Talk:Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto

American Standard
I don't know enough about the subject to edit it, but is there a good reason that there's so much discussion of the American "actual malice" standard? I mean, why is it surprising that a Canadian court wouldn't follow the rulings of the US Supreme Court? I might be missing something, but it seems like a US bias. Ddye 20:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actual malice is discussed a lot because the Canadian Supreme Court discussed it a lot - they were considering an argument that they should adopt such a standard for the same reasons that the U.S. Supreme Court did. bd2412  T 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay i see, thanks for the quick response. Ddye 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientology template
There are several reasons not to include the scientology template. First, it clutters up the article. Templates in general make an article less visually appealing and easy to read, so there should be a clear and functional purpose to include one. Second, these are navigational templates, used to navigate through core articles within a certain field. The decision's true significance and presedent value does not have that much to do with scientology at all. The case did not contemplate any substantial content of the religion, and I'm skeptical to think that the decision was a landmark event within the history of the religion. I hardly see much difference between this article and any other article that briefly discusses or is peripherally related to scientology. Lastly, templates are rarely, if ever, included in articles that are not actually named within the template itself, which is reason enough to on its own. --PullUpYourSocks 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Without taking a stand on whether the template should be included or not -- how can the largest libel award in the history of Canada be a landmark event for the nation but not for the religion?? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As with any Supreme Court decision, their value is not in the outcome of the particular dispute but on the advancement of the state of the law. A wrongfully convicted person could easily serve their entire sentence before it gets to the Supreme Court. So things like damages aren't really that important when it comes to Supreme Court cases, and I think this article overemphasizes the significance of the amount. It would have undoubtedly cost the scientologist far more than 1.6 million just to litigate all the way to the Supreme Court. I'm doubtful that the amount of damages has set any precedent either. Libel payout of this magnitude, even to this day, are so rare I'd doubt you'll ever find one like this again.  Canada has always been very conservative on damages with the exception of the rare case like this. The true value and importance of the case can be summarized in two points. First, the Court rejects the actual malace test for libel claims and second, the Court says that the common law must conform to the values of the Charter. That's all there is to it. The fact that the scientologists were involved in the case is entirely incidental to the decision's importance, and in the end the decision does not affect their legal status as a religion or organization in any way. If you read the decision, there is no examination of scientology as a religion, and no comment in that respect are ever made. They are merely treated like any other party to a case. --PullUpYourSocks 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But from the point of view of a reader looking through the Scientology articles, this is a very notable case. As you say above, it's unlikely you'll ever find one like this again.  You're probably correct that this was an unimportant case in the context of the Canadian Supreme Court, but it was certainly important to the Church of Scientology.  The template does belong here. Tempshill 22:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is an article on Canadian law, not Scientology. A template, I would imagine, is not just used for articles important to the topic, but rather for articles central to the understanding of the subject. If an organization template is added every time an event or person has a major effect on an organization the article would become overpopulated with them. Otherwise, for example, why not put an Islam template on the George Bush or War on Terror articles since clearly they have had a major impact on the entire global religion? The key issue here is what is the criteria for an template to be added. I would say it is more than just a degree of importance to the template topic. A starting point is that it should be something of such importance that there should be a link to the article on the template. From what I have seen of just about all templates on wikipedia, this has been the standard. From there the issue is only a matter of whether the article is so important that it should be linked to the template. --PullUpYourSocks 12:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no question that Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto is a key Canadian law case, and almost any new case even touching on Charter rights has to cite it. Right now, there are two stubs trying to do double duty as legal and Scientology articles. Eventually an article needs to be split off of R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto that covers the whole Scientology Controversy in Canada, going back to events before the the raid, the Snow White connection, the various cases that spun off from it and the broader events with more newspaper references than a legal case article should have. I'll get my huge staff on it right away. :) AndroidCat 13:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good call. I don't think the article can be effective in doing "double duty". This whole the Snow White connection business is a matter best dealt with separately. --PullUpYourSocks 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Continued Offense...
Should this article mention the continued slander and libel efforts the Church carried out againsed Hill up to, during, and after the trial? Efforts that included reprinting of the statements in question, in addition to other statements the church made during this time. Efforts that proved to be so widely pervasive that the Supreme Court chastised the organization for their aggressive behaviour both in the presence of the jury and abroad. I'm not sure if it should be added here, but again it seems worth noting. --KefkaTheClown 07:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Though not central to the importance of the article it does sound relevant and so could be added in an appropriate place. If you can sources should be cited. It's a relatively major claim that may be challenged. --PullUpYourSocks 12:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If this was a Scientology article rather than a legal case, I'd probably quote bits from the Supreme Court, which was frequently direct in language. For example:
 * "In this case, there was ample evidence upon which the jury could properly base their finding of aggravated damages. The existence of the file on Casey Hill under the designation "Enemy Canada" was evidence of the malicious intention of Scientology to "neutralize" him. The press conference was organized in such a manner as to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the libel. Scientology continued with the contempt proceedings although it knew its allegations were false. In its motion to remove Hill from the search warrant proceedings, it implied that he was not trustworthy and might act in those proceedings in a manner that would benefit him in his libel action. It pleaded justification or truth of its statement when it knew it to be false. It subjected Hill to a demeaning cross-examination and, in its address to the jury, depicted Hill as a manipulative actor." AndroidCat 13:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if it came directly from the judgment then I would say that's a reliable source. --PullUpYourSocks 21:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Two cases in "See also" section
Recently two cases were added to the "See also" section of the article. However, per WP:LAYOUT, this section should really be for other articles in Wikipedia that don't happen to already be linked in the text, and the links in the "See also" section are external links. Perhaps we could describe the two cases and the relevance to Hill v. Church in the article, and then include the relevant external links in the "External links" section? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

pwnt
read above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.51.222 (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto. 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/20070325185542/http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2002/2002scc85/2002scc85.html to http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2002/2002scc85/2002scc85.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311042401/http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc53/2004scc53.html to http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc53/2004scc53.html

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) 22:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto. 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/20141117211437/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=fc9942ea-3a49-4cea-9f74-5e6a923cefa1 to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=fc9942ea-3a49-4cea-9f74-5e6a923cefa1

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) 23:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)