Talk:List of Supreme Court of Canada cases

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Law High‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Add Andews?[edit]

Could someone working on this page add Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, its currently an orphan.--nixie 00:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the list[edit]

Admittedly it would be a large undertaking, but what about this case list sorted by topic? Alternately, a parallel page sorting the cases by topic? Comments? --Wikiuser0 02:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean in addition to this list. A chronological list of cases is useful as is. Topic lists can often be substituted by case law categories such as Category:Section Seven Charter case law, but a list of all case law by topic would be useful albeit long. --PullUpYourSocks 18:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't think splitting the list would be in order anytime soon, I had a thought that if it were to happen, it would not necessarily be the best idea to follow the US Supreme Court case list by dividing between chief justices. There are three very distinct eras of Supreme Court decisions that would accomodate the need to split up the list well. The Privy Council era from 1875 to 1949, the pre-Charter era from 1949 to 1982, and the Charter era from 1982 onward. Each era involved a very different approach to law and is reflected in the type of cases. If the Charter part where to get too big perhaps subdivision between Chief Justices whould be in order but I doubt that would be in order for several more years. --PullUpYourSocks 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought the list is getting very post-1982 heavy. I'd propose that when the time comes to use something like this:

--PullUpYourSocks 01:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To heck with it. It's moving day. --PullUpYourSocks 16:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court will hear a landmark case which changed rules for pensioners[edit]

HI am new here - how can this be added: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/59937--supreme-court-will-hear-a-landmark-case-which-changed-rules-for-pensioners Ottawahitech (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is not yet a decision from the SCC, I don't think we should add it. However, there is the "See also" section which links to notable Court of Appeal cases - I would suggest adding it there, with a note that the SCC as granted leave. Once the SCC gives its decision (which is likely at least a year away), it could be added to the list of SCC cases. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this: List of Canadian Courts of Appeal cases. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buzfuz, I must say you blew me out of the water with your speedy response, I honestly wasn't expecting anyone to respond at all. It is absolutely great to see someone like you active at Wikipedia.

Back to the subject matter, the only information I have so far regarding the appeals court case is here: http://www.kmlaw.ca/About-Us/News/News-Item/?list=News&rid=74 which leads to this: http://www.kmlaw.ca/site_documents/news_indareasons_7apr11.pdf Ottawahitech (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* We aim to please. :) I've added it to the List of Canadian Courts of Appeal decisions, with a link to the SCC announcement of leave granted.. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, I cannot keep up with you :-) Will try to follow up when I am logged in again. Thanks once more. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* You guys rock! - I see there is now an article on Re Indalex Limited (sorry to take so long to post this: today is my wiki-housecleaning day :-). Ottawahitech (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]