Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a substantial re-write.
Thanks, Sancho 18:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075 applies when.... I would prefer just
clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when.... Based on a quick search, that style seems more common on Wikipedia. e.g. in the lead of Cooper v Hobart. (Though I'm not sure if there's any overarching style guidance in the WP:MOS or elsewhere about citing court cases.)
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) laid down the essentials of the current test to prove Aboriginal title: "in order to make out a claim for [A]boriginal title, the [A]boriginal group asserting title.... Not sure if there's some backstory here that makes this capitalization question more controversial than I imagined?
If that claim were to have succeeded, tribal law (Indigenous law) would prevailIs the parenthetical necessary? Is it just giving a synonym, or is there something deeper at play?
...the British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously rejected Justice McEachern's ruling that all of the plaintiffs' Aboriginal rights had been extinguished. The Court of Appeal ordered the case back to trial to determine the nature and scope of those Aboriginal rights. Two of the justices, in dissent, would have went further to also allow the appeal on the issue of aboriginal title and to send that question back to trial as well.Having a hard time understanding this. It seems to be creating a distinction between "aboriginal rights" and "aboriginal title". I'm guessing the latter has to do with legal ownership of the land (i.e. the 58k square km), or the right to use the land? But then what does the other issue of "aboriginal rights" mean? Does this have to do with the right to self-government?
much of the decision is technically obiter dicta (since a new trial was ordered due to errors in how the evidence and pleadings were treated). Is this elaborated on anywhere in the body? It's mentioned that the BC Court of Appeal "ordered the case back to trial", but this was in 1993, before the case was heard before the SC.
Sorry for all the feedback along the lines of "I don't get it". It may be that I have less legal knowledge than a typical reader of an article like this, or it may just reflect how inherently complex this case is. Overall, I like the organization of the article, and am very impressed by how well-sourced it is (though I'll admit, I barely dipped a toe into the sources). Colin M ( talk) 03:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a substantial re-write.
Thanks, Sancho 18:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075 applies when.... I would prefer just
clarified how the justification test from R v Sparrow applies when.... Based on a quick search, that style seems more common on Wikipedia. e.g. in the lead of Cooper v Hobart. (Though I'm not sure if there's any overarching style guidance in the WP:MOS or elsewhere about citing court cases.)
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) laid down the essentials of the current test to prove Aboriginal title: "in order to make out a claim for [A]boriginal title, the [A]boriginal group asserting title.... Not sure if there's some backstory here that makes this capitalization question more controversial than I imagined?
If that claim were to have succeeded, tribal law (Indigenous law) would prevailIs the parenthetical necessary? Is it just giving a synonym, or is there something deeper at play?
...the British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously rejected Justice McEachern's ruling that all of the plaintiffs' Aboriginal rights had been extinguished. The Court of Appeal ordered the case back to trial to determine the nature and scope of those Aboriginal rights. Two of the justices, in dissent, would have went further to also allow the appeal on the issue of aboriginal title and to send that question back to trial as well.Having a hard time understanding this. It seems to be creating a distinction between "aboriginal rights" and "aboriginal title". I'm guessing the latter has to do with legal ownership of the land (i.e. the 58k square km), or the right to use the land? But then what does the other issue of "aboriginal rights" mean? Does this have to do with the right to self-government?
much of the decision is technically obiter dicta (since a new trial was ordered due to errors in how the evidence and pleadings were treated). Is this elaborated on anywhere in the body? It's mentioned that the BC Court of Appeal "ordered the case back to trial", but this was in 1993, before the case was heard before the SC.
Sorry for all the feedback along the lines of "I don't get it". It may be that I have less legal knowledge than a typical reader of an article like this, or it may just reflect how inherently complex this case is. Overall, I like the organization of the article, and am very impressed by how well-sourced it is (though I'll admit, I barely dipped a toe into the sources). Colin M ( talk) 03:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)