Talk:Patriation Reference

Needs fixing
Large parts of this article are totally wrong, mixing up the Patriation Reference (September 28, 1981) with the Quebec Veto Reference (December 6, 1982). I will fix it up when I have some time.--Mathew5000 02:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Terminology
There is a distinct difference between a "case" and a "reference" or advisory opinion. It is extremely important to maintain the difference, since one is LAW and the other is not; one is a JUDICIAL function, the other is not. I therefore recommend removing the word "case" wherever it is used i.e., with "reference case".

On the same basis, the words "judgment", "ruling", "decision" and similar should never be used re an advisory, as these are not judicial judgments, are not law, are not legally enforceable. The term "opinion" is preferable at all times to avoid confusion.

In addition, the confusion is escalated in the so-called "Patriation" "appeal", since there is really no such thing as an "appeal" where there is no call to revise a JUDICIAL decision. The "appeals" from advisory opinions are some kind of ad-hoc revision, but they are not legally speaking "appeals" at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.140.7 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"occurred during"
I don't really like the phrasing that the case "occurred during the patriation of the constitution". It would be better to say that it took place a few months before patriation. Either that, or say that it took place during the negotiations which led to patriation. By the way, there are two r's in "occurred".

I'm pretty sure that it is in fact true that the audio was lost just before the Chief Justice began speaking (or maybe just after). --Mathew5000 00:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Patriation"
In fact, there was no patriation, since nothing legal was accomplished. Those events were outside the law, and were imposed, since the Trudeau regime had no constitutional (legal) authority to bring in its "package". The so-called patriation might be challenged on the ground that it was an unconstitutional "amendment", or on the ground that it was outside the law altogether and was a coup. The result in this situation is a coup d'état, as admitted by one of Trudeau's own advisers, Barry Lee Strayer, who participated in the coup, documents here:

http://patriationandlegitimacyofthecanadianconstitution.wordpress.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.140.7 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the usual Separatist myth-making. By trying to undermine the reputation of the Canadian Supreme Court, the object is to undermine its legitimacy in Quebec.  The arguments are typically unsupportable. But why quibble when an effective rebuttal will do:
 * Girard, Philip. "A Tempest in a Transatlantic Teapot: A Legal Historian’s Critical Analysis of Frédéric Bastien’s La Bataille de Londres."
 * Osgoode Hall Law Journal 51.2 (2014) : 673-699.
 * http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol51/iss2/8
 * And if that weren't enough, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau had something to say about the Patriation Reference at the opening of the Bora Laskin law library at the University of Toronto in 1991:  Convocation Speech at the Opening of the Bora Laskin Law Library. Pierre Elliott Trudeau
 * The University of Toronto Law Journal
 * Vol. 41, No. 3 (Summer, 1991), pp. 295-306 104.160.255.161 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)