timing,timing,timing readthequestionwhatisitasking? ILACapproachissue,law,analysis,conclusion didyouanswerthequestionasked? areyououtoftime?stop!Writeaquickconclusion andmoveontothenextquestion.

5 points each, approx. 9 minutes each, total of 10 on exam. In a few short sentences or short paragraphs on each question, assess the accuracy of the following ten statements. The statements may be true, false, or somewhere in between (ie, partly true, partly false, misleading, incomplete, etc.) Your characterization of the statements as true, false, etc is less important than supporting your characterization with compelling reasoning. Points will be awarded for directing your response precisely and concisely to assessing the accuracy of the statement in question. Points will also be awarded for supporting your answers with references to relevant case law, constitutional provisions and readings listed in the course syllabus wherever possible. No points awarded for discussion unrelated to assessing the accuracy of the specific statement at issue.

-2-

Natural law theory insists on the separation of law and morality and as a result focuses on describing laws without relevance to justness of legitimacy.
This statement is false, and more accurately describes positivism. Natural

law, in contrast, is often termed aspirational, in the sense that it considers laws to have to adhere to certain moral truths. Laws are not, therefore, to be determined merely by reference to what is codified by statute or that have developed through the common law. Under natural law theory, laws that do not meet the necessary moral criteria ought not to be considered law, in that the citizen should owe no particular allegiance to them. As Craik notes, however, once we move out from the realm of theory into the realm of the practical, the reality is blurred. While many laws in Canada do indeed have a moral origin laws against theft, slavery, or torture, for example many seem unrelated to morals. Regulations regarding the procedures for valid contracts, or those that regulate the size of advertising billboards in public spaces seem to have little or no connection to a moral code. In the case of Re Drummond Wren, we saw the courts adopt a natural law approach in that it looked to the moral underpinnings of the laws in question to determine their meaning and to consider discrimination as a new head of public policy. In contrast, Re Noble and Wolf evidenced a more positivist approach, and so reached a very different conclusion. Lands subject to aboriginal title are not subject to any inherent limitation regarding the uses to which the lands may be put. This statement is false. The leading case here is Delgamuukw v. B.C., in which the Supreme Court grappled with the meaning and extent of aboriginal title. The Court concluded that such title is sui generis, for three reason. First, it is inalienable except as to the Crown. Second, its source is both the common law and the pre-existing aboriginal legal systems -- the original occupation by aboriginal people is reliant upon the common principle of ownership through first occupation. Finally, it is held communally, as a collective right held by all members of the aboriginal nation. The Court concluded that because of this sui generis nature of aboriginal title, the content of that title would also be different than traditional fee simple ownership; fee simple, of course, would generally not have any limitations as to land use. Lamer J., speaking for the majority, found that aboriginal title was a right in land and therefore more than a right to simply engage in specific activities. However, he also concluded that

-3-

while not all actions undertaken on the land need to be aspects of practices or customs that are integral to the distinctive cultures of aboriginal societies, the range of uses is subject to one important limitation the uses cannot be irreconcilable with the nature of the attachment to the land that forms the group in questions aboriginal title. Justice Bertha Wilsons judgement in R. v. Morgenthaler reflects a concern with seeking womens formal equality with men. This statement is false. In fact, Wilson Js highly-regarded concurrence in Morgenthaler is an example of modern feminist theory, which aims to ensure not only formal equality between men and women but also substantive equality. Early feminists sought to ensure formal equality, meaning that they looked for laws that on their face discriminated against women. See for example Edwards v AG Canada, in which the Privy Council had to determine whether women were in fact persons under s.24 of the British North America Act, which outlined the requirements to be a Senator. The search for formal equality also led to the expansion of the franchise to women in Canada, first in Manitoba in 1916. Once formal (legal) equality had been achieved, modern feminism turned its attention to substantive equality, and Wilson Js reasoning in Morgenthaler is a perfect example of this approach. She noted that the effects of criminalizing abortion fall exclusively upon women, by virtue of biology. To compel a woman to give birth against her wishes would deprive her of her s. 7 Charter rights to both security of the person and liberty. As the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, it is unsurprising that Wilson J. approach the law in way that seemed far more sensitive to the realities of the life of women that her colleagues.