the discussing the evolution of the Canadian jurisprudence. They should not "reinvent the wheel" by explaining the very basics principles of the area of law that is present across all common law countries. At this point it's best to aim for breadth over depth so please excuse me if I'm a little sloppy.

Here's the article breakdown, branching out from law of canada, that I'm thinking of at the moment:

  • Law of Canada
    • Constitution
      • Charter
    • Court system
      • Supreme Court
      • other courts, etc.
    • Criminal law
      • Criminal procedure
    • Civil law
      • Contract law
      • Tort law
      • etc
    • Procedural law
      • Civil procedure
      • Evidence

It probably needs some fine tuning but it's got decent coverage. --PullUpYourSocks 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... one problem you might run into is that Quebec law and civil law in Canada are short enough that some people may question the purpose for their separate existence, and merge, redirect or AfD them. Other than that, carry one, will see how they go. Natural evolution. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's always a concern. But the fact of the matter is, if I wait around until I have the entire article sketched out before I start writing then I'll never get it started! Let's just hope no one catches on until the article fills out. --PullUpYourSocks 04:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You could try this:
  • Canadian Law
    • International Law
    • Domestic Law
      • Substantive Law
        • Public Law
          • Constitutional Law
          • Administrative Law
          • Criminal Law
        • Private Law
          • Tort Law
          • Contract Law
          • Family Law
          • Wills and Estates
          • Property Law
          • Employment Law
      • Procedural Law
Any good? --somody 20:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citing legislation

It just occured to me that in legal writing, when citing a piece of legislation or a constitutional document, the normal citation style is to italicize it. So one would write: the Charter, Constitution Act, 1867, Limitations Act, and so forth. Unless there are any protests to it I think it would be a good practice to follow. -PullUpYourSocks 04:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New

I just joined Wikipedia at the end of December and found this Wikiproject today. I signed up to be involved, I'm wondering what's going on with the project. Thanks. Ardenn 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Thus far it's still kind of early in improving coverage of Canadian law, but we've made a lot of progress over these past few months. We're mainly working on starting articles in List of Supreme Court of Canada cases and expanding other articles in Category:Canadian law stubs. Some articles will need wikifying or clean up as well. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario Mental Health Act

I recently created this article, I think it would be great if someone could take a look over and offer suggestions for improvement. I think there's still lots to do here and the redlinks indicate more articles that could be created. Thanks Matt 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCC lists

Right now they're still divided with this "pre-Charter"/"post-Charter" thing. The problem is that all the lists post-Charter will still deal with cases that have nothing to do with the Charter. Moreover, the list dealing with the post-Charter era to the end of the Dickson court will cover only 2 years between the adoption of the Charter and the rise of Dickson as Chief Justice, and no Charter cases were considered at that time, although it was mentioned in a prostitution case. I propose we move that list to make it just about Dickson and move the pre-Charter list so it's just a pre-Dickson list. All the odd redirects created as a result can be pointed back to the mother article, List of Supreme Court of Canada cases. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm not seeing how the "post-charter" list suggesting that the list contains only charter cases as you seem to suggest, nevertheless, if you see it that way, then I'm sure many otherd will as well, so that's fair criticism. The core reason why I divided cases between pre- and post-charter is that among all the landmark events to demarcate eras in Canadian law, the Charter was by far the biggest. Bigger than a change in Chief Justice, at least. So I felt compelled to preserve the distinction as much as I could. Admittedly I don't like the awkward span of "Charter through Dickson" list, but I felt it was a reasonable trade-off. In all, I'm not too concerned about the two year gap from the enactment of the Charter and actual Charter cases. The first year or two of cases after a change in Chief Justice are not cases heard by the new chief justice either, so the contents of any of the lists never entirely reflect their title. As I said before, I am not entirely grasping the problem, but I'm open to changes if you see it necessary. If you don't think it's worth preserving the Charter as a timeline landmark, I'd be open to just switching to strictly following the "Chief Justice" pattern of dividing the lists. However, rather than call it "pre-Dickson Court" I'd lean towards calling it something along the lines of "Richards Court through Laskin Court". --PullUpYourSocks 02:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a bit hasty of me moving them before your response; anyway, while the adoption of the Charter was a major landmark, it's not that the lists are divided between just pre-Charter and post-Charter; the Lamer and McLachlin Courts have their own lists, so it seems natural to me Dickson can have his own list. You're right about the title of the pre-Dickson one, we should change it- right now I've got to be getting to work. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That's alright. I suspect it would happen sooner or later. It's sad to see the charter division go, but I'll get over it. It's probably for the best in any event. -PullUpYourSocks 02:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Canadian Lawyers

[edit] Request for article

Both Pornography and Censorship in Canada refer to a 2000 Supreme Court case that ruled that Canada Customs did not have the authority to make its own judgments about the permissibility of material being shipped to the stores, but was only permitted to confiscate material that had specifically been ruled by the courts to constitute an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

I think it would be interesting and useful to have a detailed article on this case to link too, but I absolutely lack the competence to do such a thing, can the wikipedians of this project help? Circeus 23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we have it- Little Sisters. Let me see if I can find it. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice) CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Note the article says the government won- an apparent contradiction with your quote above- but this was because the Court said the law was valid while the bureaucrats were abusing it. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 00:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! I'll add the links now. Circeus 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
As an afterthought, the article is not very clear on the implications of the decision. It neither confirms nor informs the statement I give above (from Censorship in Canada) Circeus 03:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LexUM Upgrade

It looks like LexUM, the closest thing to an official source for SCC decisions, has upgraded its interface. Most notably it has changed its URL to match the neutral citation which means that it is possible to make a template to link to them. I've added Template:lexum-scc and template:lexum-scc2 which should be used in the "external links" section of the text. --PullUpYourSocks 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issue with Canadian law Wikiproject stub-logo

Uh, not wanting to rile any badge-wearing contributors, but I do not think that the Mountie logo is appropriate at all for a page about law and justice; and the history of the Mounties is rife with things that are going to have articles where they DON'T represent justice (at the moment I'm thinking of the Fred Quilt case, which I'm going to write the first article for, but there are heaps of others...the proceedings against Bruce Clarke and the Ts'peten Defenders, for instance). I know the Supreme Court doesn't have a very useful logo, but something else should be found that's less partial/political in character. A moose and a beaver on a pair of scales?? - I don't know; but the Mountie bison is a turn-off, especially if you were First Nations or Metis (I'm not).Skookum1 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • And lots of Mounties have died while defending justice. Every institution, like every country, has a few skeletons in their closet. Aboriginals would have bad things to say even about the Supreme Court- have you ever heard of the second Marshall case? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to be testy, but a lot of people have died at the hands of the Mounties while defending justice. or just for nothing at all. Not just the conquest of the Metis and the various police abuses of individual First Nations people over the century-and-some of their existence, but also at Regina in 1926 and Winnipeg 1919 and in other confrontations with non-native peoples; or just some kid with a beer bottle who gets shot in the back of the head and there's not even an investigation. I won't start a full list; it's too infamous and in a way too well-known already (if largely ignored in mainstream media, even in alternative media); key cases concerning Mountie conduct are going to be in Wikipedia (the aforementioned Quilt case among them) and to me it's just not right to use their symbol/badge design; as well as the obvious point, if you stop to think about it, that it is potentially offensive to certain groups.
    • And it wasn't my point in the previous post, which WASN'T meant to offend those oh-so-self-sacrificing Mounties; it was to raise the issue of the appropriateness of the logo. NOT, is the point; the mounted police are not the law; they may think they are, but they are not, and hiding behind deaths-while-on-duty is just wrapping themselves in the flag to evade criticism (like any other political organization). No bison; a talking stick if anything, or maybe a Crown; I'll go with Justitias or Veritas, though; scales are maybe TOO generic; scales with a maple leaf, if need be, I suppose....Skookum1 06:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, same as the RCMP, Canadian law has a history of sometimes gross injustices. All the same, it's a fair comment. There is no point alienating people unnecessarily, especially here, where there is no compelling reason to use the mountie crest. Law enforcement is peripheral enough that that I don't recall seeing many Canadian law articles touching on it. So it may be worth reconsidering the choice of picture. Finding an alternative may be difficult. There is no "seal" system of identifying departments as there is in the US. The closest thing that represents the courts that I've seen is the Canadian coat of arms, which is used in courts at all levels, that's certainly non-offensive. I would side against something like the blind-folded justice, which I believe is largely an american metaphor, but I think just a generic scale would be fine. For a more creative option, I like the idea of a picture of one of the Veritas or Justitia statues outside the supreme court. -PullUpYourSocks 03:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I also do not agree with using the RCMP logo. We are not, even if some volunteers are RCM police, representatives of it. How about a pastiche of the Justice Canada crest? Scales of Justice with a maple leaf as the fulcrum? Or a big leaf with the scales inside it? DoctorMud 02:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just came to me while reading your response: what about a simplified graphic of the Supreme Court building; dull and severe gothic-deco though it is; but it's a fairly recognizable image; more or less.Skookum1 08:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Note I've changed it, not really because of the discussion here, but because the RCMP pic was fair use, and thus I believe its use in templates would be discouraged. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resources

I noticed you've had some discussion about infoboxes here, I thought I might refer you to some of the templates that we created for the WikiProject Australian law. There's Template:Infobox Court Case (from which I believe the English one is derived, I don't know why they made their own version). It's completely customisable so it can be used for any court, compare say Sue v Hill with Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.. Take a look at the Whatlinkshere page for some examples of usage.

The other major one is Template:Cite Case AU, which generates links to any of about thirty case report series on the AustLII site. A Canadian version could easily be created to generate links to CanLII materials. I've found that it's very useful for maintaining consistency in terms of case citation.

The reason I mention these is that a degree of consistency across the various law related projects on WP might be nice. I'm open to suggestions for improving the templates if anyone can think of new fields that could be added. --bainer (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of greater uniformity between the infoboxes but I am not entirely convinced that having a single template for all cases is desirable just yet. I think there is a lot to be gained by experimenting a bit between jurisdictions and I also think that there is some advantage to having templates that are configured for a given country, such as the use of "switches" to select the court membership. Given time, when a single style has proven to be the outright best, perahaps a single template may be in order, but I don't believe it has happened yet. Nevertheless, the templates you link to are helpful for Canadian infoboxes. I'm especially intregued by the "Cite Case" template. -PullUpYourSocks 02:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Canadian_law_21f4.html"