CLU3M Final Exam Review PDF

CLU3M Final Exam Review Section I: Knowledge and Understanding - 16 marks [16 questions, 1 mark per question] On the test, you will be asked a multiple-choice question covering some of the following terms Legal Foundations Unit Common Law/Case...

CLU3M Final Exam Review Section I: Knowledge and Understanding - 16 marks [16 questions, 1 mark per question] On the test, you will be asked a multiple-choice question covering some of the following terms Legal Foundations Unit Common Law/Case Code of Hammurabi: Retribution: Jurisdiction: Law: I: A Babylonian legal text I: Punishment based on I:The parameters within I: Common Law is the composed during a sense of which power or Authority law made by judicial 1755-1750 BC; Earliest payback/vengeance may be exerted/allocated decisions set by courts seen codified laws. S: it embodies a sense of S: Determines which over time S: It set the standard for justice that takes court system should S: ensures consistency codifying laws, thus satisfaction from the properly adjudicate a as judges must rule establishing consistency wrongdoer being case; the levels of based on similar throughout the entirety of punished different police forces cases/makes sure that a given jurisdiction. + It ensures that these there's flexibility as laws Restitution: different agencies are not are changing all the time Magna Carta: I: Compensation for the stepping on each other’s I: aka “Greater Charter”, victim of a crime. toes. Procedural Law: outlined the limitations on S: Helped introduce I: The area of law that the rights of the crown; more democratic values Adversarial System: governs those that carry this was made when and protect the lower I: the judge plays the out the processes of law King John of England class from the upper minimal role as a (the courts and the was forced at sword class. Instead of just “referee” who decides police). point to sign - the first punishing the offender, sentencing/guilt while the S: Procedural law constitution. victims were repaid for defense/crown lawyers enforces and defends S: The significance of wrongdoings. oppose each other and rights and duties, this is that it was the first make their case ensuring that everyone is law that made it in writing Rehabilitation: S: Common criminal law treated fairly by the that the king and the I: the idea that the cases criminal justice system. government are not purpose of punishment is above the law. to apply treatments and Inquisitorial System: Rule of Law: training to the offender so I: the judge takes on a I: The Rule Of Law is Greek Law: they are able to return to significant role and asks what people are referring I: Ancient Greek laws society as a law-abiding the parties questions to when they say “no one were the rules and member. they must answer is above or below the regulations that governed S: significant because it S: Common in civil law law”. the earlier citizens of makes chances of cases b/c the parties S: The rule of law is Greece. reoffending lower, must prove probability to significant, to ensure that S: From the Greeks, we keeping society safer the judge everyone, no matter their have taken many political, social or wealth democratic practices, status is charged the such as juries same for doing the same crime. Human Rights Unit Reasonable Limits R v Morgentaler: Sauvé v Canada: The White Paper: Clause: I: He provided illegal I: He was a former biker I: 1969 PM Pierre-Elliot I: used to determine the abortion services to gang member who was Trudeau introduced The constitutionality of laws; if women in Canada imprisoned for White Paper, which laws are deemed S: Abortion would be first-degree murder, he aimed to reverse the unconstitutional based deemed a constitutional challenged for the right to Indian Act, making on the Oakes Test, they right, according to the vote in federal elections. Indigenous Canadians can be removed guarantee of security S: Sauve won, allowing the same legal status as S: recognizes that inmates to vote in federal any other Canadian certain rights may be R v Keegstra: elections. S: the failure of the White misused and even I: Keegstra was a public Paper is due to its abused if reasonable school teacher, who Rodriguez v. B.C.: inability to recognize the limits aren’t placed on taught his students that I: 42 year old Rodriguez special status of FNMI them. the Holocaust didn’t suffered from ALS and people; we shouldn’t just happen. When charged, wich to access assisted get rid of the Indian Act, Notwithstanding he argued that he was suicide The SCC argued but change it to better Clause: free to say what he it violated s.7(a) the right serve FNMI people I: Gives parliaments the wanted due to freedom to life but ultimately ruled ability to override certain of speech. in against her despite Immigration Act, 1976: areas of the charter to S:It guarantees that s.7(c): security of the I: Introduced a point enforce or enact laws. Canadians can’t use their person (aka bodily system to measure S: Intended to give Freedom of Speech as a autonomy) potential immigrants' provinces the ability to shield for hate speech S: paved the way for ability to establish create laws that align euthanasia to be themselves in Canada. with their unique values; R v Big M Drug Mart: introduced to Canada S: It established for the however, it has often I: Owners of Big M Drug (e.g, MAID) first time in law the main been misused leading to Mart were fined for objectives of Canada's controversy operating on a Sunday, R v Vriend: immigration policy, which violated the Lord’s I: Vriend was fired from objectives based on Equality Rights: Day Act. This was later his job at a college in merit as opposed to I: Section 15 of Charter, deemed unconstitutional 1991 for being race/ethnicity says everyone is free and a violation of homosexual. 1998; case from discrimination freedom of religion. ended w/ homophobia CUPE Strike, 2022: S: ensures society is fair S: It ensured that being considered an I: Ford used the and just Canada wouldn’t have illegal form of notwithstanding clause to religious-based discrimination in the withhold education union legislation IRPA workers' right to protest S: Shed light on and used it to force them homophobic legal back to work. policies + ensures the S: The notwithstanding rights of queer clause was used for the Canadians wrong reasons. The strike highlighted critical issues surrounding labor rights Criminology and Criminal Procedures Unit Criminal Code of Circumstantial Burden of Proof: Parole: Canada: Evidence: I: The Crown carries this I: Early conditional I: Canada’s document I: requires further burden to prove the guilt release of an inmate who what is a criminal offense inferences to point to of the defendant, NOT agrees to abide by the + the punishment guilt the defendant proving law + check in w/ a S: prevents harm + S: less conclusive, can their innocence parole officer condenses our laws into be undermined in court S: Ensures that, per s.11 S: Promotes a simple and clear form of the charter, the rehabilitation + so it’s accessible to all Direct Evidence: accused is assumed reintegration for reformed citizens I: explicit observations innocent and the system offenders w/o need for extra info is fair Quasi Criminal: S: hard evidence used to Probation: I: offences with convict more easily I: being watched for a substantial penalties, but period of time in which are not criminal offenses Due Process: Reasonable Doubt: one must behave after in themselves; no I: specific process that I: When insufficient committing a crime. criminal record or prison the police and courts evidence has been Most often there are S: Ensures the severity must follow to ensure the provided and a judge or terms and conditions to of the crime matches the justice is carried out jury can not, with 100% each probation. punishment (investigation + trial) certainty, say an accused S: appropriate by way of S: ensures that citizens is guilty. a conditional discharge Actus reus & Mens and law enforcement S: strives to prevent or suspended sentences Rea: alike are protected and innocent people from but can also be included I: Acteus reus is the receiving their due getting convicted of a in the following guilty act, Mens rea is process + prevents crime they didn’t commit dispositions: fines, the guilty mind (intent) miscarriages of justice imprisonment and S: both must be present Acquittal: intermittent sentences. to convict criminally I: If the Crown is unable to satisfy the court w/ the burden of proof. The Recidivism: accused must be I: likelihood of an declared not guilty (no offender reoffending charge) S: important measure of S: Ensures people found the legal system’s goal of innocent in court don't promoting rehabilitation + face any repercussions lessening crime Civil Law Unit Family Law: Labour Law: Negligence: Liability: I: cases regarding I: relationships between I: Unintentional tort I: Responsibility spouses, children, employees, employers, causing foreseeable S: Determines who is at common law marriages, and labour organizations harm because of fault in a civil case etc. S: Ensures labour rights carelessness/negligence S: ensures private are not being violated by to responsibility Act of God: matters are handled corporations S: Ensures that as I: Defense to negligence intimately between the reasonable people we claiming that the accident parties (no jury, no Contract Law: anticipate the was caused by an spectators) I: when people & consequences of our extraordinary, companies enter into actions + follow due unexpected natural event Property Law: agreements to purchase process S: Ensures people are I: laws that govern / provide goods & not criminally responsible physical and intellectual services Duty of Care: for bizarre/rare events property S: Ensures that both I: All Canadians are uncontrolled by them S: protects property parties follow the agreed required to go about their owners + reimburses upon terms lives showing a duty of them for loss care to foresee and avoid Commercial Law: harm Estate Law: I: governs businesses, S: Promotes civil I: how property is corporate contracts, responsibility in everyone distributed after one’s’ goods/services, etc. to avoid causing harm death (e.g, a will) S: protects the rights of S:ensures the consumers / the general Standard of Care: deceased’s belongings public I: The degree of caution go to close family/friends that is owed/expected of instead of the bank + no a reasonable person. A arguments between specialized standard of families/friends care may exist due to necessary  training/profession (e.g, a doctor) S: Ensures the standard of caution for each person varies depending on the severity of possible consequences Section II: Thinking and Inquiry 24 marks [8 marks, 3 marks per question] On the test, you will be asked short answer questions on four of the following topics: 1.​ Aboriginal Law, French Civil Law and British Common Law Aboriginal Law: -​ A system of law based on the concept of restorative justice; punishment is focused on restoring the community from before the wrongdoing -​ Seen today in how our legal system is more focused on restitution and rehabilitation French Law: -​ A system where laws are codified and justice is carried out through the inquisitorial method -​ Ontario + Quebec still uses French Civil Codes in civil law trials British Common Law: -​ Judges’ decisions set a precedent for future rulings, system based on the adversarial method -​ The adversarial method is what is used in Canadian Criminal Trials -​ Lawyers take the lead, judge is more of a referee -​ Common/Case law is still used in our legal system today 2.​ Public Law Under the Umbrella term “Substantive Law” (areas involving citizens + gov.). Includes: -​ Criminal Law: violations of the criminal code + other statutes -​ Constitutional Law: principles/issues involving rights + limitations on government power -​ Administrative Law: involves government agencies/regulations + how the gov. functions 3.​ The Legislative Process First Reading: bill is introduced to the house of commons/senate; no debate or vote Second Reading: MPs or Senators debate the principles of the bill, general discussion of its impact + vote Committee Stage: small group of MPs/Senators, detailed study of bill, amendments suggested, witnesses/ stakeholders brought in, the reports/findings are sent to the House/Senate Report Stage: MPs/Senators review the committee’s findings + amendments + bill is debated based on the Committee’s recommendations Third Reading: Final debate on the entire bill, vote to reject or pass it - if passed, the bill moves to the other chamber Senate Stage (If Applicable): bill follows the same process as in the other chamber, if approved it is sent back to the other chamber Royal Assent: bill is signed by the Governor General (more for ceremonial purposes, they don't usually refuse to sign it)  4.​ The Oakes Test Test conducted for the ‘Reasonable Limits Clause’, testing if a law reasonably infringes on the constitution: 1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective. 2. The Proportionality Test: a.​ Is there a rational connection between the law and its goal? b.​ Is the impact of the law a minimal impairment of rights? c.​ Do the benefits of the law outweigh the negative impacts? 5.​ Fundamental Freedoms Freedom of Conscience and Religion: anyone can practice religion (+ publically) or choose not to Freedom of Thought, Belief, Opinion and Expression: anyone can express themselves (not w/ hate speech) Freedom of Peaceful Assembly: the right to public demonstrations - strikes, marches, sit-ins (no violence) Freedom of Association: people can to come together to pursue common goals (no violence/discrimination) 6.​ Democratic Rights -​ Rights regarding our democratic process: a.​ Who can vote/run for election (s.3) b.​ How long elected officials can hold office / how often elections are held (s.4) c.​ Transparency between elected officials and the people (s.5) -​ Everybody 18+ has the right to vote 7.​ Summary Offenses, Indictable Offenses and Hybrid Offenses Summary Offenses: a crime that is less serious and invites a lesser punishment (Canada’s “misdemeanour”) Indictable Offenses: the most serious offenses, such as Murder and Aggravated Assault (Canada’s “felonies”) Hybrid Offenses: They may be designated as indictable or summary at the discretion of the Crown who may consider character and criminal history when making this decision 8.​ Purposes of Sentencing -​ To deter the offender from reoffending + others from committing the same crime -​ To rehabilitate the offender -​ To separate offenders from society, especially w/ violent offenders (rapists, serial killers, etc.) -​ To demonstrate that society disapproves of the crime -​ To repair harm caused to victims and the community: seeing justice being served → healing 9.​ Factors of Sentencing -​ Consider the nature of the offense and seriousness of the crime (deliberate or impulse / murder or theft) -​ Consider the age, background and family circumstances of the offender (Gladue Reports) -​ Consider the criminal record of the offender and length of time in last conviction + indications of lenient sentencing in the past -​ Consider unusual circumstances appearing from the evidence -​ Consider mitigating factors: a guilty plea or cooperation w/ police -​ Consider aggravating circumstances: domestic abuse (Battered Women’s Syndrome) 10.​Types of Liability Product Liability = deals with negligence on the part of manufacturers Occupier’s Liability = the responsibility of owners/renters to ensure no one is harmed on their property -​ Excludes trespassers Vicarious Liability = one has legal responsibility for the negligence of another person Strict Liability = defendant is automatically liable for an injury caused by a dangerous substance -​ E.g, oil spills by big corporations  11.​Defences Against Unintentional Torts Contributory Negligence = negligent acts by the plaintiff that helped cause their harm Voluntary Assumption of Risk = no liability exists because the plaintiff agreed to accept the risk in the activity Waiver = a document signed by the plaintiff, releasing the defendant of liability if injury occurs Inevitable Accident = claims that an accident was unavoidable due to an uncontrollable event Act of God = claims that the accident was caused by an extraordinary, unexpected natural event Explanation = claims the accident occurred for a valid reason despite the defendant taking every precaution 12.​Defences Against Intentional Torts Against a Person: Consent = permission granted for a specific act -​ E.g, Joe volunteers for a pie-throwing contest so he can’t sue if he gets hurt from the pie tin Self Defense = legal right to use reasonable force to protect oneself -​ E.g, If Joe punches Jane, Jane can fight back Defense of a Third Party = legal right to use reasonable force to protect someone from injury -​ E.g, Jane can tackle Joe if he punched an 8 year old Legal Authority = legal right to engage in activity that would otherwise be considered a tort -​ E.g police officer can arrest and detain but a normal person cannot Against Property: Consent = permission to come on the property Defense of Property = using reasonable force to protect their property Legal Authority = right given to engage in conduct that would otherwise be a tort -​ E.g, gas meter reader has authority to come on your property to read the meter Statutory Authority = legislation that allows one to perform an act that would create a nuisance -​ E.g, legal permission to build an airport Section III: Communication [24 marks] You will be asked to write two 5 paragraph essay (intro, body paragraph x 3, conclusion) in response to one of the following questions. From this list, two will appear on the test. 1.​ Appraise the strengths and weaknesses of the Adversarial System and the Inquisitorial System of law and discuss the advantages of pursuing a criminal case and civil litigation Thesis: MP1: Adversarial System: -​ Used in criminal cases -​ The Crown has the burden of proof (which protects innocent civilians) -​ The Crown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty -​ The defense has to sow reasonable doubt, not prove innocence (protects innocent civilians) -​ The Judge’s role is like a referee; they officiate the case in a trial by judge alone they determine guilt, they always determine the sentence MP2: Inquisitorial System: -​ Used in civil cases -​ There is no Crown, just a plaintiff and a defendant -​ No burden of proof, just a balance of probabilities (whoever makes the best case)  -​ The judge has a much larger role; they can probe or ‘inquire’ about information directly to the plaintiff/defendant MP3: When would a criminal case or civil litigation be advantageous -​ Criminal Pros -​ jail time, criminal record, prevention from reoffending but no compensation for the victim personally -​ Some crimes, like those of a violent or heinous nature can not be resolved by a dollar amount -​ IN these cases, seeing someone’s freedom get taken away may be the greatest consolation -​ Civil Action Pros -​ Usually, the resolution is direct compensation -​ For some crimes of a less serious nature, but still incur monetary damages, civil action may be most appropriate -​ Damages, lost wages, and peripheral damages/costs don’t get sorted out by someone doing time - they require restitution 2.​ Discuss the role of law in promoting justice and resolving conflicts in Canadian society. Examine how laws reflect societal values, protect vulnerable groups, and evolve over time. Use examples from the course in your response. Potential Topics: Reproductive Rights (R v Morgentaler) Medical Assistance in Dying/Dying with Dignity (R v rodriguez + R v Carter) Indigenous Rights (s. 25 Aboriginal Rights/MMIGW/Overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in Canadians Prisons/Gladue Reports) MP1: Reflects societal values: -​ The criminalization of acts like murder/assault portrays our society’s sanctity of life MP2: Protects vulnerable groups: -​ Laws against child abuse (Child and Family Services Act) MP3: Evolves over time: -​ Previous bans on abortion and euthanasia have been repealed to reflect our society moving towards an increase of autonomy 3.​ Analyze how the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects individual rights and freedoms. Discuss the balance between individual rights and societal needs by referring to at least three landmark cases studied in class. Do you think the Charter achieves a fair balance? Explain your position. Thesis: The Charter does maintain a fair balance between individual rights and societal needs, thanks to the Oakes Test​ ​ MP1: R v Oakes (Innocence until proven guilty) -​ Protects the right to the assumption of innocence -​ Upholds the principle “innocent until proven guilty” and prevents false convictions -​ Maintains equality in our legal system MP2: R v Big M Drug Mart (Religious Rights) -​ Protects religious freedoms, specifically the right to abstain from religion -​ Lord’s Day Act was deemed unconstitutional -​ Ensures religion does not play a biased role in drafting legislation or public life; individuals need not worry about being subjected laws clearly influenced by religion MP3: R v Keegstra (Freedom of Speech/Hate Speech) -​ Limits free speech reasonably -​ Upholds protection from discrimination for every citizen -​ The individual (Keegstra) tried to use s. 2 as a shield for his personal (racist) beliefs -​ The Oakes test was used to determine that yes - his rights were being violated, but in a way that was reasonable according to s. 1 of the Charter 4.​ Appraise the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to criminal justice. Be sure to make reference to concepts such as Retribution, Reformation and Restorative Justice, while making connections to parole and recidivism Thesis: Different approaches to criminal justice have both their pros and cons. Some methods use more lenient approaches while others may be seen as more punitive. Depending on the situation, different approaches offer different advantages and disadvantages​ ​ MP1: Pros of Retribution - -​ Justice for the victims and their families Cons of Retribution - -​ Punishment for the sake of punishment rarely helps the criminal to actually get better -​ If the goal of our justice system is to ‘correct’ deviant or criminal behaviours, retribution achieves that goal ​ MP2: Pros of Reformation - -​ Reduced recidivism -​ Increases success of parole as it is focus on reintegrating them into society Cons of Reformation - -​ Seen as too lenient -​ Some criminals may be deemed non-rehabilitable -​ Recidivism among parolees, especially offences of violent nature could be used as an argument against the justice system’s effectiveness in reforming criminals​ MP3: Pros of Restorative Justice: -​ Lower recidivism as offenders have real behavioral changes -​ Victims heal by understanding the offender -​ Offenders take more responsibility Cons of Restorative Justice: -​ Offenders and victims must agree -​ It may actually have the opposite effect -​ It may be considered as being soft on crime Section IV: Application [16 marks] On the test you will be asked to apply the concepts under the Rule of Law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the. Example 1: Ryan is a farmer from rural Alberta. In 2022, he joins a group of landowners protesting the development of a pipeline that would pass through farmland and Indigenous territory. The group organizes a blockade on a public highway leading to the construction site. Alberta law prohibits obstructing highways for the purpose of protest. When police arrive, Ryan peacefully sits down with the other protesters and refuses to leave. Police use force to remove protesters, including batons and tear gas. During the confrontation, Ryan sustains injuries and is denied access to medical care while in custody. Meanwhile, the federal government debates Bill C-120, which would mandate greater environmental reviews and Indigenous consultations for major infrastructure projects. Analyze this situation through the concept of the Rule of Law [2 marks]. -​ Protestors are not above the law and should not have obstructed the highway. -​ Police officers’ abuse of force is above the rule of law Identify two Charter violations here and explain what must be done to provide a remedy [4 marks]. -​ Cruel and Unusual Treatment or Punishment; Ryan should be given medical care regardless of his legal status -​ Freedom of Peaceful Assembly; protesters should be removed, but given an opportunity to relocate Analyze Bill C-120 as a reflection of changing Canadian values [2 marks]. -​ Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and valuing their land and opinions. Example 2: Emma is a marine biologist from St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2023, she joins a protest against deep-sea mining operations off the coast, citing harm to the fragile marine ecosystem. Alongside other protesters, she stages a peaceful occupation of the company’s port facilities, disrupting shipping operations. Newfoundland law prohibits trespassing on industrial property. Police officers arrive and begin making arrests. Emma is taken into custody after peacefully surrendering but is held in detention for several days without formal charges. While in custody, Emma claims that police failed to inform her of her right to speak with a lawyer. At the same time, Parliament debates Bill C-15, which proposes stronger federal protections for Canada’s marine ecosystems. Analyze this situation through the concept of the Rule of Law [2 marks]. ➔​ Protesters are not above the law, and should not have disrupted the shipping operations ➔​ They had broken the law which prohibits trespassing on industrial property Identify two Charter violations here and explain what must be done to provide a remedy [4 marks]. 1.​ The police holding Emma in custody for several days without any chargers violates section 9, the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned a.​ Emma could apply to the court for a remedy since her rights were violated and for an order of her release under section 24 of the charter.  2.​ The police arrest people for having a peaceful protest which violates the section 2 rights of having peaceful protests, meetings and speeches. a.​ To provide a remedy, Emma could file a civil lawsuit against the police and the government for false detention, emotional distress and violations of constitutional rights Analyze Bill C-15 as a reflection of changing Canadian values [2 marks]. ➔​ Bill C-15 protects a part of our marine ecosystem, which can help save our marine life Example 3: Liam is an Indigenous activist from Winnipeg, Manitoba, who joins a peaceful protest against the diversion of a major river that would damage sacred land. In 2022, he participates in a sit-in at the Manitoba Legislature, which blocks entry to the building. Provincial law prohibits obstructing public buildings during business hours. Police are called in to remove the protesters. While most comply, Liam is forcibly detained and claims he was subjected to verbal abuse and intimidation by officers. During the protest, a scuffle breaks out, and police use tear gas, injuring bystanders. The federal government introduces Bill S-22, which aims to protect Indigenous land rights in Canada by requiring free, prior, and informed consent for resource projects on Indigenous land. Analyze this situation through the concept of the Rule of Law [2 marks]. The rule of law states nobody is above or below the law so because the protesters are obstructing a public building, they are breaking the provincial law no matter what their message may be. Identify two Charter violations here and explain what must be done to provide a remedy [4 marks]. - Right to Peaceful Assembly is being violated as their right to protest is being taken away by the local law enforcement. Remedy: - Freedom of Speech is being restricted as the police ensure their message is being shut down by using physical force. Canada states through the R v Keegstra case that freedom of speech cannot be used as a shield for hate speech but in this case, it is being used to protect sacred land. Remedy: - Free from cruel and unusual punishment. The protesters were in a peaceful protest which means the physical force was uncalled for and the injuries that were faced were avoidable. Remedy: Analyze Bill S-22 as a reflection of changing Canadian values [2 marks]. Bill s-22 shows how Canadian values have shifted towards being more understanding of protected and sacred land. Bill s-22 highlights the increasing efforts by the Canadian government to reconcile with indigenous communities. - Shows the Canadian government's change in mindset from the White Paper to creating bills that better serve the FNP. Example 4: Noah is a conservationist living in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. In 2023, he protests the construction of a large mine near a critical wildlife habitat for caribou. Alongside others, he organizes a blockade of a supply road leading to the mining site. Blocking roads is prohibited under territorial law. RCMP officers are deployed to remove the protesters. Noah cooperates peacefully but is detained and claims he was held in custody longer than necessary without being informed of the charges. Witnesses report that officers used excessive force on other protesters, resulting in injuries. During this time, the federal government introduces Bill S-34, which proposes protections for Arctic wildlife habitats and stricter oversight of industrial projects in northern Canada. Analyze this situation through the concept of the Rule of Law [2 marks]. The rule of law is that no matter your social or political status in Canada, everyone, even high government officials, is accountable for following the same laws. The blockade he organized to stop the flow of supplies to the mining site was prohibited under federal law, meaning that although they peacefully protested, they were still breaking the law. Identify two Charter violations here and explain what must be done to provide a remedy [4 marks]. Arbitrary detention: Noah and some other protesters were going to the mining site to show their involvement in the stop of hurting the caribou wildlife. Noah was wrongfully arrested, which falls under arbitrary detention because he 1. He got wrongfully arrested and was detained without knowing his charges. Right to peaceful protest: Although they were breaking the law by blocking the road, they still broke up their protest, violating their rights to protest. Instead of relocating the protest somewhere else, they completely shut it down. Remedy: Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment: The RCMP were sent to simply remove the protesters from blocking the street, but after abusing their power, they decided to use excessive force on the protesters, resulting in injuries. Remedy: A set amount of money for the people who were injured. Analyze Bill S-34 as a reflection of changing Canadian values [2 marks]. ``In the Bill S-34