Precedence is odd and many-faceted, and in a case like this, it would be done indeed to show how other courts have handled the situation. If a Canadian ruling c

Precedence is odd and many-faceted, and in a case like this, it would be done indeed to show how other courts have handled the situation. If a Canadian ruling can give a bit of relevant guidance, than it is something that would be put into a case to help bolster the cause. Conversely, neither the judge, nor jury, has to take the Canadian ruling into consideration at all, as it isn't binding. Pretty much it's just helpful advice for the court to keep in mind.