Legal Research Assignment : Canadian Justice

The court system is divided into a three level hierarchy. The first level is superior/family court, the second is The Provincial Court, and the third is The Supreme Court of Canada. This hierarchy makes a system of appeals and if the losing part in a lower level feels that the judge or jury did not look at all the evidence, or they feel they were unjustly tried they have the right to appeal to higher courts. Appeals make the court system more unprejudiced and fair, which help those who may have been wronged or unfairly represented have another trial with a new panel of judges or jurors. A person can have up to thirteen judges looking over their case. Together, they can all guarantee that there will be a correct decision and whatever that decision is will be fair. Appeals are important and favourable to have, especially if there truly was a mistake and it will be fixed. Of course, one must have concrete evidence that there was an error. This provides confidence for Canadian citizens that The Canadian Independent Justice System is not a threat to

The Canadian criminal justice system consists of multiple roles in order to sustain a well-working government system. The system is put in place in order to keep safety, equality, peace and fairness. There are four main functions of the criminal justice system that are interrelated segments that help protect a society from crime. The criminal justice system consists of policing, courts, corrections and parole. The component of the Canadian Criminal Justice System that will be discussed is about the process and function of the courts.

Between the two schools of epistemology, rationalism and empiricism, I am inclined towards the philosophies of rationalism. I am persuaded towards philosophical approaches which are superior at attaining truth. Empiricism relies on observation using the five senses in reasoning to achieve truth. However, in Plato’s Thaetetus, Socrates gives strong arguments for the limitations of human perception. The Canadian legal system, also, recognizes flaws in human observation, which increases my skepticism of empiricism. Conversely, rationalism relies solely on the use of logic and deduction in reasoning. Both, Plato and Socrates stressed the value of rationalism through the ability to know and express combinations of elements through mathematics. Large

This case made it to The Supreme Court. Once the appellant appealed his conviction of manslaughter that he received at the Ontario Court of Appeal on May 18th, 1990, which sentenced him to four years of imprisonment. The Crown defined manslaughter in Section 222 ( 5 ) of The Criminal Code, which states that a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being means of an unlawful act or an act of negligence. However, when The Defense challenged this section due to the unique circumstances of this case that caused this case it to go to The Supreme Court of Canada since the Defense also said that it was in conflict with Section 7 of the Charter. In conclusion, the Defense we’re trying to dispute the fact that the accused committed manslaughter.

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Besides section 7, section 11 (b) and 12 (1) were violated under the Canadian Charter of Rights. Section 11 (b) states “any person with and offence has the right… (b) to be tried within a reasonable time” (Canadian Charter of Rights) and section 12 (1) “anyone whose rights or freedoms… have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such ready as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances” (Canadian Charter of Rights). Blencoe claimed the Commission had lost the power to make a decision because of the “unreasonable delay in processing the complaints” (Westcoastleaf, page.3) He also claimed the delay caused a lot of hate toward his family and him meaning they were a victim of abuse and denial in society.

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

The case being presented is the Kahkewistahaw First Nation v. Taypotat, which is a 2015 Supreme Court of Canada decision. The Kahkewistahaw First Nation developed an election code, which required that candidates who wished to be a Band Councilor or Chief must have achieved at least a grade 12 education (CanLII, 2015). The Chief for the majority of the previous three decades (27 years), 76 year old Louis Taypotat, had only attained a grade 10 education, which caused him to be disqualified from candidacy (CanLII, 2015). Taypotat opposed the process of the development of the election code, his disqualification, and the constitutionality of the election requirement (CanLII, 2015). His main argument was that the requirement for a candidate to possess a Grade 12 education violated section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”, and that educational attainment is analogous to race and age (Canadian Charter of Rights

What did the trial court do? Who won and lost? What did the trial court say?

Nevsun had argued over jurisdiction and appealed to have the human rights related case be moved to Eritrean courts because the Canadian courts do not have jurisdiction in a case involving a mine in Eritrea. However, “the B.C. Court of Appeal has upheld last year’s ruling by the B.C. Supreme Court that since Nevsun was a B.C. company, the province’s court had territorial jurisdiction.”

Police responded to a noise complaint at the accused’s home. The officer arrived and knocked loudly twice demanding that the door be opened for the police. When MacDonald finally opened the door a crack but the officer on the scene still noticed that the accused was concealing some sort of object. In order to get a better look the officer pushed on the door to try and identify the object. A struggle followed and MacDonald was disarmed of a loaded handgun. The accused had a license to possess and transport a handgun in Alberta but not in Nova Scotia as he initially believed to be the case. MacDonald argued that his section 8 charter rights had been violated when the officer forced his way into the accused’s home

To critically evaluate the impact of the cases R v Bugmy and R v Munda on the existing case law.