CLN 4U1 Independent Study Project

This ISP is based on carefully looking at one particular case that has impacted Canada or the world in a significant way. There are a number of parts to the case study that encompass jurisprudence, and will facilitate your understanding of law and society. Each section must be completed using formal language and presentation. The choice of case must be limited to areas that have been discussed in class in either Canadian or International Law.

FINAL DUE DATE FOR ALL PARTS: ______

Part I: Case Selection/Abstract (25 marks) Due date: ______

  1. Select a landmark case either from the Canadian or International court system. Be careful to choose a case that is interesting and has impact beyond just legislature (i.e. society at large)
  2. Write an abstract (summary of facts and issues in law) of the elements of the case, and remember to include key elements such as evidence, police procedure, witness testimony, etc.
  3. Create a separate section that discusses the court’s decision (include all appeals)
  4. HAND-IN:
  5. Case Citation
  6. Abstract
  7. Court Decision
  8. Approx. 1-2 pages, single spaced

Due Date: ______

Part II: Pertinent Legislation (10 marks) Due date: ______

  1. Find the laws that apply to the case
  2. Include laws connected with the crime and laws connected with the court proceedings
  3. Also, include any Charter of Rights and Freedoms implications (such as equality, legal, personal)
  4. HAND-IN:
  5. Exact reference legislation for the case
  6. Exact reference for Charter rights
  7. A short, 1-2 sentence explanation of how the laws connect to your particular case
  8. Approx. 1 page

Part III: Public Attention (25 marks) Due date: ______

  1. Find two news articles directly related to the case
  2. Summarize each article
  3. Provide copies (originals) of news articles
  4. HAND-IN:
  5. Original articles
  6. Summaries
  7. Approx. ½ -1 page

Part IV: Impact (25 marks) Due date: ______

  1. Describe the legal implications of this case (i.e. did it alter, further define, or eradicate a law – did it set a precedent). (This element should be based on research not a just a hypothetical attempt to explain the impact)
  2. Analyze the effect the case will have on society (i.e. will it act as an example, create a new defence, encourage behaviour, cause dispute or separation of society)
  3. Find sources that prove this effect, and incorporate them into your analysis of impact
  4. HAND-IN:
  5. Approx. 2-3 pages

Required Elements

ALL MATERIALS MUST BE SUBMITTED INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING:

  • Typed, 12 font
  • Title page for package
  • Subtitles for each separate part
  • Presentation will have a clear introduction/conclusion
  • APA or MLA style referencing
  • Proper internal referencing and bibliography included

ANY FAILURE TO FULFILL THESE BASIC REQUIREMENTS WILL RESULT IN DEDUCTION OF MARKS PER SECTION

Some Significant ISP Cases

A.M – illegal search of teenager

Brown – Racial profiling (pulled over for ‘weaving’)

Caslake – search was illegal

Cuerrier – AIDS cause (able to be charged when they do not tell partner they have AIDS/HIV)

Egan v. Canada (or M v. H) – same sex marriage

Grant v. Canada – charter infringement – no right to council given

Jacob – topless law

Keegstra – freedom of speech (hate propaganda – history teacher teaching Holocaust not true)

Latimer – killed 12 year old daughter out of compassion

Lavalee – battered women’s syndrome

Nuremberg Trials – Nazis on trial

Parks – sleepwalking – killed in-laws

Radio Ltd. v. Simpson – Free speech of broadcaster (homosexuality)

RJR McDonald Inc. v. Canada – tobacco company forced to put graphic ads on packs

Tessling – search with infrared

Vriend v. Alberta – gay teacher fired

R. v. Gladue – Alternative sentencing requirements

Lax Kw’alaams Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General) – Aboriginal Treaty Rights

Richard v. Time, Inc., 2012 SCC 8, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310 – consumer protection law and false advertising

SL v. Commission Scolaire des Chênes, 2012 SCC 7 – freedom of conscience and religion

AB v Bragg Communications Inc., 2012 SCC 46, [2012] 2 SCR 567 – cyberbullying on Facebook

R v Boudreault, 2012 SCC 56, [2012] 3 SCR 157 – having care and control over a vehicle while intoxicated

R v Mabior, 2012 SCC 47, [2012] 2 SCR 584 – HIV and drug reducing transmission in relation to consent

R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 – child pornography – police warrants to access files

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Harkat, 2014 SCC 37, [2014] 2 SCR 33 – security certificates and detentention/deportation

R v. Cole 2012 SCC53 [2012] 3 SCR 34 privacy rights when using employer issued device – child pornography

R. v. Fearon 2014 SCC 77 [2014] SCR 621 – police search of cellphones

R v. Grant 2009 SCC 32 [2009] 2 SCR 353 police search legal? Marijuana and weapons

R v STINCHCOMBE [1991] 3 SCR 326 crown duty to disclose evidence

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) [1989] advertising to children

R. v. Jordan [2016] 1 SCR 631 – limits criminal trials to 18 months

Any other case approved by the teacher….

Other possible case topics:

Honour killing (e.g. Aqsa Parvez)

Bernardo

Prostitution – changes in Ontario

Ryan – wife hired hitman to kill husband because of BWS

Rengel – killed fellow teen (but is there an impact on Canadian law with this case??)

Truscott, Milgaard – falsely convicted

Auton v. British Columbia – no more money to fund autistic programs

Roe v. Wade – Reproductive Rights for Men

Ashley Smith Case – whose fault is it?

Sample Case Brief Format

Plaintiff’s Name: / Defendant’s Name:
Citation: / Date:

1. Facts of the Case: (Should outline the essential facts of the case, particularly those facts bearing upon or leading up to the issue. This section should outline the nature of the litigation, what occurrences transpired, and, if the case is an appeal, what happened in the lower court(s).)

2. Issue(s): Should outline the dispute to be resolved by this particular court. For example, which rule of law should be used? How should a given element of a rule be defined? What general principle(s) of law are illustrated by the case? What legal test(s) should be applied?)

3. Ratio Dicidendi: (Should outline the reasoning behind the court's decision. Was the court reasoning based on precedent, economics, politics, fairness, etc.?)

4. Analyses: (Should evaluate the significance of the case, its relationship to other cases, its place in history, and what it shows about the Court, its members, its decision-making processes, or the impact it has on litigants, government, or society. It is here that the implicit assumptions and values of the Judges or Justices should be probed, the “rightness” of the decision debated, and the logic of the reasoning considered.)

5. Court Holding: (Should indicate the final decision of the court in this case.)