MOCK CHARTER TEST
CASE 1- Commune Children Oct 01, 2001
Prince Edward Island In July, five children were pulled out of a commune run by a nun who demanded total submission to her interpretation of the Bible. It was the end of a controversial battle to maintain a religious way of life not shared by many others. The group consisted of 9 adults, their children and the nun, Lucille.
The group moved from Alberta to Prince Edward Island. They accepted no outside help for the members--no schooling, work or even medical treatment. Alberta's department of Social Services had been suspicious about how children in the commune were being treated. There was worry that they were subjected to overly harsh discipline, including frequent beatings. Alberta officials went as far as to place a supervision order on the commune. That's when the families moved to PEI.
Lucille said punishment is sanctioned by the Bible and is designed to keep children away from evil. The older children, a few of whom remained behind in Alberta, became worried about their siblings. That worry became fear when a 12-year-old boy named Jonathan died of a blood infection. The adults refused to let doctors do a blood transfusion, saying the Bible didn't condone the transfer of blood between people.
The older siblings in Alberta contacted the remaining children on PEI and offered to take them out. When one brother arrived to take his younger sibling away, the child wasn't at the meeting place. RCMP were called in. They ended up removing all five remaining children and putting them into foster care.
The adults remaining, including the parents, said they would not change any of their practices in order to get their children back. They said they were just doing what God was telling them to do. RCMP are still investigating. Only 4 people remain inside the PEI commune and none of them are children.
Issue (properly write out the issue)
Rational
You are a judge and must decide whether or not the commune can be run according to their religious beliefs.
-Use appropriate legal test (3 marks)
-Give reference to related cases (2 marks)
-Well written convincing argument (4 marks)
CASE 2 - DRAMA ESSAY “TWISTED”
Cornwall, Ontario: It all started in a high school drama class when a teenager read his fictional essay called "Twisted". It was about a boy who had been bullied, and planned to blow up his school. The police called it a threat, and charged the teen with uttering death threats. He spent a month in jail.(CCC Section 264)
Meanwhile his lawyer, Clayton Ruby, and some famous Canadian writers argued that the teen's freedom of expression was being violated. After all they argued, it was only a fictional story. Now the case has been settled out of court and the teen will not have to go to trial. The charges have been dropped, but there are some conditions. The teen must:
-Keep the peace
-Attend School
-Stay away from his old school
-Not approach certain people involved in the case
The crown lawyer also wanted another restriction. He wanted the teen to be prohibited from having a firearm or explosive in his possession for the next year. The judge agreed with the teen's lawyer though, that the student had already been stigmatized enough.
Lawyer Argument
You are a lawyer defending the student who wrote the “Twisted” essay. Prepare an argument to present to the judge in court. Your arguments should include rights listed in the Charter as well as relevant precedents.
-Give reference to proper section of Charter (1 mark)
-Use appropriate legal test (3 marks)
-Give reference to related cases (2 marks)
-Well written convincing argument (4 marks)
CASE 3 -Halpern v. Ontario Court of Appeal, June 10, 2003
From April 22 to 25, 2003, a panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, heard a constitutional challenge to the definition of marriage in Ontario family law legislation. The definition of marriage, which is found only in the common law, requires that marriage be between "one man and one woman". This means that same-sex couples cannot receive the same common law benefits as opposite-sex couples. This opposite-sex requirement was challenged by eight same-sex couples ("the Couples") as offending their right to equality as guaranteed by s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter") on the basis of sexual orientation. The couples would like the common law definition of marriage to be reformulated by substituting the words "two persons" for "one man and one woman".
- Properly state the issue. (1 mark)
- You are a judge and must decide whether there is a violation of section 15 of the Charter. (9 marks)
-Use appropriate legal test (3 marks)
-Give reference to related cases (2 marks)
-Well written convincing argument (4 marks)
Essay Question
Choose 4 cases we have studied in class and discuss why they are so controversial to many people. How has your view of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms changed since we started studying it. (200 words)
______
______
______