Talk:Supreme Court of Canada

message: 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)
thread_title: Introductory Paragraph

message: 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)
replies: text: Roadrunner, I'm not sure what you're saying here. You're probably correct but perhaps your input needs clarification. In Canada, federal courts do have limited jurisdiction, with the exception of the Supreme Court, which has appellate jurisdiction over ALL matters (provincial and federal). This is somewhat different from the American system, where their Supreme Court does not enjoy full appelate juristiction over some state matters. For example, in criminal law cases, which is state law in the U.S., the final court of appeal (absent constitutional issues) is the appellate court of the state in question.Loomis51 21:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Overreaching" decisions 

message: 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)
thread_title: CPAC appeal

message: 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)
replies: text: While it's true that the SCC was created by an Act of Parliament, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is subject to the federal government. The Court is undoubtedly protected by both the constitutional principle of the "Rule of Law" and by constitutional convention. --PullUpYourSocks 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not that this is really the place to debate this issue out, but it's generally considered (with some exceptions such as the notwithstanding clause) that Canada is constitutionally supreme, not parliamentary supreme. Added to this is the Supreme Court's decisions that unwritten principles of the constitution, such as the rule of law, can have legal impact. Singularity42 (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Amicus''

message: 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?
:There is a description of precendent in the Canadian legal system article, but perhaps a passing mention is in order.PullUpYourSocks 02:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedent 

message: 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:
:"When handling Quebec civil law cases the court is careful to have them reviewed by the three civil law judges that are always on the court, although judges from the common law provinces have written judgments in Quebec cases, and judges from Quebec often write judgment in cases from the common law provinces."
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)
thread_title: Clean lead-in

message: 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)
thread_title: Spelling Mistake fixed

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title: The role of the Supreme Court

message: 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)
replies: text: Be bold!. (Although I might get around to fixing it when I get a chance if no one else does.) Singularity42 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. <B>-- RP459</B> Talk/Contributions 23:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salary incorrect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reworked format 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Constitution 

message: 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)
replies: text: That would be nice. I dream of Maple (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo inside library? 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Prior to Confederation in 1867, the courts of the British North American colonies got their powers from British laws.  That meant that the courts had to measure local colonial laws against British laws, and the British laws took priority.  When Canada was created in 1867, that same principle applied:  the British North America Act was a statute of the British Parliament, and the courts in Canada had to apply it.  If a law passed by the Canadian Parliament or a provincial legislature exceeded the powers set out in the BNA Act, the courts would hold it to be unconstitutional, because the BNA Act took priority.  In 1982, with the Patriation of the Constitution, the BNA Act (now called the Constitution Act, 1867) ceased to be considered a British law in Canada;  now it was explicitly part of the Constitution, along with the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Charter.  The Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52, says that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that conflicts with the Constitution is of no force or effect, to the extent of the inconsistency. There's never been a need for an explicit court decision to that effect, because it was implicit prior to 1982, and now is explicit. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judicial review