Regina V. G and Another Case Brief

This case falls into criminal case law. This is known from the title of the case being R v Davis, R being the Queen and Davis being the accused. In addition, the conviction was based off of laws that were broken listed in the Criminal Code of Canada.

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.

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

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:

The court deciphering between criminal negligence and recklessness. Criminal negligence being a person failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Legal citation of the case: Regina v Bilal Skaf; Regina v Mohammed Skaf [2006] NSWSC 394, 28 July 2006 AND amendment to this decision with the appeal: R v Skaf & Skaf [2008] NSWCCA 303, 17 December 2008

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

The text which I will be reviewing for this assignment is entitled Feminized Justice: The Toronto Women’s Court, 1913-34 by Amanda Glasbeek (2010). This is a challenging, thought-provoking text which not only highlighted the complex relationships between women and criminality in the early twentieth-century in Toronto but, also spoke on a critique of ideas regarding feminized justice and the middle-class women who aimed to reform the criminal justice system to obtain gender equality. Glasbeek (2010) examined the Toronto women’s courts, from its creation in 1913 to its demise in 1934 by rendering visible tensions and conflicts using case files and newspaper accounts to explore stories of women, demonstrating how they could be saved through the

Judges: Dickson, Robert George Brian; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley

You have asked me to summarize the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12, SCR 395 and analyze whether the Law society is likely to sanction Evan Frank. Although the Rules of Professional Conduct place limitations on certain conduct to ensure professionalism, the expressive rights of lawyers must be given due respect and the likelihood of Mr. Frank’s sanction will depend on a fair balance of “expressive value” of the content in the letter, with the public’s expectation of professionalism.

Many have argued that competency to stand trial is the “most significant mental health inquiry pursued in the system of criminal law” (Cowden & Mckee). This pillar of the American Legal System assures that those accused of criminal acts must be sufficiently competent to understand and partake in the trial proceedings. The threshold of competence can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but it mainly hinges on a series of factors such as cognitive deficits, the presence of a mental illness, and an inability to comprehend or effectively communicate with legal counsel. While this standard was made legal precedent in the 1960s it was only in regards to the adult criminal system; however, in past decades legal reform has allowed for youths to be tried and subjected to the same punishments as adult defendants (Schwartz & Grisso). This legal development brings about a very imperative issue: Should youth offenders be subjected to the same standard of competence as their adult counterparts? Furthermore, since these statutes were developed for determining competency in adults, can they properly recognize the uniqueness of the youth population?

The accused, Erin Lee MacDonald was charged for handling a firearm in a careless manner without taking erasable precautions for the safety of others and for possessing a loaded restricted firearm without having an authorization license stating he could do so. The case was on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia and was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014. The judgment of McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish and Abella JJ. was delivered by LeBel J.

For many years the courts have used the terms 'recklessness' and 'gross negligence' to describe the fault required for involuntary manslaughter, other than constructive manslaughter, without any clear definition of either term. It was not clear whether these terms were merely two ways of describing the same thing, or whether they represented two distinct conditions of fault.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable