[ql06] PUBLIC: Mac-Blo v. Simpson citation in Supplement Book
- From: "Ken Campbell -- LAW'06" <2kc16@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Stan Corbett" <corbetts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:07:10 -0400
Hey Stan!
(I'm the guy who showed you his fancy diagram re: Bibeault.)
I run a newslist for people in LAW-06. We post various news stories
about topics relevant to what we're learning in classes.
Today's Globe had a story about that related to the Mac-Blo v. Simpson
case. It afforded me the opportunity to revisit that case, put it in
perspective, etc, etc.
THE POINT: In trying to look up the case online, via the citation in
your supplement book, I was taken to a _different_ decision. Your
citation
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 1048
deals with whether Mac-Blo could use "john does" in getting an
injunction against blocking the logging. I also noted it had a different
file number than it provided in your supplement citation.
I looked around a bit and found the decision on the kid and the YOA's
jurisdiction regarding ex facie contempt et al. (It has the File No. in
your citation, however.)
MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson
J.P., appellant;
v.
MacMillan Bloedel Limited, respondent, and
The Attorney General of British Columbia, respondent, and
The Attorney General of Canada, intervener.
[1995] 4 S.C.R. 725
[1995] S.C.J. No. 101
File No.: 24171.
1995: June 12 / 1995: December 14.
Just thought I'd pass it along... since I'm learning to use all these
research tools.
Ken.
P.S. Greatly enjoy your instructional style! And, as I mentioned to you
after class once, I love this level of law. It's extremely political and
deals with historical flows. "The high perch."
--
At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of
any decision is emotional. The rational part of us
supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.
-- William O. Douglas
Other related posts:
- » [ql06] PUBLIC: Mac-Blo v. Simpson citation in Supplement Book
