Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > Law EXAM > Flashcards

Law EXAM Flashcards

1
Q

A form of defense whereby a defendant attempts to prove that he or she was elsewhere when the crime in question was committed.

A

Alibi

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

someone who aided someone after they commited a crime

A

accessory after the fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Latin phrase meaning “a wrongful deed”; the criminal act or omission to act, which with mens rea, makes one criminally liable.

A

actus reus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

gave British Parliament supremacy over the monarchy and extended certain civil and political rights.

A

Bill of rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

ensures that government deals with citizens fairly and lawfully

A

administrative law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

More likely than not that something happened.

A

balance of probabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

laws that are emplaced rules made by a council or board to a certain region

A

by-law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

A bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada

A

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

the law that has been established by following decisions made by judges in earlier cases and precedent

A

case-law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

known as private law or tort law, purpose of civil law is to compensate for harm, usually in the form of damages (money) awarded to a plaintiff for harm,loss, or injury.

A

Civil law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

First set of law that was based on precedent

A

common law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

An agreement to commit a crime in the future with two or more people

A

conspiracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Written and unwritten laws that set out how the country will be governed.

A

constitutional law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

lawyers, who act as prosecutors on behalf of society as a whole.

A

crown attorney

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

the determination as to what extent the claimant may have contributed to the occurrence or severity of the accident

A

contributory negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Deals with offenses committed against society.

A

criminal law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

where the accused is held legally responsible as the death can be caused by a person intentionally or unintentionally

A

culpable homicide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

an accused person has the right to the disclosure of all relevant information in the possession or control of the Crown

A

Disclosure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

The person did absolutely everything to avoid wrong or an accident

A

due diligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

The responsibility or legal obligation of a person or organization to avoid acts or omissions that could likely cause harm to others

A

duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

used to bring a prisoner or other detainee before the court to determine if the person’s imprisonment or detention is lawful

A

Habeas Corpus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

The true purpose of one’s actions

A

Intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

form of defamation that is written

A

libel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

the process of taking legal action

A

litigation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Guilty mind

A

mens rea

22
Q

First step in establishing basic human rights. Shows that no one is higher than the law

A

Magna Carta

23
Q

specific to a particular county, city, town, or township, or other district or governmental entity possessing corporate status and usually its own governing body

A

municipal

24
Q

the reason for committing a certain act

A

motive

25
Q

when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

A

murder

26
Q

a hearing held by the Court to decide whether there is enough evidence to send the case to trial

A

preliminary hearing

27
Q

A legal rule that is binding

A

precedence

28
Q

unjustified risk taking

A

Reckless

29
Q

a violation of a law that is not listed in the Criminal Code of Canada or its related statutes

A

Regulatory offences

30
Q

all people are treated equally by the same standards

A

rule of law

31
Q

a person is permitted to take reasonable action to protect themselves or others without being guilty of an offense

A

Self-defence

32
Q

occurs when a person’s character has been defamed verbally

A

Slander

33
Q

A major cultural matter in Canada

A

Sovereignty

34
Q

a law passed by the legislative branch of a government

A

statute law

35
Q

to tell the truth

A

voir dire

36
Q

when a person engages in an activity, and they accept and are aware of the risks inherent in that activity

A

voluntary assumption of risk

37
Q

R. v Mortgentaller (1993)

A
  • LEGALIZING ABORTIONS CASE
  • Performing illegal abortions in Nova Scotia
  • He claimed the Act and Regulation were unconstitu­tional
  • SCC ruled that the Criminal Code provisions relating to abortion were unconstitutional because they violated women’s Charter guarantee of security of the person
38
Q

R. v Marshall (1999)

A
  • FISHING LAWS
  • first (and only?) person to go all the way to the SCC twice (and he won both times)
  • Case: fishing for eels outside of season, without a license, and using illegal nets
  • SCC ruled in his favour and ruled that you can make a ‘moderate livelihood’ from commercial fishing and hunting
  • The ruling was a key test of native fishing rights and sparked debates over what should and shouldn’t be considered a “traditional” use of natural resources.
39
Q

R. v Lavallee (1990)

A
  • BATTERED WOMEN’S SYNDROME CASE
  • Woman in an abusive relationship shot and killed her husband in a “period of calm”
  • It is legally recognized as battered woman syndrome and the court held in favor of allowing battered woman syndrome to explain the mental conditions for self-defense
40
Q

R. v Keegstra (1990)

A
  • NAZI TEACHER/LIMITS TO FREEDOM OF SPEACH CASE
  • James Keegstra, a high-school teacher in Alberta, told his class that Jews were evil and doubted the occurrence of the Holocaust
  • Keegstra tried to use the Charter right of freedom of speech to defend himself
  • Set precedent of the limits of this Charter right on hate speech stipulated in the Criminal Code
41
Q

R. v Greyeyes (1997)

A
  • the accused helped undercover police find a source of cocaine and to buy a quantity of it
  • his charges were originally acquitted, but the Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal
  • The court had to decide whether someone assisting in the selling of narcotics can be found to be a party to the offence of trafficking under aiding or abetting in the sale of narcotics
42
Q

R. v Ewanchuk

A
  • IMPLIED CONSENT CASE
  • A 17-year-old girl attended a job interview and Mr. Ewanchuk invited her to see his work in the trailer and shut the door
  • He made numerous advances, getting more aggressive each time even though the complainant said no to each advance
  • The Court held that there was no defence of implied consent = set precedent that there is no such thing as implied consent
43
Q

R. v A M (2008)

A
  • SNIFFER DOG CASE
  • The police brought sniffer dogs into the school to search for drugs
  • sniffer dog reacted to A.M.’s backpack and, without obtaining a warrant, the police opened the backpack and found illegal drugs
  • A.M. was arrested and charged with possession of drugs for trafficking
  • The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute
44
Q

M v H (1999)

A
  • SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CASE
  • M and H are women who lived in a same-sex relationship and after their relationship ended, M applied for spousal support under Ontario’s Family Law Act (the FLA)
  • She challenged the definition of “spouse” under the FLA, which applied only to married couples and opposite-sex couples who had lived together for three or more years.
  • It’s a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the rights of same-sex couples to equal treatment under the Constitution of Canada.
45
Q

Multani v Commission scolaire M-B (2006)

A
  • The school’s governing board pro­hibited the student from wearing the kirpan to school as it violated the school’s code of conduct prohibition against the wearing of weapons and dangerous objects.
  • The court firmly established the principle that religious observances must be accommodated to the point of undue hardship.
  • The appellant must establish the following:
    that he or she sincerely believes in the practice or belief that has a connection with religion;
    that his or her ability with the practice or religious belief is being interfered with
46
Q

Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurants (1994)

A
  • Stella Liebeck bought a cup of takeout coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru and spilled it on her lap.
  • She sued McDonald’s and a jury awarded her nearly $3 million in punitive damages for the burns she suffered.
47
Q

Galaske v O’Donnell (1994)

A
  • An 8-year-old and his dad were passengers in a truck driven by O’Donnell. Both passengers weren’t wearing a seatbelt and the father died and the son became paraplegic in a crash.
  • O’Donnell didn’t do anything to ensure he was ok because his dad was there.
  • It recognized that the driver owes a duty of care to all under-age passengers.
48
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

A

FIRST NEGLIGENCE CASE - SNAIL IN A BOTTLE
- Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a ginger-beer and she consumed about half of the bottle, which was made of dark opaque glass, when the remainder of the contents was poured into a tumbler.
- At this point, the decomposed remains of a snail floated out causing her alleged shock and severe gastro-enteritis.
- This case created precedent allowing someone to sue an entire company.

49
Q

Corbiere et al. v BC Attorney General (1973)

A
  • The Nisga’a Tribal Council brought an action for a declaration “that the aboriginal title, otherwise known as the Indian title, of the Plaintiffs to their ancient tribal territory… has never been lawfully extinguished”.
  • The action was dismissed at trial and the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal.
  • It recognized the possible existence of aboriginal titles in Canada.
50
Q

Bertuzzi v Moore (2008)

A
  • Bertuzzi struck Moore from behind, driving him to the ice face first. He sustained massive injuries as a result of the assault including spinal fractions, spine ligament injuries, a closed head injury, facial lacerations and abrasions, loss of consciousness, and loss of memory.
51
Q

R. v Oakes (1986)

A
  • Oakes was found to be in possession of marijuana and he was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.
  • This established the Oakes test, an analysis of the limitations clause (section 1) of the CCRF that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if the limitation is motivated by a “pressing and substantial objective” and can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
52
Q

R. v Parker (2000)

A
  • Parker suffered from a very severe form of epilepsy since childhood.
  • He found that by smoking marijuana he could substantially reduce the incidence of seizures.
  • He grew his own marijuana and on two occa­sions, the police searched his home and seized the marijuana.
  • He was first charged with cultivating marijuana and with possession of marijuana under the Narcotic Control Act.
  • The court held that legal possession by, and access to, marijuana for those with a legitimate medical need is a Charter right.
53
Q

R. v Parks (1992)

A
  • Parks attacked his parents-in-law when he was sleepwalking.
  • He drove 23 kilometers to their house when he was sleepwalking and stabbed them in their sleep with a kitchen knife.
  • His mother-in-law died, and his father-in-law was seriously injured.
  • It’s a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal automatism defense.
54
Q

R. v Stinchcombe (1991)

A

DISCLOSURE CASE
- Stinchcombe was charged with breach of trust, theft, and fraud and his defense counsel was informed of the existence of statements but not the content of them.
- The defense lawyer learned that the Crown was not going to call that witness to the stand during trial.
- Counsel sought an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose contents of the statements.
- It is a landmark of the decision on the disclosure of evidence in a trial.

55
Q

Resurfice Corp. v Hanke (2007)

A
  • ZAMBONI CASE
  • The plaintiff mistakenly placed hot water into the gasoline tank of an ice resurfacing machine, causing an explosion when vaporized gasoline ignited from an overhead heater.
  • This case ensures that a defendant will not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries where they “may very well be due to factors unconnected to the defendant and not the fault of anyone”.
56
Q

Sauve v Canada (2002)

A
  • The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that prisoners serving terms of two years or more could not be disqualified from voting, as doing so was an unreasonable limit on their right to vote.
  • Sauve challenged the long-standing provision in the Canada Elections Act. The Court held that prisoners have a right to vote under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
57
Q

Young v Bella (2006)

A
  • Professor Bella mistook an appendix in a paper submitted by Young, which provided a first-hand account of a victim of sexual abuse repeating the cycle as an adult, for a confession by the plaintiff.
  • Bella took her concerns to William Rowe, the Director of the School of Social Work, who submitted a report to Child Protection Services.
  • The court held that the teacher and university were liable for reporting her without having reasonable cause.

Law (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions