midterm Flashcards

Question

Testaters intent;

Answer 1

court follows intention of the person who died (their will)

Answer 2

Statutes come from legitimate law-making institutions Formal products of the legislative process Federal and provincial (municipalities pass by-laws, alway a delegated form of authority) Examples of well known federal statutes: criminal code of canada, income tax act, emergencies act

Answer 3

Laws made under a delegation of authority (by statute) to another body or office (subordinate legislation) Regulations are legally binding and thus distinct from other forms of soft law (guidelines, codes of conduct) Danger of overregulation Substantive overregulation

Answer 4

Income tax act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.). RSC; Revised Statute of Canada; 1985- canadian level, most recent federal consolidation, 1990- ontario level, most recent ontario consolidation, older, if its newer it just says SC, 1985 and 1990 consolidation years Examples of well known ontario (provincial) statutes: Highway traffic act, liquor control act/ liquor license act, residential tenant act Citation; Highway to traffic act, RSO, 1990, c. H. 8

Answer 5

challenge to liberal democracy, law is infinitely pliable, basic principle of legitimacy; “a judicial decision is correct today when it can be assumed that another judge would decide in the same way”

Answer 6

“best fit” thinking, ideal judge, judge needs to identify case and in order to solve needs to situate that resolution in broader areas of law, familiar with all legal areas

Answer 7

literally “to stand by decided matters” Stare decisis et non qureta movere (to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed Application requires identifying the ratio decendi (reason for the decision) and distinguishing it from the obiter dicta (things said in passing)

Answer 8

“in order to make the maxim anything other than a largely useless tautology”, you need to have “some substantive criterion of likeness”; “given that any two items in the world share some but not all of the properties of the respective items, any two items can be deemed alike in some respect and unlike in others, thus making the mere idea of likeness or unlikeness singularity unhelpful

Answer 9

courts below in the judicial hierarchy must apply the precedents of the courts above; both the bedford and carter trial courts deviated from a clear surpreme court precedent

Answer 10

courts should maintain their own precedents; high courts, including the supreme court of canada, are not bound by their own precedents; *but* they want to maintain stability in law

Answer 11

brandeis then concisely articulated the general arguments for and against the application of stare decisis, he began; stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right…

Answer 12

Some argue stare decisis is inherently conservative True; it means law adapts slowly, has created a judiciary that is occasionally out of step with society False; it can adapt quickly when judges accept social change and it is always subject to judicial control Pre- charter we would have perceived the judiciary as (small-c) conservative; now perceived as progressive

Answer 13

notwithstanding gives primacy to something, one section trumps the others

Answer 14

includes is open ended meaning we can have more than what is actually listed, means is what is stated on the page is everything there, exhaustive, can not add anything beyond what is listed

Answer 15

“It is unnecessary to emphasize the importance of clarity and certainty when freedom is at stake. No authority is needed for the proposition that if real ambiguities are found, or doubts of substance arise, in the construction and application of a statute affecting the liberty of a subject, then that statute should be applied in such a manner as to favour the person against whom it is sought to be enforced. If one is to be incarcerated, one should at least know that some Act of parliament requires it in express terms, and not, at most, by implication” - Marcotte (1976), Dickson J We always use driedgers rule, however if it is a criminal law case we have this other penal rule to consider If it is not 100% clear you must rule in favour of the accused

Answer 16

Driedger’s Modern Rule- “Today, there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of the Act are to be read in their entire context in their grammatical sense harmoniously w/ the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament” Tells us all the things we should consider when interpreting the text Read the whole text- see how it works in its whole “harmoniously” does a lot of the work Terms to know “notwithstanding” (ignore other parts, the section takes precedent) vs “subject to” (opposite of notwithstanding) “includes” (not exhaustive; there could be other things included) vs “means” (exhaustive; if it means A, B, and C, it cannot mean D) Mandatory language (“shall”, “must”) vs permissive language (“may”) “and” (have to satisfy all requirements; must do A, B, and C) vs “or” (have to satisfy one of multiple conditions; must do A, B, or C) Interpretation Act- very explicit about language

Answer 17

Consolidation tells us everything legally binding and everything on the books Consolidative period is very starting point, means everything on books in written down All statutory citations refer back to consolidative period and cite change Every couple years in canada we take consolidation, clean it up and pass it as new, every revised change we refer to consolidation 1990, ontarios year of statutory consolidation 1985, federal statutory consolodation

Answer 18

Consolidation will have an R, ex RSC; Revised statute of canada Federal consolidation; 1985 Provincial consolidation; 1990 Jurisdiction; C for canada, O for ontario Origin; if at federal level it says 1986 or onwards then year in citation is year of encatment, if at provincial level it says 1991 or onwards then then year in citation is year of encatment

Answer 19

tort law case Individuals suing organization, interpreting a statute; CCC Suing for damages VLT vs 3 card monte

Answer 20

``` Mens rea (guilty mind) vs actus rea (guilty act) all offences in criminal code have some aspect of both Has lots of asymetrys One asymmetry is presumption of innocence, crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict Source of law: criminal code of canada (statute); knowingly, but can be trumped by constitution, murder requires subjective foresight of death Two types of offences: indictibale and summary conviction; interpretation act says summary conviction unless otherwise stated, indictable are more serious, summary penalty; jail up to 6 months and fine up to $5,000 CCC has offences that are malum in se (natural law)(evil in themselves), ex murder, and malum prohibitum (positivism) (wrong because prohibited), ex water skiing at night- positivism vs natural law Statutory offences vs common law defences Canada has no felonies or misdeamenors Criminal interest rate; 60% Every criminal offence has to be stauatorily codified by parliament Contempt of court; when judges make offences with their own court, exception to rule abput offences, used to maintain order within courtroom Offences; no commonlaw only statutory, defences; commonlaw and statutory ```

Answer 21

issued per year that contain all of the successful changes in parliament, changes make reference to the laws that are written in stone,

Answer 22

When we take the time to write out all the laws in the books, this is called consolidations or revised statutes, we consolidate and condense and pass all statutes as a giant blob, this tells us explicit laws in entirety and writes them all down word for word Consolidation usually happens every couple decades, it is a time consuming and expensive process, army of lawyers go in and sift through all laws in the books but important for ironing out any wrinkles that exist in statutory law When you write all laws in stone it is called consolidation or revised statutes, alternatively when we publish annually they are called the annual statutes and contain the statutory amendments passed by parliament for that given year, they write up new change and refer back to consolidation

Answer 23

Fuller’s response to Hart, who is a positivist; law has its own internal morality E.g. King Rex- if Hart was right, then Rex would be successful in passing his laws, and would not fail, as he did; 8 ways to fail to make law A failure to make any laws at all- all decisions on an ad hoc basis A failure to make laws public A failure to make law prospective Failure of congruence b/w the law as announced and the law as administered Law ensures our security by limiting some things, but the law also ensures our freedoms, allowing us to do things we want to do

Answer 24

“Law makes us do things we do not want to do”- Frederick Schauer 2015 Hart- “law often empowers rather than coerces”- it establishes a technology for people to exercise their freedom E.g. making wills, creating corporations and partnerships, forming gov’ts Loughlin- “law establishes the precondition for the conduct of politics”- if there was no law, there would be no politics

Answer 25

Conventional distinction- “public” versus “private”

Answer 26

constitutional law, criminal law, administrative law, taxation law Commonality- state is a party to the action

Answer 27

contract law, tort law, property law, family law, estate law, corporate law Commonality- actions are b/w private citizens Corporations can stand in the place of citizens/individuals Distinction is misleading; e.g. classifying labour law

Answer 28

“Private” law has a public political dimensions Family Law- is it in the best interests of the child to be raised w/ the mother or father or both? What religion should the child be raised in? Corporate Law- should a business be able to acquire another business purely for the purpose of putting it out of business? Are shareholders responsible for a corporation’s misdeeds? Estate Law- can you dispose of your property upon your death in any way you choose, even if the criteri was racist and sexist?

Answer 29

Loughlin- “politics and law can coexist effectively, although that is most likely to occur only when it is acknowledged that law forms an intrinsic part of the engagement which we call politics” States “brook no rivals”- “the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber) Kant- “politics must bend the knee before right” Loughlin believes that law and politics can coexist effectively; politics is informed and structured by law You also can’t understand law w/o understanding the politics behind it (e.g. statutes, common law)

Answer 30

Loughlin- “political power … a form of decision-making power which can only be exercised … in part at least, through the medium of law … [it] is relational …. A product of the relationship b/w the State and its citizens” Limitations Is it applicable to all states? (e.g. North Korea) “At least in part”- is this a challenge to the rule of law? Even in a country w/ a rule of law, not everything is done according to the law (e.g. political executives, national defense)

Answer 31

According to Loughlin, things that may seem fictional or wrong can still be useful “The Sun always moves; the sun never moves” Scientifically, the sun does not move However, in reality, we see the sun moving and use it as a way to determine when to sleep, or wake up, etc. Evaluating world-making- credibility, coherence, and utility Law as a “world-view” scores high on these criteria Bagehot- “It is often said that men are ruled by their imaginations … it would be truer to say they are governed by the weaknesses of their imaginations” Law is a narrative by which we understand our society and our own behaviour

Answer 32

Human Physical (material)- exists in the physical world Legal (ideational)- exists in the legal world Corporation Physical- does not exist in the physical world Legal- exists in the legal world Corporations exist only in law, and can only be destroyed by law Legal fiction has consequences If corporations are caught up in scandals, they will suffer corporate penalties Legal standpoint- seeks to determine whether QC has the authorization to secede, and if so, the process of secession

Answer 33

In Canada, legal instruments are always primary They trump moral considerations, political calculations, personal preferences, popular opinions, etc. Law can be very discretionary; legal power can be delegated, and non-legal factors can permeate the law E.g. Queen is legally very powerful Bureaucratic actors have enormous power over individuals Criminal law actors (police, prosecutors)

Answer 34

The Constitution Statutes Common law judgements- laws made by judges in cases; application of precedent Also includes regulations (authority regulated by statute) and executive actions (things the legislative or executive branch might do); ambiguous If statutes don’t conform w/ the Constitution, they are of no force or effect Common law judgements always yield to statutes and must conform to the Constitution

Answer 35

S.52 (CA 1982)- “supremacy clause”- Constitution is the Supreme law of Canada, and any statute that does not conform to the Constitution is of no force/effect Two major written components- (1) Constitution Act, 1867 (2) Constitution Act, 1982 CA 1867- preamble states that we have a Constitution similar in principle to that of the UK; not similar in detail (e.g. conventions) S.91- powers of the federal gov’t; S.92- powers of the provinces CA 1982- Charter of Rights and Freedoms; most important non-charter component is the amending formula

Answer 36

Charter contains a number of rights; s.2 (fundamental freedoms)- 2(b) freedom of expression, 2(d) freedom of association S.3- right to vote; S.7- right to life, liberty, and security of person S.15- equality; s.8-14- legal rights S.1- reasonable limits clause; no absolute rights (R v. Oakes- Oakes Test) Oakes test- helps the court determine whether there is a reasonable limit; individual must prove that their right was infringed; (1) objective- what was the gov’t trying to do; (2) is the limit proportional to that objective? Is there a rational connection b/w the means used and the objective? Minimal impairment- court must fix the impairment as minimally as possible General proportionality S.33- notwithstanding clause; no matter what was said elsewhere, notwithstanding all the rights given, gov’ts are allowed to limit and infringe rights as long as they state that rights are being infringed based on the notwithstanding clause Limit- only in effect for 5 years; then, you must revisit it

Answer 37

Come from legitimate law-making institutions Formal products of the legislative process Federal and provincial; municipalities pass “by-laws” (authority is delegated from the province) Federal \tes- Criminal Code of Canada, Income Tax Act, Emergencies Act Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th supp.). R.S.C 1985- most recent Federal Consolidation in 1985 Provincial statutes- Highway Traffic Act, Liquor Control Act/Liquor License Act, Residential Tenancies Act Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 R.S.O 1990- most recent Ontario consolidation in 1990

Answer 38

Laws made under a delegation of authority (by statute) to another body or office “subordinate legislation” E.g. Cabinet If the statute changes, it automatically overrules any regulations that have been made Are legally-binding; distinct from other forms of soft-law (e.g. guidelines, Codes of Conduct) Allows for danger of overregulation; gov’ts want to do more and more through regulation than through the parliamentary process Substantive overregulation Too much discretionary authority outside of legislature; allows executives/bureaucrats to be unchecked (other than statutory repeal/amendment) E.g. Canadian Radio-television and Communications Act- establishes CRTC Commissions; Broadcasting Act allows CRTC to make regulations “respecting the proportion of time that shall be devoted to the broadcasting of Canadian programs; and prescribing what constitutes a Canadian program” S.10 (1) (a) and (b)

Answer 39

Core of the judicial process is dispute regulation Courts are one method of resolving disputes (coercive) Adjudicate disputes by applying the law to the facts of the dispute Accepted by both parties b/c Court is impartial

Answer 40

Mediation- party C mediates dispute b/w party A and party B; party C makes decision, and all parties go back and forth until both parties agree Arbitration- similar to mediation, however, party C’s decision is binding Non-binding Arbitration- basically mediation

Answer 41

Jurisdiction- the power to hear a case Original jurisdiction- you can hear it for the first time; first hearing of the case (usually provincial courts) Appellant jurisdiction- you can hear it on appeal; majority of Supreme Court’s power is appellant jurisdiction Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over reference cases; e.g. same-sex marriage case Jurisdiction can be territorial, based on subject matter, hierarchical jurisdiction (SCC over provincial courts) Inherent jurisdiction- they can hear anything except that which has been carved away; if it hasn’t been given to anyone else, it’s heard here (superior courts have inherent jurisdiction)

Answer 42

Prior to 1949, our appeals would go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain; JCPC would overrule the decision of the SCC Had appellant jurisdiction over all legal matters in Canada Hears almost all cases by leave; chose to hear the case Hears matters of national controversy (Canada-wide) or matters w/ competing judgement (court of B.C. says one thing, and court of ON says another thing) Decisions are binding throughout the nation Statutory body; formed by the Supreme Court Act (1875) Prior to 1982, federal parliament could have abolished the SCC Since 1982, the existence of the SCC has been constitutionalized Composition of the SCC is constitutionalized (9 judges) 3 judges from QC; 3 judges from ON; 2 judges from the west (MB, SK, BC, AB); 1 judge from Atlantic Canada (NF, NB, NS, PEI) Unified court structure- Supreme Court has authority over all legal matters U.S. does not have a unified court structure, as there are federal and state courts U.S. Supreme Court does not hear cases unless it focuses on constitutional law

Answer 43

Generally, less authoritative than statutes, but if the Court is interpreting the Constitution, it can invalidate statutes; all statutes need to be interpreted in order to be applied Our system is the common law system, which means law develops over time through individual decisions Potential anarchy in this system is mitigated by stare decisis and the judicial hierarchy Judicial Hierarchy- appeals to higher court Stare decisis- let the decision stand; respect for precedent

Answer 44

Civil Law- continental Europe, Asia, QC and Scotland partly Common Law- UK, Canada, US, other former British colonies Shariah Law- mainly Islamic countries; theocratical system Canada is a bijuridical state: two systems of law in the state (quebec…) The Civil Code is used for private law in Quebec only for matters of provincial jurisdiction; common law is used for public law in all provinces including Quebec

Answer 45

Sources of Law- organic and experiential; case law (judge made, common law), legislation, written and unwritten constitution Legal Reasoning- stare decisis; ‘deciding like cases alike’ (precedent) From the ground up reasoning

Answer 46

Sources of Law- comprehensive codification; written codes, written constitutions Legal Reasoning- deductively applying principles in code to dispute before the court From the top down reasoning (deductive) Constitutional Law- division of powers (federal and provincial) and Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Answer 47

common law: legislation and/or judicial decisions Federal- criminal law, administrative law, tax law Immigration, environment, telecommunications, etc. Provincial- quasi-criminal laws (traffic laws), administrative law, [tax law] Education, labour, environment, etc.

Answer 48

common law: legislation and/or judicial decisions; civil law: code (Quebec) Federal- family law, copyright law, commercial law, [private claims against the Crown] Marriage and divorce, custody, support Provincial- family law, tort law, contract law, commercial law Custody access, support, property decision If there’s a matter of provincial law, you have to ask, “Where am I?” Quebec- only province with a civil code Anywhere else- common law

Answer 49

“the overarching normative relationship among legal subjects and the state”

Answer 50

On August 30, 2010, plaintiff Nasser Al-Aulaqi ("plaintiff") filed this action, claiming that the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA (collectively, "defendants") have unlawfully authorized the targeted killing of plaintiff's son, Anwar Al-Aulaqi, a dual U.S.-Yemeni citizen currently hiding in Yemen who has alleged ties to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula ("AQAP")

Answer 51

the state will only rarely interfere with the intentions of the testator about who will inherit his/her wealth; only when the testators wishes are contrary to "public policy" will they be altered/ignored

Answer 52

a procedural threshold that establishes whether a litigant may sue in court

Answer 53

could either approve or disapprove of both the decision in Carter v Canada and the cannabis act; natural law provides no definitive position on either matter

Answer 54

it is an Ontario statute

Answer 55

it emphasized the role of reason in law

Answer 56

common law rules and principles, except as altered by Federal statutes

Answer 57

all other federal courts in Canada, except the supreme court of Canada

Answer 58

unlike mediation, arbitration decisions are binding on the parties to the case

Answer 59

... allow ministers to suspend the operation of many laws or amend them without the ordinary legislative process

Answer 60

is an inclusive definition, meaning it provides some elements but it isn't exhaustive

Answer 61

"distinguished the case from the precedent"

Answer 62

the statute trumps the common law rule

Answer 63

"dissenting opinion"

Answer 64

requires us to interpret the words of the Act in their entire context, which includes (1) the grammatical sense of the words (2) the Act as a whole (3) the aim or object of the act and (4) the intentions of parliament. This is the standard routinely used by the supreme court of Canada

Answer 65

used a dictionary definition and referred to the intentions of parliamentarians

Answer 66

most things are alike and dissimilar in several ways; it is the substantive criterion of similarity that is important

Answer 67

common law offences have been eliminated (with the exception of contempt of court) but it is still possible to assert a common law defence in criminal law

Answer 68

a nineteen year old resident who has never been convicted of a crime does not have to pay the tax

Answer 69

the tribunal can choose whether or not to allow third parties to speak at the hearing

Answer 70

malum prohibitum

Answer 71

majority said yes

Answer 72

92% agreed with them

Answer 73

Law school is there to make you a lawyer, getting you into mindset of lawyer, less practice at understanding what legal knowledge means, law is much more bureaucratic and administrative, majority is writing letters Best thing you can do is talk to lawyers, internship or summer job

Answer 74

Culturally biased with white middle class framing Relies on implicit knowledge No correlation with performance at law school More of a weeding tool

Answer 75

LSAT score and GPA are most important Law-related jobs beyond being a lawyer; paralegals, law clerks, victim services in courtroom Be open to a changing career path Third and fourth year grades are most important

Answer 76

Duplessis Associated with Catholic Church Premier of Quebec prior to Quiet Revolution Ran Quebec like a private business Roncarelli Tavern owner Jehovah's Witness → paid bail for Jehovah's Witnesses who were arrested Laws were put in place to stop Jehovah's Witnesses from spreading their religion Duplessis wants to strip Roncarelli’s liquor license → license was stripped prior to expiry and the tavern was shut down Roncarelli wins the SCC → business is still shut down after the case Arbitrary use of power from Duplessis Intention of statute did not speak of any external variables

Answer 77

Rambo Lawyers and Rambo Litigation: “A lawyer, esp. A litigator, who uses aggressive, unethical, or illegal tactics in representing a client who lacks courtesy and professionalism in dealing with other lawyers.” Atticus Finch Model: gentlemanly law; ideal type of lawyers, Respectful, polite, ethical

Answer 78

- an increasing concern w/ the conduct of lawyers; reached its peak at the beginning of 2000s How lawyers relate to each other; lawyers are generally expected to respect conduct (judicial functioning, how they present themselves in court, etc.) Defence- lawyers should be advocating for their client, and doing whatever it takes to relieve them of their charges

Answer 79

- idealizes a highly exclusionary model (white men); suggests that different types of lawyers would change the way law works E.g. having more women in law could bring more mediation, and restorative justice models

Answer 80

Floyd Atkinson was driving a jeep on country road in Ontario, met a herd of cows belonging to farmer Leo Fleming Used brakes and tried to steer away but Atkinson’s jeep struck 3 cows and killed 2 of them, injured his own knee Driver sued farmer for his personal injuries, responded with dead animal claim Trial judge ruled farmer’s negligence to let cows pass on highway, relative responsibility 60% to farmer and 40% to Atkinson Legal rule that absolved farmer “of any duty to prevent his cattle from straying on the highway and endangering its users” When highways were first created in medieval England land was dedicated by adjoining landowners Previously no risk from domestic animals because traffic was so slow House of Lords in 1947 decision of Searle v Wallbank declined to revise legal duties of farmer, common law precedent set in 1952 decision Noble v Calder “Present unsatisfactory state of the law in this province as to civil liability for injuries…” Courts can’t change law, legislature can Justice Judson didn’t consider himself bound by old English doctrine Failure to be flexible has been seen in this branch of law

Answer 81

rule of law - "the overarching normative relationship among legal subjects and the state." Constitutional principle "rule of law, not the rule of men" much of Fuller's morality of law embedded certain, knowable rules available in advance "arbitrariness" - "indifference about the procedures chosen to reach an outcome"... "can also suggest that a decision-maker possesses unconstrained discretionary powers" administrative law: reviewing decisions made by state officials for the most part, accept the statute as legitimate, which means decisions are subject to statutory modification holding the executive branch to account. is the law being executed properly?

Answer 82

A woman got coffee from McDonalds, the lid came off, and the hot coffee poured all over her; she sued McDonalds for millions because their coffee was too hot and burned her severely Misunderstood case 700 complaints before her were filed against McDonalds for the same thing She just wanted them to pay her medical bills, but when they only agreed to pay $800 for a $10,000 operation, she sued Came in the midst of when everyone was suing everyone in the US; this was never much of an issue in Canada because: Our rewards are much more limited In the US, you pay for your own legal representation in a vast majority of cases; in Canada, the losing party has to pay their legal fees and the other side’s legal fees, making it risky to sue Contract law remedies (as opposed to tort law remedies) could include: Cost of the coffee Medical costs, but nothing beyond that You are not responsible in tort law for every action that you cause If the coffee spilled on the driver and caused a chain of crashes, McDonalds could not be held liable for the last driver hit The chain of causation/liability has to end somewhere Legal causation differs from factual causation If the coffee was at a reasonable temperature, and she drank it and died, McDonalds could not be held liable If McDonalds unknowingly brewed their coffee with poisonous beans and someone drank it and died, it would probably be better to sue the manufacturer than McDonalds

Answer 83

Duty of care is established (I have a responsibility for being careful with you) Breach of the standard of care Defendant cause the breach/injury There is a remedy under law

Answer 84

a Scottish case Snail was in a bottle of Stevenson ginger beer that Donohue purchased at a cafe She was sick for several days, so she sued Stevenson argued that since he doesn’t even know Donohue, he owes her no duty of care The court disagreed, deciding that manufacturers are responsible for events which they can reasonably foresee, and of course it is a reasonable foresight that consumers will use their product This case changed everything in the ‘negligence’ area of law Causation - generally speaking, the test used to determine causation is the “but for” test (e.g., the injury would not have happened but for the defendant’s actions) The causation also must be deemed ‘close enough’ that it deserves legal recognition

Answer 85

Two men trying to catch a train right as its leaving One gets on, one continues to try to get on A guard shoves him onto the train The passenger who was shoved on drops his package onto the rails; it was full of fireworks which set off when they hit the ground The explosion caused scales on the other end of the track to fall and injure Ms. Palsgraf Palsgraf sued the railroad - is the causation close enough or is it too remote? The Palsgraf case decided that causation must be proximate Palsgraf; not reaonabally foreseeable so therefore worker was not liable

Answer 86

contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk

Answer 87

An apportionment of the blame which then relates to an apportionment of the damages The plaintiff’s blameworthiness for the result E.g., in the hot coffee case, the lady was responsible for 20% of the damages If there are multiple tortfeasors, the blame can be divided up among all of them This defence is different than joint liability: With joint liability, if you are at least 1% responsible for the injuries, you are responsible for 100% of the damages (1% rule) If there are multiple tortfeasors, they work out the damages owed by each person among themselves This becomes a problem when municipalities get caught in the following situation: Someone drunk drives and crashes into somebody Drunk driver gets sued for millions, which they likely do not have The lawyers in this situation would try to pin 1% of the responsibility on the municipality so they pay instead The municipality may then sue to get some of that money back, but it would likely be unsuccessful This shows that tort law has public consequences and bears implications for public policy

Answer 88

Can be a complete defence. Must be clear what risks you are assuming If you undertake a risky activity, you cannot then sue for it A complete defence in some cases If you go to a hockey game and get hit by a puck, you can’t sue; you assumed that risk when you entered the arena A puck accidentally getting hit over the boards is a reasonable assumption Getting beat by one of the hockey players, though, is not a reasonable assumption and you could sue for this

Answer 89

a legal wrong or a breach of a legal duty Can be intentional but doesn’t need to be (negligence is a common tort action) Well known actions include… Intentional torts: assault, battery, false imprisonment Nuisance- interference with enjoyment of property Negligence But these are common law and always subject to further development and refinement

Answer 90

Because we have statutes that occupy the same space

Answer 91

90% said yes

Answer 92

Two teenage boys, under the influence of alcohol and marijuana, trespassed on the property of a commercial garage and stole an unlocked car in which the keys had been left in the ashtray. The boy driving the car crashed it, leaving the other boy with a catastrophic brain injury. Through his litigation guardian and parents, the injured boy sued the owner of the garage, the driver, and the driver's mother (for having supplied some of the alcohol and for having failed to supervise the boys) for negligence, claiming that they all owed the injured boy a duty of care. The trial judge found that the garage owner owed the injured boy a duty of care, and instructed the jury accordingly. The jury returned a verdict finding all parties negligent, and the injured boy himself contributorily negligent. It apportioned liability as follows: garage owner 37%; driver's mother 30%; driver 23%; and injured boy 10%. The Court of Appeal dismissed the garage owner's appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in finding a duty of care and did not err in her instructions to the jury; nor was the jury's verdict unreasonable. Responsibility: Garage = 37% Breached their standard of care Keys were left in a lot of cars Nothing was locked properly The friend = 20% The one driving the car and crashed it JJ = 10% A minor, not in the right state of mind Suffered major injuries - in a coma Contributed his actions to the injury (contributory negligence) Max he can collect is $90,000 because he loses 10% of the total JJ would go to each party to sue (BC) BC makes it difficult because an injured person could sue the municipal government (pot hot, blocked stop sign etc) . They need to make sure regulations are 100% perfect so they cannot be sued for liability ?? Friends mother = 30% Provide alcohol and marijuana to the two boys Was it reasonably foreseeable that personal injury would result from security (or lack thereof) at the garage (49 yes, 50 no) No bc Can't anticipate there was minor that were likely to break in Yes bc they left keys in the car, no security, everything was unlocked,however the specific injury / incident was unforeseeable Court looked to 3 precedents Decided that rankin was not reasonably foreseeable and the type of injury cut the line of foreseeable, not found to be liable Rankin did not have a duty to care because it was not reasonably foreseeable Criminality does not remove the liability - based on common law

Answer 93

produce the body, producing evidence and challenging evidence before you to prove your innocence

Answer 94

Both relate to criminal justice, happening within a prison may v ferndale; prison had algorithm to assess whether new prisoners should go in minimum or maximum security, violated habeus corpus because prisoners were not informed on the algorithm and did not know what variables they were being tested on mission institution v khela; knife fight in prison, warden heard khela was involved and put him in maximum security, problematic because khela had no power to challenge this accusation/decison, warden said because it was an emergency situation he did not need to inform khela, unacceptable based on habeus corpus, supreme court said khela should have been informed Two principles of natural law Two key procedural protections; Nemo iudex in causa sua; no one should be a judge in their own case, the judge can’t know either side personally Audi alteram partem; listen to the other side, they guarantee your side of the story will get a chance to be heard

Answer 95

Very important case for admin law, establishes the duty to provide (written) reasons Court says immigration officers statement creates standard of apprehension of bias Source of law; natural law principles, spectrum of fairness Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999)- content of fairness will depend on (1) the nature of the decision being made, and the process followed in making it (2) the nature of the statutory scheme (3) the importance of the decision to the individual (4) the legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision (5) the choices of procedure made by the agency itself S.7 requires decision-makers to produce a written explanation for the decision Central to the quest; a duty to give reasons, when the decision’s impact is high David Stratas- “an explosion of litigation” – now “the most frequent area where tribunals get reversed” Lower court denied humanitarian grounds; letter contained no reasons Challenging the officer, who gave Baker no reasons SC said that the letter given to her by the junior officer could be construed as reason Conclusion- junior officer did not display impartiality when making the decision; his own “frustration w/ the system” caused him to make his decision w/ reasonable apprehension of bias; therefore, the decision was sent back to be reviewed

Answer 96

Litigants; crime= state v accused, tort= private actor v private actor Burden of proof; crime = BARD, tort= balance of probabilities Purpose of remedy; crime= deterrence, incapacitatin, rehabilitation, justice, tort= to put the parties back in the position they would have been if the harm did not occur

Answer 97

judicial impartialty and consistency

Answer 98

assumes any injury can be paid off financially

Answer 99

Expertise and efficency | Build up expertise; resolve decisions pertaining to nuclear power, discretion needed

Answer 100

“administrative tribunals undoubtedly decide more cases and probably dispose of more dollars than do the ordinary courts”

Answer 101

reviewing decisions made by state officials For the most part, accept the statute as legitimate, which means decisions are subject to statutory modification Holding the executive branch to account, is the law being executed properly? Source of law; typically operate through regulations- creatures of statutues/ delegated authority

Answer 102

(reason for the decision)

Answer 103

(things said in passing)

Answer 104

"the existence of unlimited discretionary powers in an agency; a decision-maker acting in bad faith; inappropriate responsiveness to an individual situation where important interests are at stake: consideration of irrelevant factors in the decision; disregard of the purpose of a statute; and dictation of the decision by an external and unauthorized person" all seen as violations of the rule of law