Talk:R v Latimer

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.

"anonymously written"

Regarding this edit, I didn't like the statement that the the judgment was anonymously written because that suggests that the writer might have been anyone in the world (cf. the novel Primary Colors). My understanding is that judgments attributed to "The Court" are the product of true collaboration between several judges (although not necessarily all of them), such that they felt it would be unfair for any one of them to be listed as the judgment's author. I'm not sure if there's a concise way of getting that idea across in the article. --Mathew5000 12:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. It might be worth linking it to Per curiam decision. However, I'm not so sure the Court attributes deicisions to "The Court" in order to be "fair". For example, in the Mugesera v. Canada decision was literally attributed to every judge. They could always do that, if they wanted to be fair. Also, I've also heard that often per curiam decisions are actually written by single judges. The word has it that the Secession Reference was mostly written by Binnie. Instead, I believe "The Court" is typically reserved for the most controverisal cases, both because they do not want an inidividual judge to wear it and because they want to give the decision the full authority possible. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with any changes. That's just my two cents. --PullUpYourSocks 12:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]