Talk:R v Oakes

message: Can I suggest this be merged with Oakes test? - Montréalais 05:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could work. I assume you mean redirect Oakes test to R. v. Oakes, right? The case itself is important enough that I'd think it would be worth keeping. My only concern would be that the test as described in the case is not necessarily the exact same test it is today. It's evolved quite a bit since R. v. Oakes. I'd suggest perhaps putting it in section 1. However, none of the articles are very substantial so I don't feel too strongly one way or the other. -- PullUpYourSocks 11:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Merge

message: Unless they do things differently in Canada, there appears to be a problem with the dates: Argued March 12, 1986, Decided February 28, 1986 BlongerBros 15:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: The test developed in this case has since gone through significant evolution due to subsequent case law; however, the test has remained fundamentally the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.57.251 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this even mean?

message: Hi In all the newspapers this case was plublished nobody ever said that I recently had my leg severily crushed at work & smoking hash oil helped with the pain . http://wsib.contact-directconnect.com/images/I_said_my_Leg_was_fucking_sore.jpg
David Edwin Oakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.253.234 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks (very belatedly) for commenting, and for noting the issue on the talk page (here) instead of directly in the article. Unfortunately, without an independent, published, reliable source for that information, it would be problematic to add it to the article. (As you've identified yourself as a subject of the article, for future reference, please be aware of Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.) TheFeds 20:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Here's a very minor, lawyerly point: In the box with the case citations at the beginning of the article, the citation to the C.R.R. volume should be (1986) 19 C.R.R. 308, not [1986] 19 C.R.R. 308.  It's not that important, but having a first-year law school mistake right at the beginning makes the article look unprofessional.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.211.163 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you were right; unfortunately it took 12 years to do anything about it (you would have been welcome to fix that when you noticed it). The McGill citation guide doesn't really have a format for redundantly showing the year, preferring instead to treat multiple citations together as being interdependent, with the "(1986), " as a suffix to the case name rather than a prefix for each case citation. I'm undecided whether we should follow that convention, or redundantly add "(1986), ", as if it is necessary to recite it every time. Nevertheless, the CRR reporter was apparently published in sequentially numbered volumes, sometimes several to a year, and so the citation itself does not need to incorporate the year as "[1986]". TheFeds 04:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation error