Legal System Practice Questions and Answers PDF

Preview

Summary

Practical questions and answers for Canadian Legal System chapter...

Description

BLAW 300 1. Why is the concept of precedent important in a common law system? (What does stare decisis accomplish in our legal system?) (1 mark) Precedent (stare decisis) ensures predictability of legal results. You can predict the outcome of cases based on how similar cases have been decided in the past. Precedents from higher courts will bind lower courts within the same jurisdiction – these cases are called “binding precedents.” In Canada, a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada will bind all courts in Canada. 2. Can the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) bind a judge in Alberta Family Court? Why or Why not? (2 marks) No. Although the ONCA decision will be very persuasive it does not bind an Alberta court – the two courts are not in the same jurisdiction. 3. Where does the system of civil law apply in Canada? (2 marks) Civil law applies to private law matters in Quebec. 4. What is a civil suit? (1 mark) A private law action is one where a private citizen (Plaintiff) sues another private citizen (Defendant). Remember that in private law one is not “charged” with a lawsuit, nor is one “prosecuted” with a lawsuit – one “files” a “civil suit” (charged, prosecuted, found guilty are all terms that relate to criminal law (a branch of public law)and not a civil suit). 5. What’s the difference between a statute and case law? (2 marks) Statutes are government-made law. Governments make law by passing bills through the Legislative Assembly (Alberta) or the Parliament (Canada). Statutes made by municipal governments are called “bylaws”. Case law is judge-made law. Decided cases form precedents that will bind judges in future cases where the facts are the same. 6. What are two different meanings of jurisdiction? (2 marks) Jurisdiction – the power of a level of government to make law (ie: s.91 gives jurisdiction over criminal law to the federal government) Jurisdiction – the authority of a court to hear a case (ie: because this suit claims damages under $25,000 both Provincial Court Civil and Queen’s Bench would have jurisdiction) 7. The provincial government passes a law creating an Alberta Postal Service (APS). The Premier of Alberta explains that Canada Post is just not efficient enough and the Alberta government feels it could make money offering a postal service to Albertans.

Is it likely that the Alberta government has the jurisdiction to create the APS? Explain your answer. (2 marks) The Alberta government does not have the constitutional jurisdiction to makes laws creating an APS. S.91 of the Constitution gives the power to make laws dealing with a Postal Service to the federal government only. 8. The Federal government has passed valid legislation dealing with the insurance requirements of trucking companies who transport goods between provinces (this is an interprovincial concern). The federal law requires that transportation companies operating across provincial boundaries carry a minimum of 4 million dollars of insurance. The Provincial government has also passed valid legislation dealing with the insurance requirements of trucking companies in Alberta. The provincial law requires trucking companies to carry a minimum of 6 Million dollars of insurance. You are the owner of an Alberta Trucking Company that operates in Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan and you only want to carry 4 million dollars of insurance. What is the constitutional doctrine of paramountcy and could it help you “get rid” of the provincial legislation? Explain your answer (3 marks) Paramountcy is the principle of constitutional law that says that whenever a validly passed federal law conflicts with a validly passed provincial law, the federal law will be upheld and the provincial law will be struck down to the extent of the conflict. In order to use the doctrine of paramountcy, the courts must find that a true conflict exists: namely, that a citizen cannot obey both federal and provincial laws. In this case, it is possible to obey both laws. Buying 6 million dollars of insurance will satisfy both the provincial and federal laws on trucking insurance. Since there is no “true conflict”, paramountcy doesn’t operate and both laws are upheld. 9. Your friend Rizzo says that the Charter guarantees Freedom of Expression and that means that the government has to make sure he’s allowed to say anything he wants anywhere he wants. What important corrections do you have to explain to Rizzo? (3-5 marks) Rizzo’s right to freedom of expression is limited by s.1 reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be shown to be just. Rizzo is free to express himself subject to reasonable limits, so it’s not the freedom to say “anything he wants.” For example, reasonable limits have been found to curtail the expression of hatred and pornography. Rizzo’s rights are only effective against the government – they’re not enforceable “anywhere” and “against anyone”. If Rizzo is in my home (the home of a non-government actor) and I don’t like what he’s

saying, I can require him to leave without infringing on his freedom of speech. (s.32 states that the rights are only effective against government.) Lastly – if the government decides to pass a law notwithstanding freedom of speech, then as long as the government follows the process set out in s.33, the government can override Charter rights like free speech. Laws passed notwithstanding the Charter will only last for 5 years, and then die automatically....