Talk:Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Canada: Governments Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The section on Shiv Chopra seems redundant since it is already covered under "Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversies." I propose that it be deleted - the link to the free speech controversies page should be enough. Toby32225 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted statement does not seem directly related to the Tribunal. Courts/tribunals do not typically provide legal support, etc. to respondents in civil matters. Perhaps this is a critique more relevant to the Human Rights Legal Support Centre? Also, it's less applicable where the respondent is the government or a large corporation. Maybe the statement could be reframed with respect to situations where the respondent is a small business or private individual? Either way, it seems a bit out of place for an encyclopedic entry. Toby32225 (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]