This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Law Low‑importance Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles 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 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 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

• ... that the Anglin Court did not believe women were "persons"?

• ALT1: ... that the Anglin Court was created because the alternative Chief Justice candidates did not want the job, were too old, or drunk? Source: Eugène Lafleur declined the appointment (Snell & Vaughan 1985, p. 123); John Idington, whose declining mental capacity led to his eventual removal in 1927 (Snell & Vaughan 1985, p. 122.) "Idington had been described by the prime minister as 'senile.'" (Snell & Vaughan 1985, p. 126.); Lyman Duff: "Second, and probably more important, Duff had a drinking problem, and perhaps had even become an alcoholic. All of the specific evidence of his heavy drinking comes from the early 1920s, and it may be that his resort to alcohol was a by-product of his nervous exhaustion at the end of the war." (Snell & Vaughan 1985, p. 122.)
• Reviewed:
• Comment: The Persons Case is likely the most notable decision of the early Supreme Court of Canada, and the SCC's decision was overturned by Lord Sankey at the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Caddyshack01 (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• Article is in good condition without evidenceo f copyvio - good work on writing on a relatively poorly covered field (Canadian judicial history) on here. The ALT0 hook seems to check out from the quoted source. No QPQ needed, so all is good to go. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Caddyshack01, Generalissima, and HurricaneZeta: I've pulled this hook following a discussion at errors. I think the best way forward is to develop a hook that verifies to the sources and resolve the {{Contradicts other}} tag I've placed on the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't notice the issues with the sourcing. HurricaneZeta^C 17:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima, HurricaneZeta, Departure–, and Theleekycauldron: I can accept that hook 1 (... that the Anglin Court did not believe women were "persons"?") is not a complete statement. It can be changed to the language ... that the Anglin Court did not believe women were "persons" for appointment to the Senate?". Or another hook can be used. As noted in the articles, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "qualified person" under s.24 of the BNA Act, 1867 (now Constitution Act, 1867), considering the qualifications under s.23, did not include women. The decision was unanimous amongst the justices, although at the time it was common for each justice to write their own individual opinion rather than agreeing with another. The quote from Snell and Vaughan is "The best example in this period can be found in the famous Persons case, in which on reference the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that women were not 'qualified persons' eligible for appointment to the Senate" (pg.141). It could be corrected to add "for appointment to the Senate of Canada."

The content in the Person's Case Misconceptions section is (legally, although not entirely sociologically) accurate, Anglin put significant effort into stating that women were human beings. However, his decision was to accept that they were not "persons" in an originalist interpretation of the statute in context of the question (appointment to the Senate) and instead felt it was Parliament's role to legislate to provide for their appointment. The head note in the case after "Per Anglin C.J.C. and Lamont and Smith JJ.—" (see Persons Case 1928 CanLII 55) summarizes the reasoning of Anglin in the decision.

The legacy of the person's case (at the SCC) is essentially that women were not equal in Canadian society which was an active question in this decade, women were first permitting to run as candidates for the House of Commons only 8 years earlier. The Senate of Canada itself states "In 1927, ...asked the Supreme Court of Canada whether the British North America Act’s (BNA) section 24 included women in its definition of "persons." Five weeks later, the Supreme Court reached a verdict in Edwards v Canada, the official name of the case. Its conclusion? Under Canadian law, women were not "persons." (Senate of Canada Why the Persons Case Matters). The Court's narrow thinking in this case literally led to the adoption of the living tree doctrine of constitutional interpretation. The final statement in Anglin's biography it notes "To the extent that Anglin is remembered at all, it is as a hard-working, competent, but unimaginative legal technician. His written opinion in the persons case is one of the most criticized and ridiculed decisions ever made by the Supreme Court. Regrettably, it has become his legacy." (Anglin, Francis, Dictionary of Canadian Biography). More about the decision can be read in Ian Bushnell's chapter on it (starting page 218 The captive court). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddyshack01 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the previous post was unsigned, the pings will not have gone through. Pinging Caddyshack01, who forgot to sign their post of two weeks ago, Generalissima, HurricaneZeta, Departure–, and theleekycauldron in the hopes that this nomination can get moving again. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left my original ERRORS message because the article Edwards v Canada (AG), linked in the DYK blurb, contained this below:

A common misinterpretation of the case is that the Supreme Court held that women are not persons. For example, the website of Status of Women Canada, a federal government organization, states, "After five weeks of debate and argument the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the word 'person' did not include women."

The blurb on the table then, which was scheduled to run the next day, read:

"... that the Anglin Court did not believe that women were "persons"?"

To me, this was just a case of someone in the chain not doing their due diligence (note I don't mean this in an accusatory manner), either on fact checking or making sure articles don't contradict each other in such a blatant manner. For the record, the article still contains that quote. I haven't looked too far into it, though. If the new blurb doesn't obviously contradict the article linked, I don't have a problem with running it. Departure– (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron and Departure–: This nomination turns two months old in a few days, has everything been addressed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no, they haven't been. fails to address the complaint, as pointed out in mainspace too, that the obvious implication of the ruling is that women are not "qualified persons" because they are held to not be qualified, not because they are held to not be persons (even though both are equally and obviously wrong). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Caddyshack01: Please return to the nomination by January 6, as by then the nomination will be two months old and this will be eligible for timing out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]