CML 1101: Principles of Legal Research (Fall 2009)

ALL SECTIONS

Student #:______Course Section:______

: : Assignment #2 : :

The Canadian Abridgment

( 12% )

Please type your answers into this document (you can print out the corresponding version at: ),or on a separate sheet of paper.

If you must handwrite, please make sure all answers are legible.

Due at the beginning of class during the week of Oct. 19-23.

Please hand it in directly to your professor for this course.

When indicated, cite your answers using the McGill Law Journal’s Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation, 6th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2006).

R. v. Vermette

(Supreme Court of Canada, 1987)

(Case Digest vol. 61)

With reference to the case cited above, answer the following 5 questions using the various parts of the Canadian Abridgment (e.g., Canadian Case Citations):

  1. Give the proper, full citation to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide,with three parallel citations. [Hint: Since the case is pre-2000, there will be no neutral citation; however, make sure you list the three printed caselaw reporters in their proper hierarchical order! See 3.2.5 of the McGill Guide for more information.][5 points]
  1. Using the Case Digest volume indicated above, find a summary for this case.
  1. What is the summary (or digest) number for this case? (If there is more than one available summary in the volume, please choose one.) [1 point]
  1. Explain the keywords provided by the summary as they correspond to the classification scheme in the Table of Classification at the beginning of the volume. [3 points]
  1. In your own words, explain the history of this case, including any levels of appeal, as it is listed in the Canadian Abridgment (i.e., if the first instance is not indicated, start with the appeal-level decision). Don’t forget to give the year in which each decision was made! [2 points]
  1. This decision was later cited by the judge inAlex Couture Inc. c. Canada (Procureur général).
  1. Cite the Alex Couture case, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide.(No parallel citations are necessary, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed.) [3 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of R. v. Vermette (e.g., “D=distinguished”).[1 point]
  1. Find and cite, according to the rules of the McGill Guide, an article discussingR. v. Vermette. [3 points]
  1. In addition, indicate the full title of the periodical in which this article can be found. [1 point]

Choose any section of any federal statute, and answer the following 2 questions, using the appropriate part(s) of the Canadian Abridgment.

  1. Give the full, proper citation, according to the rules in the McGill Guide, for the statute and section you have chosen.[2 points]
  1. Find and cite one case discussing this section (no parallel citations are needed, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed). [2 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of that section (e.g., “U=unconstitutional”). [1 point]

Q1:17760

CML 1101: Principles of Legal Research (Fall 2009)

ALL SECTIONS

Student #:______Course Section:______

: : Assignment #2 : :

The Canadian Abridgment

( 12% )

Please type your answers into this document (you can print out the corresponding version at: ),or on a separate sheet of paper.

If you must handwrite, please make sure all answers are legible.

Due at the beginning of class during the week of Oct. 19-23.

Please hand it in directly to your professor for this course.

When indicated, cite your answers using the McGill Law Journal’s Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation, 6th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2006).

Pelech v. Pelech

(Supreme Court of Canada, 1987)

(Case Digest vol. 43)

With reference to the case cited above, answer the following 5 questions using the various parts of the Canadian Abridgment (e.g., Canadian Case Citations):

  1. Give the proper, full citation to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide,with three parallel citations. [Hint: Since the case is pre-2000, there will be no neutral citation; however, make sure you list the three printed caselaw reporters in their proper hierarchical order! See 3.2.5 of the McGill Guide for more information.][5 points]
  1. Using the Case Digest volume indicated above, find a summary for this case.
  1. What is the summary (or digest) number for this case? (If there is more than one available summary in the volume, please choose one.) [1 point]
  1. Explain the keywords provided by the summary as they correspond to the classification scheme in the Table of Classification at the beginning of the volume. [3 points]
  1. In your own words, explain the history of this case, including any levels of appeal, as it is listed in the Canadian Abridgment (i.e., if the first instance is not indicated, start with the appeal-level decision). Don’t forget to give the year in which each decision was made! [2 points]
  1. This decision was later cited by the judge inTaylor v. Taylor.
  1. Cite the Taylor case, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide.(No parallel citations are necessary, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed.) [3 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of Pelech v. Pelech (e.g., “D=distinguished”).[1 point]
  1. Find and cite, according to the rules of the McGill Guide, an article discussingPelech v. Pelech. [3 points]
  1. In addition, indicate the full title of the periodical in which this article can be found. [1 point]

Choose any section of any federal statute, and answer the following 2 questions, using the appropriate part(s) of the Canadian Abridgment.

  1. Give the full, proper citation, according to the rules in the McGill Guide, for the statute and section you have chosen.[2 points]
  1. Find and cite one case discussing this section (no parallel citations are needed, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed). [2 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of that section (e.g., “U=unconstitutional”). [1 point]

Q2:19265

CML 1101: Principles of Legal Research (Fall 2009)

ALL SECTIONS

Student #:______Course Section:______

: : Assignment #2 : :

The Canadian Abridgment

( 12% )

Please type your answers into this document (you can print out the corresponding version at: ),or on a separate sheet of paper.

If you must handwrite, please make sure all answers are legible.

Due at the beginning of class during the week of Oct. 19-23.

Please hand it in directly to your professor for this course.

When indicated, cite your answers using the McGill Law Journal’s Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation, 6th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2006).

Moge v. Moge

(Supreme Court of Canada, 1992)

(Case Digest vol. 40)

With reference to the case cited above, answer the following 5 questions using the various parts of the Canadian Abridgment (e.g., Canadian Case Citations):

  1. Give the proper, full citation to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide,with three parallel citations. [Hint: Since the case is pre-2000, there will be no neutral citation; however, make sure you list the three printed caselaw reporters in their proper hierarchical order! See 3.2.5 of the McGill Guide for more information.][5 points]
  1. Using the Case Digest volume indicated above, find a summary for this case.
  1. What is the summary (or digest) number for this case? (If there is more than one available summary in the volume, please choose one.) [1 point]
  1. Explain the keywords provided by the summary as they correspond to the classification scheme in the Table of Classification at the beginning of the volume. [3 points]
  1. In your own words, explain the history of this case, including any levels of appeal, as it is listed in the Canadian Abridgment (i.e., if the first instance is not indicated, start with the appeal-level decision). Don’t forget to give the year in which each decision was made! [2 points]
  1. This decision was later cited by the judge inAndrews v. Andrews.
  1. Cite the Andrews case, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide.(No parallel citations are necessary, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed.) [3 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of Moge v. Moge (e.g., “D=distinguished”).[1 point]
  1. Find and cite, according to the rules of the McGill Guide, an article discussingMoge v. Moge. [3 points]
  1. In addition, indicate the full title of the periodical in which this article can be found. [1 point]

Choose any section of any federal statute, and answer the following 2 questions, using the appropriate part(s) of the Canadian Abridgment.

  1. Give the full, proper citation, according to the rules in the McGill Guide, for the statute and section you have chosen.[2 points]
  1. Find and cite one case discussing this section (no parallel citations are needed, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed). [2 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of that section (e.g., “U=unconstitutional”). [1 point]

Q3:21979

CML 1101: Principles of Legal Research (Fall 2009)

ALL SECTIONS

Student #:______Course Section:______

: : Assignment #2 : :

The Canadian Abridgment

( 12% )

Please type your answers into this document (you can print out the corresponding version at: ),or on a separate sheet of paper.

If you must handwrite, please make sure all answers are legible.

Due at the beginning of class during the week of Oct. 19-23.

Please hand it in directly to your professor for this course.

When indicated, cite your answers using the McGill Law Journal’s Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation, 6th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2006).

R. v. Daviault

(Supreme Court of Canada, 1994)

(Case Digest vol. 28A5)

With reference to the case cited above, answer the following 5 questions using the various parts of the Canadian Abridgment (e.g., Canadian Case Citations):

  1. Give the proper, full citation to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide,with three parallel citations. [Hint: Since the case is pre-2000, there will be no neutral citation; however, make sure you list the three printed caselaw reporters in their proper hierarchical order! See 3.2.5 of the McGill Guide for more information.][5 points]
  1. Using the Case Digest volume indicated above, find a summary for this case.
  1. What is the summary (or digest) number for this case? (If there is more than one available summary in the volume, please choose one.) [1 point]
  1. Explain the keywords provided by the summary as they correspond to the classification scheme in the Table of Classification at the beginning of the volume. [3 points]
  1. In your own words, explain the history of this case, including any levels of appeal, as it is listed in the Canadian Abridgment (i.e., if the first instance is not indicated, start with the appeal-level decision). Don’t forget to give the year in which each decision was made! [2 points]
  1. This decision was later cited by the judge inR. v. Watt.
  1. Cite the Watt case, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide.(No parallel citations are necessary, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed.) [3 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of R. v. Daviault (e.g., “D=distinguished”).[1 point]
  1. Find and cite, according to the rules of the McGill Guide, an article discussingR. v. Daviault. [3 points]
  1. In addition, indicate the full title of the periodical in which this article can be found. [1 point]

Choose any section of any federal statute, and answer the following 2 questions, using the appropriate part(s) of the Canadian Abridgment.

  1. Give the full, proper citation, according to the rules in the McGill Guide, for the statute and section you have chosen.[2 points]
  1. Find and cite one case discussing this section (no parallel citations are needed, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed). [2 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of that section (e.g., “U=unconstitutional”). [1 point]

Q4:23435

CML 1101: Principles of Legal Research (Fall 2009)

ALL SECTIONS

Student #:______Course Section:______

: : Assignment #2 : :

The Canadian Abridgment

( 12% )

Please type your answers into this document (you can print out the corresponding version at: ),or on a separate sheet of paper.

If you must handwrite, please make sure all answers are legible.

Due at the beginning of class during the week of Oct. 19-23.

Please hand it in directly to your professor for this course.

When indicated, cite your answers using the McGill Law Journal’s Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation, 6th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2006).

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)

(Supreme Court of Canada, 1989)

(Case Digest vol. 19)

With reference to the case cited above, answer the following 5 questions using the various parts of the Canadian Abridgment (e.g., Canadian Case Citations):

  1. Give the proper, full citation to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide,with three parallel citations. [Hint: Since the case is pre-2000, there will be no neutral citation; however, make sure you list the three printed caselaw reporters in their proper hierarchical order! See 3.2.5 of the McGill Guide for more information.][5 points]
  1. Using the Case Digest volume indicated above, find a summary for this case.
  1. What is the summary (or digest) number for this case? (If there is more than one available summary in the volume, please choose one.) [1 point]
  1. Explain the keywords provided by the summary as they correspond to the classification scheme in the Table of Classification at the beginning of the volume. [3 points]
  1. In your own words, explain the history of this case, including any levels of appeal, as it is listed in the Canadian Abridgment (i.e., if the first instance is not indicated, start with the appeal-level decision). Don’t forget to give the year in which each decision was made! [2 points]
  1. This decision was later cited by the judge inFraser v. Kent Institution.
  1. Cite the Fraser case, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide.(No parallel citations are necessary, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed.) [3 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) (e.g., “D=distinguished”).[1 point]
  1. Find and cite, according to the rules of the McGill Guide, an article discussingBorowski v. Canada (Attorney General). [3 points]
  1. In addition, indicate the full title of the periodical in which this article can be found. [1 point]

Choose any section of any federal statute, and answer the following 2 questions, using the appropriate part(s) of the Canadian Abridgment.

  1. Give the full, proper citation, according to the rules in the McGill Guide, for the statute and section you have chosen.[2 points]
  1. Find and cite one case discussing this section (no parallel citations are needed, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed). [2 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of that section (e.g., “U=unconstitutional”). [1 point]

Q5:20411

CML 1101: Principles of Legal Research (Fall 2009)

ALL SECTIONS

Student #:______Course Section:______

: : Assignment #2 : :

The Canadian Abridgment

( 12% )

Please type your answers into this document (you can print out the corresponding version at: ),or on a separate sheet of paper.

If you must handwrite, please make sure all answers are legible.

Due at the beginning of class during the week of Oct. 19-23.

Please hand it in directly to your professor for this course.

When indicated, cite your answers using the McGill Law Journal’s Canadian Guide to Uniform Legal Citation, 6th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2006).

Assn of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch v. Société des Acadiens de Nouveau-Brunswick Inc.

(Supreme Court of Canada, 1986)

(Case Digest vol. 15)

With reference to the case cited above, answer the following 5 questions using the various parts of the Canadian Abridgment (e.g., Canadian Case Citations):

  1. Give the proper, full citation to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide,with three parallel citations. [Hint: Since the case is pre-2000, there will be no neutral citation; however, make sure you list the three printed caselaw reporters in their proper hierarchical order! See 3.2.5 of the McGill Guide for more information.][5 points]
  1. Using the Case Digest volume indicated above, find a summary for this case.
  1. What is the summary (or digest) number for this case? (If there is more than one available summary in the volume, please choose one.) [1 point]
  1. Explain the keywords provided by the summary as they correspond to the classification scheme in the Table of Classification at the beginning of the volume. [3 points]
  1. In your own words, explain the history of this case, including any levels of appeal, as it is listed in the Canadian Abridgment (i.e., if the first instance is not indicated, start with the appeal-level decision). Don’t forget to give the year in which each decision was made! [2 points]
  1. This decision was later cited by the judge inDevine c. Québec (Procureur général).
  1. Cite the Devine case, according to the rules of theMcGill Guide.(No parallel citations are necessary, but please ensure you cite to the most official reporter listed.) [3 points]
  1. Indicate its treatment of Assn of parents… v. Société des Acadiens… (e.g., “D=distinguished”).[1 point]
  1. Find and cite, according to the rules of the McGill Guide, an article discussingAssn of parents… v. Société des Acadiens… . [3 points]
  1. In addition, indicate the full title of the periodical in which this article can be found. [1 point]

Choose any section of any federal statute, and answer the following 2 questions, using the appropriate part(s) of the Canadian Abridgment.