Why Call it CUPE?
A rant from a footnote in a paper I am working on, discussing amongst other things Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79,  3 SCR 77:
Hereafter “CUPE (2003)”. I call it CUPE (2003) to distinguish it from C.U.P.E. v. New Brunswick Liquor Corporation,  2 SCR 227, which is generally referred to as “CUPE”. I must confess that I do not understand why one is supposed to refer to this foundational decision on deference as CUPE and not as New Brunswick Liquor. When a large institutional litigant is involved, it makes much more sense to me to employ the name of the smaller party as shorthand. Although I cannot claim to have researched the point with any degree of intensity, it seems to me to be safe to say that the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation has not featured as often as the Canadian Union of Public Employees in important administrative law cases.
Should I put it in the text? Or should I leave out entirely?
This content has been updated on August 11, 2015 at 12:29.