 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mention of section 1
editI think this article should include reference to the fact that the s. 15 discrimination was deemed justifiable because of s. 1. It seems like this would be an important part of explaining the Charter's role in queer rights in Canada. Joeyconnick 23:09, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
- Actually, the majority in this case did not find a section 15 violation so they didn't even have to look at section 1. - PullUpYourSocks 19:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not true actually. A majority (5 to 4) did find a s.15 violation, but Sopinka was the swing vote and he sided with the other 4 when he found that the legislation was "saved" by s.1. Skeezix1000 13:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- The majority, in fact, did find a section 15 violation. The opening statement is indeed false and misleading:
- Not true actually. A majority (5 to 4) did find a s.15 violation, but Sopinka was the swing vote and he sided with the other 4 when he found that the legislation was "saved" by s.1. Skeezix1000 13:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- On May 25, 1995, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the definition of "spouse" in the Old Age Security Act was constitutional, on the basis of "biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate."
- The truth is, as has been pointed out, that Sopinka concurred with the opinion of Justice La Forest, he did not join it. And apparently he only concurred it in result -- which is a far cry from actually agreeing with the reasoning of La Forest. Sopinka actually agreed with the dissenting justices that there was a section 15 violation. However, he sought to uphold the violation via section 1. This presents an entirely different set of reasons. Purporting that Sopinka agreed with the opinion that
- "spouse" in the Old Age Security Act was constitutional, on the basis of "biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate
- is a misrepresentation of his views, and that of the majority. That holding is, in fact, a plurality opinion.--Ben 00:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. It appears that Sopinka had slipped under my radar. --PullUpYourSocks 04:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Italics
editThe practice for case names has been to italicize the "v". It is a format that becoming more prevailent in canadian legal writing (for example the McGill guide now uses it and so do most of the Irwin law book series use it), and for the more practical reason that without it it is impossible to wikilink a case name. --PullUpYourSocks 03:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if that is true it seems reasonable. --Ben 05:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)