Talk:Singh v Canada

message: Footnote number 1 in the Singh article is wrong.
The Chief Justice does not break a tie vote at the Supreme Court of Canada.  In the event of a tie, the decision of the court below remains in effect.  Essentially, the SCC has made no decision in the event of a tie.
In Singh, all the Justices agreed in the result (that Singh should be granted an oral hearing).  It was a unanimous decision in the result.  There is no majority as to WHY Singh got an oral hearing though.
It is much like Morgentaler.  A majority of the Justices declared that the abortion law was constitutionally invalid, so the law was struck down.  However, no single decision acquired a majority of the Judges' signatures, so we don't know definitively why the law was struck down.  We can only be certain that the law was unconstitutional for SOME reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.208.92 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote about the Chief Justice having a tie-breaking vote was removed. According to Grey, the decisions are complimentary and both stand as legal authority. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 1 is wrong. 

message: Do we need the citation in the first line?  My inclination is “no”, but I thought I’d raise it here, because of MOS:CITEVAR and WP:INLINECLUTTER. My view is that putting a law cite right in the first line isn’t helpful for the average reader. We don’t normally spell out cites right in the lead. WP is not a legal journal. The cite is given in the infobox, and also in the in-line citation in the body of the article, so I don’t think it is needed right in the first line. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, this is the legal citation  and not a Wikipedia citation.  I'm not that familiar with legal citations, I suppose I've been treating it somewhat like an alternate name (unbolded; MOS:LAW says Case citation or law report information is presented in normal font.).  I don't really have an opinion on it but I've seen it in other articles.  I did a random check of 5 other SCC articles and all 5 included the legal citation, 2 of them going so far as to pipe it as an external link (that, I feel, is going too far).  Searching further, I found the same practice with US Supreme Court cases (5/5), somewhat with House of Lords cases (3/5) and not with Australian High Court cases (0/5). Since this seems to be a common practice across SCC articles, I feel it would be appropriate to call an RfC to check for consensus (or searching for a previous RfC on the subject). – Reidgreg (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation in first line? 

message: In the later lines of the intro, it mentions that this decision made Canada one of the most liberal and EXPENSIVE refugee program, is this as intended? Or was Expansive the word the author was looking for? I did not want to edit the page for fear of expensive truly being the adjective wanted here. (I am not very familiar with Canada's refugee laws) 142.112.42.55 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Expensive to operate/administer. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expensive vs Expansive