Talk:Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act

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.

--Judicial Activism--

CanadianCaesar deleted my contribution on the impact of the decision on judicial activism. While it was not perfect, don't you think such a section is necessary as this case is often taken as a key example of judicial activism by the supreme court.70.80.73.22 22:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with CanadianCaesar's deletion. The issue you've identified is a valid and interesting one. The way you're described the issue is what's problematic. Firstly, the label "judicial activism" is such a deeply loaded word that it is usually unhelpful and can be extremely hard to use while maintaining NPOV. Also, your contribution made a number of major claims none of which were cited and hinted of original research. The best way to tackle this issue is to view the academic literature on both sides of this issue, rather than make vague claims to public opinion on the result. While what Lamer did may not have been "right", it was not unheard of or completely radical. In this case, it seems he may have been following a textualist or strict constructionist approach to interpretation. We may not agree on these doctrines but they are not illegitimate. A proper treatment should not try to argue that Lamer was wrong. Intead it would consider what his judicial philosophy was and what academics have to say for and against it. --PullUpYourSocks 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]