Talk:Astley v Verdun

Adding articles about self-represented litigants in the "see also" section
I don't believe it is appropriate to include articles that discuss self-represented litigants in the "see also" section. If this was a case that discussed procedure or concerns about self-represented litigants, then I think it would be appropriate. But the only connection to this case is that one of the litigants was self-represented. For better or for worse, that is not uncommon in the Ontario legal system these days. Are we going to add that to the "See also" for every single case where one of the litigants was self-reprsented, whether that was discussed in the case/commentary or not? Are we going to add a "See also" about being represented in court with every case where the person was represented by counsel? Where is the line drawn?

Basically, to summarize, I believe that it would be an appropriate "See also" where the case touches on that point (it was an issue in the case, etc.). But since that is not the case here, I do not believe that it is appropriate. (This is apart from the fact that we are linking to pages from the British and American perspective, and it not appropriate for an article on a Canadian
 * How do you know it is common for litigants to represent themselves in the Ontario legal system? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My experience. In my job, we probably have talks every few months about access to justice in Ontario and the increasing number of unrepresented litigants in the Ontario courts (which is actually more of an overall Canadian experience than just limited to Ontario).  If I had the time, I could probably go through every Ontario court case reported on CanLii in January and give a percentage of those that involved one or more unrepresented litigants.  Simply put, it is not uncommon, and there is no need to include links to article about self-represented litigants in the "See also" section. As per WP:SEEALSO, what is included is a matter of editorial judgment and common sense, and this just doesn't make sense to me. Singularity42 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's probably better stuff out there, but the 20th anniversary report for the Superior Court of Justice has a number of references to the growing number of self-represented/unrepresented litigants. If I had more time, I could probably find papers more on point, but I don't think its really in dispute that unrepresented litigants is no longer uncommon. Singularity42 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If indeed there is such a large number of self-represented people in Canadian courts, how come there is no article on Wikipedia describing the process such as equivalent articles that exist for American Pro se legal representation in the United States and British Litigant_in_person ? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, was on vacation when the last message was posted, and I forgot to check this page until now...) Probably because no editor interested enough has turned their mind to it. It's not an area I'm going to touch, as my knowledge and experience is mostly in Canadian criminal law, not civil law, so I wouldn't know where to find the appropriate secondary sources (although now that I think about it, a major newspaper - Toronto Star, maybe - did a series on the issue a couple of years ago...). However, I don't think there's a civil lawyer out there who wouldn't agree that there self-representation in civil courts is a growing issue. Singularity42 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I should add that I think the current version is the right way to deal with it. That is, a sentence that says that Verdun was self-represented with a red-link to a page that can eventually develop into either a non-regional article on self-representation or an article on self-representation in Canada. Singularity42 (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

pov-check template
I removed the following sentence: From 2005 to 2006, Verdun attended shareholder meetings of various companies to publicly complain about Astley - even for companies which Astley was not affiliated with. I don't see anyone claiming that Verdun attended shareholders meetings with the sole purpose of defaming Astley. From reading the supporting material on Robert Verdun it appears to me that Verdun's motivation was the protection of shareholders, and it does seem he truly believed that Astley was acting against the interests of shareholders.

On the whole I find the article needs to be phrased more neutrally. I hope others see it the same way and will help in this endeavor. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astley v Verdun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804074152/http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201105308471/Headline-News/Landmark-ruling-in-libel-suit to http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201105308471/Headline-News/Landmark-ruling-in-libel-suit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)