Talk:R v Bryan

Canada: Law Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Law Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contributions

I'm happy to contribute to this article, though as I am personally related to this case, I feel it should be limited to corrections rather than substantive material. Please let me know what the consensus would be on appropriate level of contribution (including the possibility of none at all). pbryan 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, lifting words from the source isn't a good idea (publicizing works just fine), and second, removing sources and replacing them from fact tags is not helpful. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps commenting on them here will be most productive then:

Publicizing vs. premature transmission: when the law was changed in 1997, the wording was changed from "publication" to "transmission" purposefully. This distinction may be worthwhile observing in this article.
CBC did not "support" me per se, other than as one of several media organizations who were represented in the SCC hearing.
The citation request I added was not a replacement for the text, but was actually in reference to Harper's labeling Elections Canada as "jackasses."

I hope this clarifies the intent of the corrections I made. pbryan 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source not only backs up what Harper said but also states the CBC supported Bryan. I'm not sure what distinction you're driving at. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read the article, and I see the reference to "backing". Unfortunately, the article itself is somewhat misleading. The backing referred to is in actual fact through intervention in SCC hearings. pbryan 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, intervention on the side of Bryan. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venue error

"However, Bryan lost his case before the British Columbia Court of Appeal." The case was never heard in the British Columbia Court of Appeal. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada, where the case was lost 5-4. pbryan (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia." Just because it's a Supreme Court case doesn't mean it was never heard by any other court. LastOthello (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you word it that way without capitalizing "Court of Appeal" it would not look like a particular court venue is being named—there is a British Columbia Court of Appeal, which never heard this case. The BC court that heard this was the Supreme Court of British Columbia, per para. 93 of [2]. pbryan (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And paragraph 94 talks about the Court of Appeal. LastOthello (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you're right. BC Provincial->BC Supreme Court->BC Court of Appeal->SCC. pbryan (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]