Talk:Court system of Canada

message: I removed the "Etiquette" section.  It seemed ridiculous, a bunch of silly pithy jabs at U.S. culture, starting with the introductory statement 
A good Canadian law student or lawyer should be wary of watching American courtroom dramas as he or she may risk embarrassing him or herself when appearing and advocating in a real Canadian court. Canadian courtroom etiquette far more resembles that of England than that of the United States.
Hurr Hurr Hurr, U.S. sux.   It's a good idea, just poorly executed.  And plus the formatting on that section is god-awful, looks like it was copied and pasted from somewhere.  - Kade 20:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Etiquette" section 

message: I merged the Courts of Canada article with the original Canadian court system as they were pretty much the exact same thing. The better of the two was Courts of Canada so I kept that one, however the Category name is "Canadian court system" so it would be more appropriate to name the article according to that title -- PullUpYourSocks 02:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Courts of Canada]] &rarr; [[Canadian court system]]

message: The "v." in the case's title means "and" and not "versus", even though the parties are adversaries. Likewise, the case of R. v. Morgentaler (Canada's criminal law appeal legalizing abortion in 1988) should be cited as "The Queen AND Morgentaler".
The "v." does mean "versus" because when you cite a case in french the "v." becomes a "c.", which stands for "contre". I'm not too sure about oral citations but the "v." definately doesn't stand for "and".--Nickcin2000 14:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "v." in case citations 

message: {The jury selection process is a major part of a trial. Up until recently the government prosecution had a huge and unfair advantage in jury selection with 52 to only 12 objections or stand asides to potential jurors. Basically it was possible for the government to handpick the jury. In one case they were able to impose an all female jury on a man accused of physical assault on a woman. The supreme court of canada lacked the probity to rule against this injustice but some years later the federal government decided that the so long accepted jury selection process was unconstitutional. The government prosecutors have many unfair advantages such as being able to impose a jury trial where none is wanted or indeed feared and being able to arbitrarily impose fitness to stand hearings. Most canadians believe they are guilty to proved innocent and point to the fact that canada has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world.
The process of federal government review of possible wrongful convictions is unfair because it denies the wrongly convicted rights if they have any outstanding charge, no matter how minor. How open to abuse the system is when all the police have to do is bring another charge to obstruct the process. Those fighting wrongful convictions are in grave jeopardy because their conviction can be used against them should they exercise their right to testify in their own defense. As support look up the 35 pages of legal sophistry by the supreme court of canada Biddle, Eric R. concerning the all female jury or contact toronto lawyer Leo Adler concerning the review of wrongful conviction ongoing 12 years and necessitating flight from canada in 2000. Eric R. Biddle  ericbiddle@hotmail.com
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.235.192 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Jury trials

message: It is misleading and incorrect to say that the Constitution gives provinces exclusive control over civil law. Although s. 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives provinces the exclusive power to legislate with respect to "property and civil rights", this is not co-extensive with "civil law". In fact many areas that are generally understood as falling under civil law fall under federal powers -- e.g. patent, trademark and copyright law; marriage; divorce; and spousal and child support when they flow from divorce. Federal law can also regulate the circumstances under which private law remedies are available to plaintiffs suing federally regulated sectors like aviation, banking and railroads. For example the Carriage by Air Act creates a partial no-fault regime respecting lawsuits against airlines.  Blakes314159 (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Exclusive control over civil law"  

message: These sections have few to no citations. They're inherently problematic - each court controls it's own etiquette and procedure. So blanket statements can easily be inaccurate when made without any support. There are some inaccuracies present. Given that there's no uniform governing authority over these matters across the country, and absent any citations, I think it's best to remove a fair bit of it. It's also phrased as an explainer to those familiar with American courts, and I don't think that framing makes sense. I would like to substantially rework and shorten this, adding citations for the core aspects that are common across Canadian jurisdictions but removing a fair bit. Any thoughts? ShinyObjectsOnly (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand it may be bad form to delete things if they are potentially verifiable and could be fixed. Much of what is here might be useful or interesting to someone. But I don't have access to much in the way of sources and I still don't know that this level of detail belongs in this survey article. What do you think about the idea of creating a separate page for much of this material, moving this stuff there, and replacing it here with a brief overview of any high level key aspects? I could also fix the bullet point paragraphs there and make any easy changes that make it flow a little more. ShinyObjectsOnly (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etiquette and procedure 

message: Provincial and territorial courts in Canada is a stub and the information is duplicated here. It appears to meet criteria to be merged here but I don't know if this would be considered controversial. Someone more experienced care to comment? ShinyObjectsOnly (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even know that article existed!  Yes, I think a merger would be a good thing.  I'm not sure how to request one;  will poke around. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've checked the page on merging and we don't need to go to an administrator, just start by putting merge proposals on the two pages.  I'll do that.  There's considerable overlap between the two, so the merge might amount to deleting most of the stuff on the other page, but there's a few things there that could be carried over, like the appeals and the Ontario Provincial Offences Court. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thank you! ShinyObjectsOnly (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've put a notice on the Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, alerting that a merge proposal has been made. (That's not Wikipedia:Canvassing, as long as it's just a neutral announcement.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: * Merge:  The Provincial and Territorial Courts in Canada page is a stub, and is largely duplicative of what is in this page.  Putting info on all the courts into this one article is better organization.  The parts of the other page that are not duplicative can be easily included here. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: *Merge: Mostly duplicated info. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge: The context of the distinctions between superior courts and provincial courts is important to understanding provincial courts as a whole. That is most easily done in this article. More detailed information about any given provincial court would remain on that court's page. This would match the approach taken for all other levels of court. ShinyObjectsOnly (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: *Merge.  I agree with the above - merging into a single article Court system of Canada makes sense, due to duplicated information between the two.  PKT(alk) 19:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal