Criminal Law

26/06/2011 11:51:00

R. v. Leighe Circumstances: y Aggravating: o Possibly intoxicated; should have been more careful when consuming wine o Hid car o Drove away quickly y Mitigating: o No criminal record o Negligible driving record o Wanted to turn himself in (eventually) o Driving home from charity event o Has two young children that rely on him There is no need to sentence him for deterrence because he is unlikely to commit this again; he did not have mensrea(he wanted to turn himself in and was frightened, not satisfied, by what he did). It is quite unlikely that he has a consistent and debilitating drinking problem; therefore, there is no need to make any attempt to rehabilitate him. Retribution should be the main goal of sentencing in this case; despite being a good citizen and an important part of his family, he nevertheless inflicted a great deal of pain on another family. Segregation should have a small role in the case: given the way he is presented it is likely that by segregating him he will no longer drink and drive. Definitions: Summary: Less serious crime Indictable: More serious crime Hybrid: Either a summary or indictable offence Deterrence: Discouraging a person from doing something Specific Deterrence: Discourage an offender from committing a criminal offence in the future Aggravating Circumstance: Increase an offenders responsibility and therefore increase his/her sentence Mitigating Circumstance: Decrease an offenders responsibility and therefore decrease his/her sentence

Multiple Choice: Actus Reus, means rea: Guilty act, guilty mind Burden of Proof: Beyond a reasonable doubt for crown A judge should not take into consideration how much it will cost when imposing a sentence A victim impact statement is delivered in the courtroom A conditional discharge means the offender has some measure of release conditions A fine can be imposed instead of imprisonment if the prescribed penalty is five years or less An appeal judge is limited to a written record when re-examining a sentence The accused has the right to hear what witnesses say about the crime Defence counsel has to tell the crown prosecutor something about their case Issues/Views Crime is caused by poverty: easy way to get resources. Statistics note that there is more crime among poor than among rich The amount of goods stolen in a break and enter does not warrant a life sentence. Break and enter is usually caused by poverty and stress so this should act as a mitigating factor. Deterrence: easy, makes it unlikely to happen again by anyone Rehabilitation: hard, expensive and ineffective at discouraging people Violence in sports: Athletes need to protect themselves, they do it to entertain fans DNA Testing is against the search and seizure provision, invasion of privacy like a wiretap Attempt beings when the accused take the first step to commit a crime with mensrea. Example: trying to unlock door for break and enter

Tort and Dispute Resolution

26/06/2011 11:51:00

Points of Conflicting Evidence in Lewis v. Robinson: y Lewis was warned by Robinson not to go near the dogs y Lewis claims he could not hear anything Robinson said Why was the plaintiffs action dismissed? 2 Arguments. y A reasonable attempt was made to stop him from going near the dog y Lewis should not have gone to the house unexpectedly and he failed to identify himself Teno v. Arnold Why were Brian Arnold [2] and his father [1] held to be 1/3 at fault? y Brian hit Teno with his truck and did not sound his horn y Brian Arnold ignored the watch for children sign y Brians father owned the truck Why did the supreme court of Canada not find Yvonne Teno partly at fault for the accident? y She was not at fault because she gave clear instructions on how not to get hit Grant v. Dempsey To what extent was Grant responsible for his own injuries? y He was completely at fault Why do you think the court dismissed Grants action? y It was dismissed because he was severely intoxicated and his own fault. Tran v. Financial Debt Recovery Ltd. Plaintiff: y Claims defendant was defaming his character Defendant: y Claims plaintiff owed student loans ADR Communication Forms: y Negotiation, mediation and Arbitration A selected neutral third party facilitates parties making their own decision. Thorton v. Prince George School District No. 57 Minors cannot sue for more than $500 in Alberta McQueen v. Alberta

What DOC did the defendants owe McQueen, was it breached? y They owed him the ability to enjoy the beach without injury; it was not breached because they had life guard and signs. De Groot v. Arsenault Wilma Arsenault pleaded self-defence and defence of other. Why? y Provoked by plaintiff when de Groot yelled and pointed her finger y Protecting her sons from the plaintiff Glengales v. BCFC On what basis did the court reject the plaintiffs claim to public nuisance? y The nuisance was the same as the general publics Random case: Prevos (Committee of) v. Vetter Libel: Defamation in a printed or permanent form Slander: Defamation through spoken words, sounds or actions Murray Brothers y The district took action because the Murray brothers did not have permission to build wharves partly situated on the foreshore y They were awarded nominal damages because the district was morally correct but did not suffer any harm Thomas Plaintiffs could argue y Coach prepare safety method y Opposing players be less aggressive y Players not properly informed an injury this serious could happen and they may have thought the worst case scenario was a concussion or similar Rai y Defendant owed the plaintiff the DOC to make sure he clients knew how to use her equipment safely. It was not breached because the sign informed her not to wash flammable objects. y Dismissed because both were 50% responsible; offered DOC and didnt realise wearing gas soaked clothes) Gambriell y She was acting as a reasonable person because she though her sons life was in danger y The judge felt it was the plaintiffs fault but even if the judge felt the defendant was morally right he would not deserve more than $1

because he caused the episode author ofnot have awardedexcess of $1

Contract Law

26/06/2011 11:51:00

Mayrand Did the landlords proposed action in entering the apartments disturb the quiet enjoyment clause of the leases? y Yes, repairs interrupt enjoyment Who should have determined whether or not the repairs were necessary the landlord or the tenant? y The landlord because it says so in the lease and it is his long term economic welfare Why would the tenants not want repairs to be done to their apartments? y They may have felt the state of the apartment was sufficient and therefore the hassle of the repairs were unnecessary. They would also fear a potential rent increase. In your opinion, were repairs necessary? y They were not necessary and could have waited What could the judge do? y Regulate the upgrade Penfold v. Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation Who will suffer the greater damage if the term of the lease is not enforced? y The landlord will suffer greater monetary damage and the tenant will suffer minimal emotional damage because she chose to sign a lease with a no pets policy and thus does not attach a high emotional value to pets. y It took her three years until she was caught to feel the need to claim it was unreasonable. y His lease explicitly and unquestionably rule in his favour

6/26/2011 11:51:00 AM