Western Legal Systems Exam Outline PDF

WESTERN LEGAL SYSTEMS – EXAM OUTLINE 1 Western Legal Systems 1.1 Introduction to Western Legal Systems 1.1.1 Overview of Common Law Systems Western legal systems: jurisdictions applying civil law or common law - Focus on American, Canadian and British frameworks Common law - basic elem...

WESTERN LEGAL SYSTEMS – EXAM OUTLINE 1 Western Legal Systems 1.1 Introduction to Western Legal Systems 1.1.1 Overview of Common Law Systems Western legal systems: jurisdictions applying civil law or common law - Focus on American, Canadian and British frameworks Common law - basic elements i. Case law reasoning using precedents ii. overruling of former decisions to ensure creation of new precedents iii. Judicial decisions to interpret and apply the law In common law systems, statutes alone don’t suffice. Courts evaluate cases individually, considering precedents and their relevance to the facts presented. Main characteristics of common law systems  Reliance on precedents (STARE DECISIS): Courts follow previous judicial decisions to endure consistence and predictability  Judge made law: judges shape the law through their rulings  Adversarial court proceedings: lawyers for each side present their case and the judge or jury determine the outcome.  Case-by-case analysis: each case is evaluated on its own, allowing for flexibility in the application of the law.  Flexibility: Common law adapts to new situations and societal changes.  Consistency: precedents ensure that similar cases are treated similarly.  Judicial interpretation: Judges interpret statutes and apply them to specific cases considering the intent of the legislature and principles of justice. Example: In a negligence case involving a partygoer unknowingly consuming marijuana-laced cookies, a superior court would follow the precedent set by higher courts if the legal principles and facts are similar. (ex: admitting liability of the host) 1.2 Court Hierarchy in Canada 1.2.1 Supreme Court of Canada Supreme Court of Canada or SCC: highest court of Canada and final court of appeal for all legal matters i. Has the authority to hear cases on any area of law, including constitutional, civil and criminal matters ii. Its decisions are binding on all lower courts across Canada Role of the SUPREME COURT  Interpreting and applying the law to ensure consistency and fairness.  Hearing appeals from lower courts, including provincial and federal courts.  Providing opinions on issues of public importance. 1.2.2 Federal Courts Federal court of Canada consists of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court It deals with matters under federal law including federal statutes, maritime law and intellectual property disputes. Key functions of the Federal Courts i. Reviewing decisions made by federal boards, commissions and tribunals ii. Handling claims related to aeronautics, interprovincial undertaking and intellectual property iii. Addressing issues related to immigration, citizenship and national security 1.2.3 Provincial and Territorial Courts Each province and territory in Canada – own court system with three levels  Court of Appeal  Superior Courts  Provincial/territorial Courts Structure of provincial and territorial courts: provinces handle administration of justice on the basis of s.92 ( 14) of the Constitution i. Courts of Appeal: The highest courts within each province or territory, hearing appeals from lower courts on points of law. ii. Superior Courts: Also known as Supreme Courts in some provinces, these courts have inherent jurisdiction and can hear any matter unless specifically excluded by statute. iii. Provincial/Territorial Courts: These courts handle most cases, including less serious criminal offenses, family law matters, and small claims. 1.3 Role of Judges in the Canadian Legal System 1.3.1 Interpretation of Law Primary function of judges: interpreting and applying the law to specific cases i. Analyzing statutes, regulations, and previous court decisions to see how they apply to the facts at hand ii. Considering the intent of the legislature, the principles of justices and evolving needs of society iii. Be impartial arbiters of laws and guardians of justice 1.3.2 Guiding the Jury Judges guide the jury during the legal proceedings i. Providing instructions on the applicable law ii. Explaining legal concepts iii. Ensure the jury understands its responsibilities 1.3.3 Creating Precedents Judges have the power to create precedents through their decisions.  i. Stare decisis principle - “to stand by things decided”: courts adhere to precedent in making their decisions ii. Precedents established by higher courts are binding on lower courts. iii. These precedents become part of the body of case law. iv. Judicial decision making can supplement areas where statutory law is unclear or incomplete. 1.4 Common Law vs. Civil Law in Canada 1.4.1 Common Law System The common law systems, originated in England, is the predominant legal tradition in most Anglo-Saxon countries. Characteristics of the common law systems: i. Reliance on precedent (stare decisis) ii. Judge-made law through court decisions iii. Adversarial court proceedings (up to the lawyers to do research) iv. Emphasis on case-by-case analysis In common law jurisdictions: o Precedents work alongside statutes, interpreting the law and guiding its application to specific situations. o A series of court decisions can prompt lawmakers to draft new laws to address the issue. 1.4.2 Civil Law System Civil law system: system of law that functions by codification of laws, most common form of judicial system in western and eastern jurisdictions (Europe, Latin America, Asia. Africa) Derived from Roman law: prioritizes written statutes over judicial decisions. Characteristics of the civil law system i. Codification of laws in comprehensive legal codes ii. Less emphasis on judicial precedent iii. More inquisitorial court proceedings (the judge is investigating/asking the questions) iv. Greater reliance on legal scholars and academic writings o Emphasis on codified laws means judges interpret and apply statutes to individual cases without the influence of precedent 1.4.3 Intersection of Common Law and Civil Law Quebec, due to its French heritages operates under a mixed law system because of its heritage. i. Civil law: Quebec operates under a civil law system for private law matters ( ie. Civil code of Quebec and civil code of procedure) ii. Common law: Quebec operates under a common law system for private law and criminal law matters 2 Common Law and Equity 2.1 History and Current Significance 2.1.1 History of Common Law Common law originates from the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. King William established a common government and began standardizing the law across England. Henry II: instituted “traveling courts” in the 12th century: sending judges from the royal court to hear local disputes William Blackstone: 18th century jurist – documented common law principles in his work “Commentaries on the Laws of England” 2.1.2 Role of Equity Equity later developed as a separate system to supplement common law: supplements common law when it cannot provide adequate relief to parties seeking damage Court of Chancery introduced equitable principles to mitigate the sometimes harsh and inflexible results of strict common law in the 13th century. Serves several functions in the legal system: i. Allows for a fairness lens in adjudicating proceedings and determining fault or liability ii. Facilitates new principles and remedies that can later be incorporated into the common law system iii. Introduces equitable remedies such as injunctions, specific performance and offers alternatives to monetary compensations iv. Equity introduces concepts such as trust, fiduciary duties and equitable estoppel  2.2 Legal Provisions 2.2.1 Stare Decisis Stare decisis: principle by which courts follow precedents set by higher courts in similar cases. o Exception: courts may depart from precedent if circumstances have significantly change or if the precedent is deemed to be wrongly decided. 2.2.2 Corporate Opportunity Doctrine Corporate opportunity doctrine: concept that prohibits corporate fiduciaries from taking business opportunities for themselves that should belong to a corporation. Extension of the fiduciary duty of loyalty and prevents directors from unfairly competing with the companies they serve. Industrial Developments Ltd v Cooley [1972) : A director resigned from his position to pursue a business opportunity he had learned about through his role in the company. The court held he had breached his fiduciary duty by taking advantage of a corporate opportunity for personal gain. 2.2.3 Fiduciary Duty Fiduciary duty : legal obligation of one party to act in the best interest of another. In corporate law, this applies to directors, officers and controlling shareholders. ( conflicts of interest/ personal gain) Includes : o Duty of care o Duty of loyalty o Duty of good faith 2.2.4 Freedom of Contract Freedom of contract : principle by which parties can enter into agreements on their own terms without external interference. NOTE : Not absolute as it can be limited by public policy, statutory law and equitable principles. 2.2.5 Equitable Remedies Equitable remedies : court-ordered actions that aim to resolve disputes when monetary compensation is inadequate. Founded on principles of fairness and justice – originates from the historical division between law courts and courts of equity in England Maxims of equity : Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy He who seeks equity must do equity He who comes to equity must come with clean hands Types of equitable remedies : i. Specific Performance: An order requiring a party to perform their contractual obligations. ii. Injunction: A court order prohibiting or mandating certain actions. iii. Rescission: The cancellation of a contract, returning the parties to their pre-contractual positions. iv. Rectification: The correction of a written document to reflect the true intentions of the parties. 3 Canadian Legal System 3.1 Sources of Law 3.1.1 Constitution Constitution of Canada: supreme law of Canada and provides legal framework for the country i. Composed of the Constitution act of 1867 or British North America Act and the Constitution Act of 1982 (includes Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms) ii. Outlines the structure of the government iii. Outlines the division of powers between the federal government ( s.91) and the provincial government ( s.92) 3.1.2 Statutes and Regulations Statutes and regulations: frameworks enacted by legislative bodies at the federal, provincial and local levels.  Statutes: formal written laws passed by legislative bodies ( Parliament for federal law, provincial legislatures for provincial law)  Regulations: rules created by administrative agencies and have the force of law 3.2 Court System (other courts) 3.2.1 Federal Court of Appeal Federal court of Appeal hears appeals from decision of the Federal Court and Tax Court of Canada  - Handles other statutory appeals where a right to appeal to the court is created by federal law ( see chart on appeal process) - Reviews decision made by entities listed in section 28 (1) of the Federal Courts Act. 3.2.2 Administrative Tribunals Administrative tribunals: Specialized bodies that resolve disputes in specific areas, ie. Immigration, labor relations, human rights - Operate independently of the regular court system and provide a more accessible and specialized forum for resolving disputes - Some AT : Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications commission, Tribunal administrative du Logement in QC, Human Rights Tribunal in ON 3.3 Legislation and Regulation 3.3.1 Role of Statutes Legislative provisions created by Parliament : federal body of lawmakers 4 Particularities of Quebec and Aboriginal law 4.1 The Quebec judicial system 4.1.1 Court system Note : The superior court is the established general jurisdiction for all matters not explicitly assigned to another court of administrative body. It can hear cases concerning o Civil cases involving claims of $75,000 or more o Criminal jury trials for serious offenses o over class actions, injunctions, and judicial review of lower courts and administrative bodies o Appeals in certain criminal and penal matters o Family law cases, including divorce and bankruptcy matters Where does it get its authority? Section 96 of the BNAA and article 33 of the CPC of QC 4.1.2 Interaction of federal and provincial law - Quebec mixed law system: civil law for private law matters and common law for criminal/public law matters. How does Quebec handle a case when both its provincial provisions and federal law apply? See example of divorce proceedings  DIVORCE ACT CIVIL CODE OF QUEBEC - Federal legislation - Applicable to Quebec only - Governs the grounds for divorce - Governs property division, and spousal support support obligations and other civil law matters - Includes child support NOTE: The Superior Court applies BOTH in family cases law. They are complementary, hence there is no conflict. 4.1.3 Jurisdiction disputes What of jurisdiction dispute? Quebec courts can according to article 3135 of the C.c.Q decline authority over a matter to allow a foreign jurisdiction to hear a case. Article 3135: "Even though a Quebec authority has jurisdiction to hear a dispute, it may, exceptionally and on an application by a party, decline jurisdiction if it considers that the authorities of another State are in a better position to decide the dispute." In the A.B v.Me divorce case, Quebec jurisdiction declined jurisdiction to allow Egyptian courts to hear the matter. Facts Issue Court reasoning Decision An Egyptian couple Can a divorce case be On the basis of Article The Quebec moved to Canada and heard before the 3135, the court decided jurisdiction declined filed for a divorce. The Egyptian courts that multiple factors authority over the wife filed for divorce in although the parties such as the current matter [para. 57] QC requesting custody reside and have a place of residence of allowing the case to be child support, child substantial connection the children, assets, and heard in Egypt. support spousal support to Quebec? existing divorce in and division of assets. Egypt justified the The husband filed a Egyptian jurisdiction case in front of the handling the dispute. Superior Court to select the best forum. 4.1.4 Case law reasoning in Quebec courts Difference in adjudicating cases: The Spar Aerospace v American Mobile Satellite Corp decision was briefly mentioned to support the argument of allowing foreign jurisdiction over the divorce case. In Quebec’s civil law tradition, reasoning: -focuses more on codified statutes - mention of case law but only to supplement arguments (opposite of common law where courts rely heavily on precedent.  4.2 Aboriginal law 4.2.1 Aboriginal law within the Canadian Constitution Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982: - Recognizes Aboriginal rights prior to Canadian legislation - Recognize historical treaty rights and traditional land claims - Gender inclusive, guaranteeing these rights to both male and female indigenous persons ( i.e.. Former Indian act provided indigenous women who married non- indigenous men lost their status) NOTE : These rights can be infringed Such infringement must meet the test established by the Supreme Court in cases like R v. Sparrow (1990) and Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia (2014). The infringement must serve a compelling and substantial objective (e.g., conservation, development) and be consistent with the honour of the Crown. 4.2.2 Aboriginal title Aboriginal title: refers to the collective right to exclusive use and occupation of ancestral land. -not just a right to use the land - but also, a right to control the land in a way consistent with Indigenous practices and laws. - Delgamuukw v British Columbia : Facts Issue Court Analysis Decision Gitxsan and What is the nature and Examined the concept Defined Aboriginal title Wet'suwet'en hereditary scope of Aboriginal of Aboriginal title as a as a right to exclusive chiefs claimed title under section 35 of right to land itself. use and occupation of Aboriginal title and the Constitution Act, Considered the role of land and Aboriginal jurisdiction over 58,000 1982? oral histories as title was never square kilometers in evidence. extinguished in BC. northwest British Assessed requirements Columbia. for proving Aboriginal Established that oral Claim filed in 1984 title. histories must be given for unextinguished Evaluated the equal weight as other Aboriginal title, relationship between historical evidence. jurisdiction, and Aboriginal title and compensation for Crown sovereignty Clarified that alienated land government must consult when dealing with Crown land  - Joe Pastion v Dene Tha First Nation Facts Issue Court Analysis Decision Joe Pastion, incumbent How should courts - Examined the nature Dismissed Pastion's Chief of Dene apply deference to of Indigenous election application for judicial Tha' First Nation, Indigenous laws and regulations as an review. lost re-election by 29 decision-makers when exercise of self- - Ruled that the Board votes. reviewing election government. reasonably concluded - Pastion disputed results under custom - Considered the role of Didzena's eligibility results, claiming third- election codes? deference to Indigenous challenge should have place decision-makers. been made earlier. candidate (Didzena) - Assessed the Board's - Emphasized that was ineligible. interpretation of Indigenous laws and - Election eligibility requirements. decision-makers are Appeal Board rejected entitled to deference. Pastion's complaint. - Stated that application of Indigenous laws by Indigenous decision- makers is a component of self-government. 4.2.3 Aboriginal rights Aboriginal rights: practices, customs, and traditions integral to the cultural identity of an Indigenous group, such as hunting or fishing rights - may not necessarily involve land ownership. 4.2.4 Integration of aboriginal legal practices Gladue courts: alternative court practices that use native legal practices (such as consensus, alternative to incarceration) - addresses overrepresentation of native people in jail See r v Gladue case Facts Issue Court analysis Decision An aboriginal woman How should courts The court interpreted Some mitigating factors was charged with interpret and apply that s. 718.2(e) was to such as ( her spouse manslaughter with 3 Article s.718 2 when address Indigenous having an affair, years imprisonment for applying criminal over-representation. allegations of DV, killing her husband sanctions to aboriginal - Considered chronic illness) were after suspecting him of offenders? application to all taken into account by infidelity. She was Indigenous offenders. the judge. The 3 year intoxicated and pled - Assessed need to sentence was upheld as guilty to manslaughter. consider unique the judge had given her She appealed her systemic factors and a generous sentence. imprisonement on the restorative justice. basis of Article s.718 2 (e) Article s.718 2 (e) of the Criminal Code: all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. Courts are required to assess a Indigenous offender’s culpability by considering multiple factors such as: o Impacts of colonialism o Residential schools o Systemic discrimination See R v Ipeelee Facts Issue Court analysis Decision Manasie Ipeelee, an How should courts xamined the ongoing Allowed Ipeelee's Indigenous man, apply the Gladue overrepresentation of appeal, reducing breached his long-term principles when Indigenous people in the sentence to 1 year. supervision order by sentencing Indigenous justice system. - Reaffirmed Gladue consuming alcohol. offenders for serious - Clarified principles apply in all - Sentenced to 3 years offenses or breaches of misconceptions about cases involving imprisonment. long-term orders? Gladue principles. Indigenous offenders. - Lower courts gave - Emphasized the need - Rejected the need for limited consideration to to consider systemic a direct causal link his Indigenous status factors for all between background due to the nature of the Indigenous offenders, factors and the offense. offense. regardless of offense - Clarified that severity. considering Gladue factors is not a "discount" but part of individualized sentencing. 5 Case Law and Court System 5.1 Structure of Canadian Case Law 5.1.1 Subject Classification o Subject classification: Case law is categorized based on subject matter ( ex: family law, criminal law) : o essential to organization and referencing cases o Assigned headings or key numbers 5.1.2 Case Identification Case identification: process of uniquely identifying a legal dispute - Cases identified by style of cause or case name (such as names of parties 5.1.3 Case Summary Concise overview of the case: o Relevant facts o Central legal issues to be addressed o Reasoning of the judge 5.1.4 Judicial Reasoning Judicial reasoning or ratio decidendi : judge’s logical process in reaching a decision. Involves application of core legal principles to the facts of the case 5.1.5 Decision Decision of the court: judge’s final ruling on the matter and concludes the case by determining the outcome based on the judicial reasoning. Binding on the parties involved and may influence cases with similar issues. 5.1.6 Precedential Value Precedential Value or stare decisis: application of the principle "stare decisis et non quieta movere" (to abide by precedent and not disturb settled points). o Adherence to established precedents in similar cases o Creation of new legal precedents if no prior ruling exists 5.1.7 Obiter Dictum Obiter dictum : supplementary remarks or observations made by the judges that are not essential to the decision. Not binding but can be influential in future cases and provide additional insight into the judge’s thinking.  5.2 Case Studies 5.2.1 Adamson Barbecue v City of Toronto William Adamson Did Skelly operate an The corporate Skelly found guilty of Skelly operated eating establishment defendants wre not 17 counts of operating "Adamson Barbecue and food truck without found liable as without proper licenses - The business did not proper licenses? ‘piercing the veil (11 for eating have proper licenses 2. Were the corporate doctrine]’ was held. establishment, 6 for from the City of defendants liable for What Skelly did in his food truck). Toronto and was open the same offences? personal capacity - All charges against during covid the corporate restrictions. defendants dismissed - Skelly and two due to lack of evidence corporations (Adamson linking them to Barbecue Ltd. and business operations. Adamson BBQ Ltd.) were charged with 95 bylaw offences. 5.2.2 York University v. access Copyright Facts Issue Court Ruling Ratio dicidendi analysis Access Copyright, a Do s.68.2 (1) Statutory The tariff is not A collective society collective society of the interpretation mandatory or cannot impose a representing creators and Copyright Act of the enforceable mandatory tariff on a publishers, had a enable Access relevant against York user who is not party licensing agreement with Copyright to Copyright University. to a licensing York University from enforce Act agreement with that 1994 to 2010.When the educational provisions A.C cannot force organization. agreement expired, tariffs onto and a license on an The court will not Access Copyright sought York if the Parliament unwilling user. grant declaratory to impose a new tariff on institution intentions TheCopyright relief when there is York. York University didn’t have a Act is meant to no live issue before it disputed this tariff, licensing Analysis of protect users, not and insufficient arguing it couldn't be agreement? existing case allow collective factual context to enforced without their law on societies to make a reasoned consent. (absence of a collective impose decision. licensing agreement) societies mandatory tariffs. Key paragraphs in York v.Access Copyright Paragraph 49: The advantages of collective societies were recognized, but regulation was deemed necessary to prevent arbitrary and unrestrained exercise of monopoly power. Paragraph 52: Approved statements of royalties put a cap on what societies could charge for a license but did not bind an unwilling user to the terms of a license. Paragraph 71: Access Copyright’s interpretation of s. 68.2(1) was found to be in direct conflict with the purpose of the Board’s price-setting role, turning tariffs into an anti-competitive tool. Paragraph 72: The legal consequence of Access Copyright’s mandatory tariff theory would make a user liable to pay royalties in full as soon as it became responsible for any infringing use of a work within a collective society’s repertoire. 5.2.3 Nishi v Rascal Trucking Facts Issue Court Ruling Ratio dicidendi Analysis Rascal Trucking Ltd. had Can the Paragraph 23 Paragraph 34 The presumption of been operating a topsoil purchase and 24: The : resulting trust can be processing facility on money Court Advancing rebutted by showing land leased from Kismet resulting trust exercises money does the payment was not Enterprises Ltd. doctrine be caution in not intended to create a abandoned if a overturning automatically beneficial interest for The property in question sum of money recent create a the transferor. was purchased for was transferred decisions resulting trust approximately $240,000, for the original made by firm if the parties The Court declined to with Rascal Trucking purpose of majorities and did not intend abandon the purchase contributing about paying off a found no for the money resulting trust $110,000. debt rather concrete payment to doctrine. - interest at than acquiring evidence that create the time it was made Rascal Trucking argued an ownership the purchase ownership. that its financial interest? money - Rascal contribution entitled it to resulting trust admitted it partial ownership of the doctrine was wanted a property. unworkable stake in the or led to property, untenable although the results. payment was made as a debt/moral obligation -. 5.2.4 Newell v Allen Facts Issue Court analysis Decision Mr. Allen gave Ms. Should Ms. Newell Examined the nature of Justice MacKinnon Newell an engagement return the engagement engagement rings as ruled that Ms. Newell ring. ring to Mr. Allen? conditional gifts. must return the ring to - Ms. Newell accepted Is an engagement ring a - Considered s. 33 of Mr. Allen. the proposal in writing. conditional gift that is the Marriage Act, - The court was - The parties separated to be returned if the which removes satisfied that Ms. about 7 years later marriage contract is not consideration of fault. Newell was the one when Ms. Newell concluded? - Assessed who ended who ended the ended the relationship. the engagement. relationship. - The marriage never - Held that common took place. law provides that gifts given in contemplation of marriage are recoverable on timely demand. - Emphasized that the Marriage Act removes consideration of fault, but the person who ends the engagement must return the ring.