Talk:Supreme Court Act

Untitled
Would somebody please provide a list of the CITATIONS of all Supreme Court Acts and revisions since 1875? There would be under a dozen, maybe under ten. It would be nice to have them, as they are each different, and each one relates directly to the cases of the Supreme Court of Canada online at LEXUM. Reading those older cases without benefit of the Supreme Court Act of the day is a very deficient approach to information on precedents and case law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.13.177 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Section 53 give the government the ability to submit Reference questions. This has been controversial as the Constitution Act, 1867 provides for a general court of appeal, but not for a court that may receive reference questions; however, this provision has been upheld as constitutional." -- An advisory opinion has no binding force, as was clearly stated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1912 on a question of the constitutionality of directing reference questions to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada itself, in a 1998 advisory, alleged that the reference jurisdiction is constitutional; however, this allegation was no more binding than conclusions drawn in any other reference. It is therefore ludicrous to suggest that the constitutionality of the opinion/advisory/reference/special jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada has been "upheld" as constitutional. This cannot be stated as fact until such time as a competent COURT hears it at first instance, with all the necessary procedural safeguards, including appeal. The issue of constitutionality of the Supreme Court's opinion jurisdiction may belong to the Section 96 Courts, who as descendants of the Royal Courts of Justice enjoy the right of constitutional adjudication a first instance. It might also belong to the Federal Court of Canada in either parallel or exclusive jurisdiction. Only time will tell. In the meantime, I strongly suggest NOT USING LEGAL TERMS CONDUCIVE TO MISLEADING the public, such as the constitutionality... was "UPHELD" when no such thing has yet happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.223 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: this article on the Supreme Court Act has been ranked by Wikipedia as of "low importance". This is why I just love it when unqualified people run online encyclopedias. AS IT HAPPENS, the question of the constitutionality or not of Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act will determine whether the Clarity Act is legal or not. The Clarity Act purports to provide for the TERMINATION OF CANADA by multiple secessions, thus dissolving Canada, its Parliament and Crown. Talk about "low importance". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.223 (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)