Law Flashcards
Limitation period
deadline to bring forward a court notice or claim
Limitation period deadlines
family law: 2 years from divorce or 6 from seperation
Public law
law between individuals and states
Administrative law
governs bureaucrats and governemnt officials
Tribunals
quasi-court processes
Tribunals are made up of
individuals with specialized knowledge, mostly lawyers and judges
Natural justice / due process
right to be heard, right to a fair hearing, right to appear before an unbiased judge
Court actions against a tribunal decision
quash, prohibit, or award damages
Agreement of purchase and sale components
document of any sale of property
Joint tenants
both parties own 100% of the property
Tenants in common
ownership is split any % between parties
Requisition date
deadline for buyers to declare any issues they have with the property
Root of title
how the owners of the property obtained that property
Planning act
the owner has to get government approval if they only want to sell part of the house
Chattles
selling things inside or around the house like decorations and furniture (tool rule)
HST
taxes on buying property, unless it is used residential property
Capital Gains tax
taxes on the profit the owner makes from selling a property, unless it was their primary residence for at least 1 year
Actus reus
action of committing a crime
Mens rea
mental intent to do the crime (subjective and objective)
Subjective mens rea
personal connection to the crime (ex. murder of a spouse, or sexual assault of a coworker)
Objective mens rea
failing to meet the standard of care of a reasonable person
Principle
the one who commits the crime
Aider
one who assists in committing the crime
Counsellor
the one who plans the crime
Abettor
the one who instigates the crime
Accessory after the fact
helping someone after the commit a crime
3 categories of offences
summary, indictable, and hybrid
Summary offences
less than 2 years sentence, must be charged within 12 months of the crime
Indictable offences
18 months and longer sentence, no time limit to be charged
Canadian Constitution
rules for lawmakers, limits the government use of power, includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
R v AM (Charter)
(dog sniffing case)
- Section 8: reasonable search and seizure
- police search a high school without a warrant upon request of the schools principle
- drug-sniffing dog find weed in a student’s backpack
- Supreme Court ruled there was not enough reasonable suspicion, and the search failed the reasonable search test
- fruit of the poison tree: evidence would bring admin of justice into disrepute, so evidence was dismissed
R v Feeney (Charter)
(search warrant)
- Section 8: unreasonable search and seizure
- police investigating a murder where Feeney is a suspect
- police entered his property without a search warrant and found him covered in blood
- Supreme Court determined that the police entered his property unlawfully, and evidence was dismissed
R v Harrison (Charter)
(traffic stop search)
- Section 8: unreasonable search and seizure
- Section 9: arbitrary detention
- police pulled over Harrison on a hunch, searched his car, and found large amounts of cocaine
- Supreme Court ruled that police had no ground to stop and search Harrison, so the evidence was dismissed
R v Stinchcombe (Charter)
(disclosure of evidence)
- Stinchcombe was being charged with theft and fraud
- the crown failed to disclose all their evidence to Stinchcombe’s defense
- Supreme Court ruled that the case would be dismissed because the crown has an obligation to disclose all their evidence before a trial
R v Williamson (Charter)
(undue trial delays)
- Section 3: undue delays in criminal proceedings
- Williamson was charged with sexual assault of young boys in a big brother program
- Williamson’s trial took 3 years to finish, most of which was the crown’s fault
- Supreme Court ruled that the trial took too long and so his case was dismissed
R v Oakes (Charter)
(Charter violations)
- Section 11 D: presumption of innocence
- Oakes was charged with drug trafficking for carrying a certain amount of has oil
- Section 8 of narcotics code: carrying a certain quantity of has oil presumed trafficking
- Supreme Court ruled that the section of the narcotics act was irrational
Oakes test (for Charter violations)
- Violation must be pressing and substantial
- Violation must be RATIONALLY CONNECTED to the objective
- Charter rights must be MINIMALLY IMPAIRED
- Violation must be PROPORTIONAL to the impact the case has on society
Plea bargain
defendant pleads guilty to the crime
Plea bargain advantages
possible short sentence, less costs, no family members have to be called in
Denunciation
judge disproves of the criminal’s actions on behalf of soceity
General deterence
harsh sentences to deter society from committing the same crime
Specific deterence
harsh sentences to deter the criminal from committing that crime again
Prison
for sentences of less than 2 years
Penitentiary
for sentences of 2 years or longer
Intermittent sentence
sentences where time is served in chunks cumulatively
Mental health court
criminal court for cases of severe mental health issues (no criminal record)
Restitution
compensation for damages caused to personal property during a crime
Aggregating factors
factors that increase sentences
Mitigating factors
factors that reduce sentences
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) types
mediation, arbitration, and family conferencing
Mediation
an unbiased third party tries to find common ground between to the parties’ interests
Evaluative mediation
an unbiased third party assigns value to each partys side and creates an outcome
Arbitration
binding decision, third party acts as a judge to hear both sides and resolves the case
Family group conferencing
the stakeholders of a family meet and discuss the best interests of the family and children
R v Perka
(defence of necessity)
- a storm caused a ship headed for Alaska to stop in BC
- BC port officials searched the boat and found large amounts of weed
- Perka defence argued that the boat had to stop in BC, to save the lives of the crew members
R v Rusek
(defence of duress)
- Rusek was caught importing large quantites of heroin from Europe
- Rusek defence argued that Rusek was forced to traffick the drugs under threat of her mother’s life and rape back in Europe
Defence of duress requirements
- Threats must be of death or serious harm
- Threats must be serious and realistic
- Crime must be a reasonable reaction to the threats (reasonable persons test)
- There was no safe avenue to escape threats
- Threatened person is not a part of a criminal organization
R v Parks
(defence of automatism)
- Parks had a serious sleepwalking condition
- Parks sleepwalked and drove to his in-laws house and killed his mother in-law
- Court ruled Parks was not conscious during the time of the crime and he was acquitted
R v Sullivan
(defence of extreme intoxication)
- Section 33 (1) of Criminal Code
- you are criminally responsible for any crime you commit while extremely intoxicated, even to the point of loss of consciousness
- there is an assumed risk that you take on when you choose to get extremely intoxicated
R v Hart
(police enticement)
- undercover police entices Hart to join a fake criminal organization, to get a confession on the murder of his daughters
- Hart confesses to the murders, but he was lying
- Mr. Big
R v Jordan
(trial time limits)
- Jordan was arrested for drug trafficking
- Jordan’s trial took 49 months, not his fault
- Court set new limits for trial wait times
- Summary offences: 18 months maximum
- Indictable offences: 30 months maximum
