Under the status quo, it is the norm for judges to refrain from commenting on hypothetical situations. Examples include refusing to judge "moot" cases - cases about situations that have not yet arisen or are no longer extant, only ruling on issues that directly contribute to the resolution of the dispute at hand, and sometimes explicitly refraining from making a decision on a given issue and leaving it for future litigation or for the intervention of the legislator. This is particularly common in higher courts, where precedents are binding. In the Borowski decision, for example, the Canadian Supreme Court declined to decide whether a fetus had a right to life under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.