This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Supreme Court of Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
I added the language about the potential application of the notwithstanding clause pursuant to Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The article states that decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada serve as the "ultimate expression and application of Canadian law," but that is manifestly incorrect, given the existence of the clause, and the actions that has been taken under it, particularly by the province of Quebec. John Paul Parks ( talk) 05:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note that Crown copyright in Canada is not the same as US government copyright which generally allows people to copy government documents without permission. I noticed that some of the material seemed to be pasted from the Canadian government web site. I've tried to rewrite it so that it is not a direct quote. Alex756 00:01 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
Removed line about "thus the Canadian system is different from that of the United States". The Canadian court system is different from that of the United States, but that sentence was right after a line that said that provincial courts had general jurisdiction while federal courts had limited jurisdiction. In this respect, the US and Canada are the same. That sentence needed to go elsewhere. Roadrunner 09:04, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Except that a true "provincial court" has no inherent jurisdiction whatsoever. The superior courts of each province (the *only* courts in Canada with inherent jurisdiction) - so-called section 96 courts - are populated with federally-appointed judges.
The article current contains the following text:
"Attitudes among many English Canadians changed when the Privy Council made various unpopular decisions in the 1930s, striking down several overreaching federal legislative initiatives."
The Privy Council thought the initiatives were "overreaching," that's why they struck them down; however, most Canadians didn't think they were overreaching, that's why the Supreme Court was established.
The description "overreaching" is a relative term to apply to a law; what's overreach to you is not to me.
The descriptive term introduces bias into this article and I propose to delete it. Mcattell ( talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
To avoid have to continue to go back and forth on the issue of who appoints judges, I offer the following bit of evidence: "The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of Canada and eight puisne Judges appointed by the Governor in Council from among superior court judges or from among barristers of at least ten years' standing at the Bar of a province or territory." Source: www.scc-csc.gc.ca/faq/faq/index_e.asp#f12. "Governor-in-Council" means the governor general on advice from the cabinet. HistoryBA 15:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can somebody explain why there's a Canadian Politics sidebar on the Court page? Or move it to Government of Canada, or Prime Ministers, or someplace? Trekphiler 20:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put these. First, as I understand it, SCoC is subject to Parliament in a way SCotUS isn't, since SCoC was created by Parliament, not by Constitution. Second, SCoC is rare (unique?) among hi courts in allowing cameras. (Proceedings are recorded for rebroadcast by CPAC, our equivalent of C-SPAN.) Trekphiler 20:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
One of the unbreakable precepts of the Canadian parliamentary system is, to paraphrase, that "no Parliament is bound by its predecessor nor is it binding on its successor" when it comes to Acts of Parliament. What Parliament has originally created with an 1875 Act of Parliament and affirmed most recently with the Supreme Court Act of 1985 can similarily be eliminated. Constitutional convention does not protect the existence of the court as there are more than ample examples showing continued parliamentary assertion of supremacy over the court. The United States differs significantly in this regard with an SOP principle with a constitutionally enshrined Supreme Court. Canada lacks both of these which is not suprising given the principles of parliamentary supremacy. MrBobBacklund ( talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)MrBobBacklund
Should we not have at least a mention of precedents being set for lower courts, and whether or not the Supreme Court must follow it's own precedents?
I cleaned up the lead in a bit. There was too much minor information in the first few lines, that they had to get shifted down. In particular I removed:
I can't find a place to put it in and it definitely does not belong in the article lead-in. -- PullUpYourSocks 02:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This section seems rather slanted against the Chretien government, and doesn't make sense if you look at the composition of the Court. Traditionally, there are three Quebec judges (mandated because of Quebec's civil law), three Ontarians, two Westerners, and one Maritimer (and the Maritime seat does not alternate back and forth between NB and NS exclusively, because Louis Henry Davies of PEI was once Chief Justice).
The section mentions the appointments of Louis LeBel, Louise Arbour, Morris Fish, and Marie Deschamps as defying regional balance. How? LeBel, Fish and Deschamps were appointed to fill the Quebec seats, as they were the ones vacant, and Arbour, although born in Montreal, had strong roots in Ontario (including teaching at York University and sitting on an Ontario Court of Appeal), and filled one of the Ontario seats (in turn filled by either Abella or Charron when she left). Look at the current court: 3 Quebeckers (Fish, Deschamps, LeBel), three Ontarians (Binnie, Abella, Charron), one Maritimer (Bastarche), one Westerner (McLachlin), and the vacant seat about to be filled by a Westerner (Rothstein).
The part about the Martin appointments is also unclear. It says they had similar opinions on SSM, and then goes off about marijuana possession, sexual harassment, and family court, making no connections between any of this. CaptainCanada 21:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I've read consistently in the newspapers that the requirement of having three judges from Quebec on the Court is a convention and not mandated by legislation or the constitution. The reference used just points to the Wikipedia article for the Supreme Court Act and not the Act itself. Please verify that such a provision actually occurs in the Act.
G. Csikos, 23 November 2006
Answered my own question -- it is indeed mentioned in the statute. I changed the reference to the statute itself rather than the article about it.
G. Csikos, 23 November 2006
I fixed a spelling mistake for the caption of SCC courtroom. It was called: coutroom. 70.64.78.207 ( talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The "The role of the Supreme Court" section in the article is very general to the Court system of Canada, and simple reference should be made to that article. This would eliminate most of the first paragraph in this section. Likewise, the third paragraph is general information about references while the fourth paragraph is about constitutional issues. Clearly we can write a section devoted exclusively to the Supreme Court's role within this framework without repeating general information available in other articles. Canadian Copy Editor ( talk) 04:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
From the SCC web site FAQ: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/faq/faq/index-eng.asp
11. What is the annual salary of a Supreme Court Judge?
Chief Justice: $361,300 Puisne Judges: $334,500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.67.162 ( talk) 22:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This article previously had a lot of dense prose. The headings were vague and non-descriptive. I reworked the headings and sub-headings, and readers can now glance through the article more quickly to get an overview of the subject, and can choose to read the ancillary articles for more depth and detail. -- Paul63243 ( talk) 10:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The constitution actually does not require the existence of the Supreme Court. It only regulates at amendments to the composition are to be constitutional amendments by the unanimous clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have taken a photo inside the library of the Supreme Court. Would there be any interest in having it added to the article and placed at the bottom, alongside the existing four pictures?
/wia
/tlk
/cntrb 00:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
: That would be nice.
I dream of Maple (
talk)
05:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Why does the Supreme Court have judicial review? People argue about whether it is a good thing or not, but the court has it today. But in the British legal tradition, courts don´t have the power to void a law on constitutional grounds. The Secretary of State for the Colonies might order assent be withheld, same for the provinces vs the governor in council, but the constitution itself doesn´t give any court this power via its text. Canada doesn´t have a famous Marbury vs Madison case that should point to this doctrine being accepted either. I can´t figure out when or how the courts got this authority, especially if this concept predates the end of the use of the power of disallowance. Not even the Charter allows courts to simply void a law, it just gives them the ability to fashion remedies in general. 2604:3D09:757F:EC30:2801:A080:FF7E:F637 ( talk) 09:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Supreme Court of Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
I added the language about the potential application of the notwithstanding clause pursuant to Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The article states that decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada serve as the "ultimate expression and application of Canadian law," but that is manifestly incorrect, given the existence of the clause, and the actions that has been taken under it, particularly by the province of Quebec. John Paul Parks ( talk) 05:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note that Crown copyright in Canada is not the same as US government copyright which generally allows people to copy government documents without permission. I noticed that some of the material seemed to be pasted from the Canadian government web site. I've tried to rewrite it so that it is not a direct quote. Alex756 00:01 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
Removed line about "thus the Canadian system is different from that of the United States". The Canadian court system is different from that of the United States, but that sentence was right after a line that said that provincial courts had general jurisdiction while federal courts had limited jurisdiction. In this respect, the US and Canada are the same. That sentence needed to go elsewhere. Roadrunner 09:04, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Except that a true "provincial court" has no inherent jurisdiction whatsoever. The superior courts of each province (the *only* courts in Canada with inherent jurisdiction) - so-called section 96 courts - are populated with federally-appointed judges.
The article current contains the following text:
"Attitudes among many English Canadians changed when the Privy Council made various unpopular decisions in the 1930s, striking down several overreaching federal legislative initiatives."
The Privy Council thought the initiatives were "overreaching," that's why they struck them down; however, most Canadians didn't think they were overreaching, that's why the Supreme Court was established.
The description "overreaching" is a relative term to apply to a law; what's overreach to you is not to me.
The descriptive term introduces bias into this article and I propose to delete it. Mcattell ( talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
To avoid have to continue to go back and forth on the issue of who appoints judges, I offer the following bit of evidence: "The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of Canada and eight puisne Judges appointed by the Governor in Council from among superior court judges or from among barristers of at least ten years' standing at the Bar of a province or territory." Source: www.scc-csc.gc.ca/faq/faq/index_e.asp#f12. "Governor-in-Council" means the governor general on advice from the cabinet. HistoryBA 15:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Can somebody explain why there's a Canadian Politics sidebar on the Court page? Or move it to Government of Canada, or Prime Ministers, or someplace? Trekphiler 20:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put these. First, as I understand it, SCoC is subject to Parliament in a way SCotUS isn't, since SCoC was created by Parliament, not by Constitution. Second, SCoC is rare (unique?) among hi courts in allowing cameras. (Proceedings are recorded for rebroadcast by CPAC, our equivalent of C-SPAN.) Trekphiler 20:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
One of the unbreakable precepts of the Canadian parliamentary system is, to paraphrase, that "no Parliament is bound by its predecessor nor is it binding on its successor" when it comes to Acts of Parliament. What Parliament has originally created with an 1875 Act of Parliament and affirmed most recently with the Supreme Court Act of 1985 can similarily be eliminated. Constitutional convention does not protect the existence of the court as there are more than ample examples showing continued parliamentary assertion of supremacy over the court. The United States differs significantly in this regard with an SOP principle with a constitutionally enshrined Supreme Court. Canada lacks both of these which is not suprising given the principles of parliamentary supremacy. MrBobBacklund ( talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)MrBobBacklund
Should we not have at least a mention of precedents being set for lower courts, and whether or not the Supreme Court must follow it's own precedents?
I cleaned up the lead in a bit. There was too much minor information in the first few lines, that they had to get shifted down. In particular I removed:
I can't find a place to put it in and it definitely does not belong in the article lead-in. -- PullUpYourSocks 02:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This section seems rather slanted against the Chretien government, and doesn't make sense if you look at the composition of the Court. Traditionally, there are three Quebec judges (mandated because of Quebec's civil law), three Ontarians, two Westerners, and one Maritimer (and the Maritime seat does not alternate back and forth between NB and NS exclusively, because Louis Henry Davies of PEI was once Chief Justice).
The section mentions the appointments of Louis LeBel, Louise Arbour, Morris Fish, and Marie Deschamps as defying regional balance. How? LeBel, Fish and Deschamps were appointed to fill the Quebec seats, as they were the ones vacant, and Arbour, although born in Montreal, had strong roots in Ontario (including teaching at York University and sitting on an Ontario Court of Appeal), and filled one of the Ontario seats (in turn filled by either Abella or Charron when she left). Look at the current court: 3 Quebeckers (Fish, Deschamps, LeBel), three Ontarians (Binnie, Abella, Charron), one Maritimer (Bastarche), one Westerner (McLachlin), and the vacant seat about to be filled by a Westerner (Rothstein).
The part about the Martin appointments is also unclear. It says they had similar opinions on SSM, and then goes off about marijuana possession, sexual harassment, and family court, making no connections between any of this. CaptainCanada 21:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I've read consistently in the newspapers that the requirement of having three judges from Quebec on the Court is a convention and not mandated by legislation or the constitution. The reference used just points to the Wikipedia article for the Supreme Court Act and not the Act itself. Please verify that such a provision actually occurs in the Act.
G. Csikos, 23 November 2006
Answered my own question -- it is indeed mentioned in the statute. I changed the reference to the statute itself rather than the article about it.
G. Csikos, 23 November 2006
I fixed a spelling mistake for the caption of SCC courtroom. It was called: coutroom. 70.64.78.207 ( talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The "The role of the Supreme Court" section in the article is very general to the Court system of Canada, and simple reference should be made to that article. This would eliminate most of the first paragraph in this section. Likewise, the third paragraph is general information about references while the fourth paragraph is about constitutional issues. Clearly we can write a section devoted exclusively to the Supreme Court's role within this framework without repeating general information available in other articles. Canadian Copy Editor ( talk) 04:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
From the SCC web site FAQ: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/faq/faq/index-eng.asp
11. What is the annual salary of a Supreme Court Judge?
Chief Justice: $361,300 Puisne Judges: $334,500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.67.162 ( talk) 22:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This article previously had a lot of dense prose. The headings were vague and non-descriptive. I reworked the headings and sub-headings, and readers can now glance through the article more quickly to get an overview of the subject, and can choose to read the ancillary articles for more depth and detail. -- Paul63243 ( talk) 10:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The constitution actually does not require the existence of the Supreme Court. It only regulates at amendments to the composition are to be constitutional amendments by the unanimous clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar ( talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have taken a photo inside the library of the Supreme Court. Would there be any interest in having it added to the article and placed at the bottom, alongside the existing four pictures?
/wia
/tlk
/cntrb 00:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
: That would be nice.
I dream of Maple (
talk)
05:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Why does the Supreme Court have judicial review? People argue about whether it is a good thing or not, but the court has it today. But in the British legal tradition, courts don´t have the power to void a law on constitutional grounds. The Secretary of State for the Colonies might order assent be withheld, same for the provinces vs the governor in council, but the constitution itself doesn´t give any court this power via its text. Canada doesn´t have a famous Marbury vs Madison case that should point to this doctrine being accepted either. I can´t figure out when or how the courts got this authority, especially if this concept predates the end of the use of the power of disallowance. Not even the Charter allows courts to simply void a law, it just gives them the ability to fashion remedies in general. 2604:3D09:757F:EC30:2801:A080:FF7E:F637 ( talk) 09:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)