DAY 26 Locker Searches and Your Rights

Live feed of Space Walk on the ISS.

Please read Search and Seizure in a School Setting which covers various aspects of your rights in a school setting, in particular your rights regarding your lockers. 

Next you spent some time looking through the write up on Locker Searches.  I have asked, on the handout, that you create a four paragraph response explaining how you see the information on Locker Searches connecting with the Charter of Rights.  You must be specific (i.e. cite the sections of the Charter) when you refer to the Charter and in each case explain the significance of the Charter in ensuring an effective justice system in Canada.  Then submit to Turnitin.

Points to Consider in Locker Searches:
1. Privacy.
2. Who owns the locker?
3. School-wide security.
4. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"?
5. Who are the witnesses?
6. What about shared lockers?
7. Seriousness of the suspected offense.
8. What about lockers that are not locked?
9. Prior offenses of the suspects?
10. Should all lockers be searched?

DAY 25 More About Your Rights (Latimer and 3 Cases)

Quick Review of the Robert Latimer Case from Friday.

Then in small groups address the questions in ......How Does Society Feel About the Latimer Case?

Three precedent setting cases:

R. v. Oakes, Page 39

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, Page 41-42

Canada v. JTI-McDonald Corp., Page 44

DAY 24 - Right to Die and Euthanasia. The Latimer Case

The Latimer Case

Today we looked at the Latimer Case: Murder or Mercy?

First we looked at the handout, The Latimer Case, and we answered the four questions that I pose in the handout.  Each group led a 5 minute class discussion on the topics raised by this disturbing case.

Then we watched the CBC News in Review clip of the case.  The question that keep coming up when we study Law is, "Is Justice Being Served?"  This is one of those rare cases where Ethics and the Law do not necessarily meet on equal terms.

I also distributed Robert Latimer's Confession and four precedent cases relevant to the Latimer case - we'll deal with these tomorrow in detail.

DAY 23 - Intro Chapter Highlights and Chapter 2

Please ensure that you have in your notes the "Chapter Highlights" from page 34 of the text.  That is vocabulary that you should know.  Also please do the four "Check Your Knowledge" questions on the same page.

Then, please flip to the next Chapter, "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."  As you can see by looking at the Chapter at a Glance topics on page 36 you already know most of these topics.  So, please flip to page 64 and take a note on Remedies and then answer the five questions that follow and then take a short note on "The Courts and the Legislature" on page 67.

Please ensure that you have in your notes the "Chapter Highlights" from page 68 of the text.  That is also vocabulary you should know.  Also please do Questions 2 and 4 from the "Check Your Knowledge" section on page 68.

Please put all the texts back into three neat piles along the board.


I'll return Friday and we'll pick up where we left our discussion on the right to die with dignity and the Sue Rodriguez case.

DAY 22 What Happens When Your Charter Rights Are Breached? Sue Rodriguez

Sometimes a person's rights are not recognized or they are breached by government action or inaction.  Then what? 

Page 38 - How do we know if an action warrants the application of the Charter?  The courts will always ask these questions in this order:

1. Does the Charter Apply?  If it involves the government, then it could apply. e.g. the government passes a law about how the police can search for and seize evidence for a trial.  The law could potentially breach a Charter right.

2. Has a Charter right or freedom been infringed?  Has the government action infringed a specific right or freedom from the Charter, if so then it might be a Charter case.

3. Does the Reasonable Limits Clause (s. 1) justify the infringement? Is the action of the government that infringes upon the right or freedom justifiable and reasonable in our country which is a "free and democratic" country?  e.g. age limit of 18 for voting.

4. If not, is there a remedy under the Charter (s. 24)?  It states:

• "24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances."  (In plain English, courts can order a remedy to enforce your Charter Rights if it's applicable).

Sue Rodriguez and the "Right to Die with Dignity" debate. 

Today we are looking at the case of Sue Rodriguez and the right to die with dignity in Canada.

Please write these questions down: 

Sue Rodriguez: "Whose body is this?  Who owns my life?"

1. How does this quote relate to your own life and your own body?

2. Who has the authority to tell you what you can and cannot do with your life or your body?

3. What is Euthanasia?

4. When is Euthanasia used with animals?

5. How does s. 1 of the Charter limit individual rights?

Video Clip on Sue Rodriguez

While viewing the video clip, let's try to answer these questions: 

6.  What are the symptoms of Lou Gehrig’s disease? Is it treatable?

7.  What constitutional rights did Rodriguez say had been violated by the Criminal Code?

8.  What is the significance of the timing of Rodriguez’s death?

Short Debate on the right to die with dignity.

Sue Rodriguez's public appeal.

Here is some more information on Sue Rodriguez and the Right to Die in Canada.  It has a synopsis of the case and some more questions for you to tackle.

DAY 20 (Sept 29) - Intro to Modern Laws

Here are some clarifying notes from the first chapter of the text, pp. 6-31.

Why Do We Need Laws?
- Keep the Peace
- Set rules of behaviour
- Protect people & property that need protecting (Criminal Law)
- Protect public safety
- Protect our rights and freedoms

Difference between RULES & LAWS?
- Rules apply to specific circumstances (e.g. game of hockey, no swearing at school)
- Laws apply to EVERYONE ALL the time.  Laws are written.  Laws are mandatory. Laws are enforced by the government.

FUNCTION OF LAW
1. Rules of Conduct (e.g. speed limits)
2. System of Enforcement (Police and Judiciary)
3. Protect Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Law)
4. Protect Society (Criminal Law)
5. Resolve Disputes (contracts & law suits)

DIVISION OF LAW
Public Law - laws that apply to EVERYONE.  This part of law regulates the relationship between the government and the people.
- Criminal Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law

Private Law - (Civil Law), rights and responsibilities of private individuals and organizations.  A person can sue someone or an organization if he or she believes that the defendant has caused him/her harm, loss or injury.
- Tort Law
- Family Law
- Contract Law
- Property Law
- Labour and Employment Law

Historical Development of Law - as seen through your History of Law Projects, modern laws have been built upon the philosophies of older laws.  Because people living "civilized lives" (i.e. not hunting and gathering) have all developed towns and cities and have economies based on materials goods with value, people have always had to deal with disputes and have therefore needed laws.  Also, the idea that governments should allow for rights and freedoms of citizens has developed over time into what we have in Canada now, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Similar laws (protections of citizens) exist in most other countries.

COMMON LAW - was developed in England - relied on case law and applied to all people.  The idea was that legal cases with similar facts had to be ruled upon similarly.  A ruling in one case would later determine how future similar cases would be handled.

CASE LAW- the written record of decisions of judges (this is actually part of our law).

PRECEDENT - a legal decision that becomes an example and authority for future similar legal cases.

Citation of Case Law - Page 17 has this in great detail.  One point to note - in criminal cases it's always listed as "R. vs. Smith" (or the defendant's last name), where the "R." represents "Rex" or "Regina", which is Latin for King or Queen.  The state (Canada) lays criminal charges, individuals do not lay criminal charges.

RULE OF LAW -  The Magna Carta was an important development in human rights.  It forced King John to fall under the power of the law, he (the head of state) was no longer above the law, he was subject to it.  It also ensured that the ruler did not arbitrarily restrict rights and freedoms of citizens.

HABEAS CORPUS - (Latin for "have the body").  People have the right to go before a judge for the judge to determine whether the person is being detained lawfully.


How Laws are Made in Canada
Parliamentary Democracy - nobles gathered after the Magna Carta and discussed legal ideas and this developed into a formal system, "House" of Parliament where representatives from around the country would meet to create laws (obviously they did a lot of debating and talking in the process).  Canada maintains this system today.

One of the outcomes of this system is the idea of "STATUTE Law" - the law is Written Down.  The main job of our elected officials is to write new laws and to update older ones.

HOUSE OF COMMONS - First reading, a bill is introduced by the Cabinet or private member, first vote is taken.

Second Reading - Bill introduced again and debated in general, second vote taken.

Committee Stage - Bill is studied in general by experts, parliamentarians, members of the public who have been invited to speak and by those who have asked to speak.  Amendments are made.

Third Reading - Bill briefly debated, third vote taken.

SENATE - Same three stages happen here - this is also known as the "Sober Second Look".

GOVERNOR GENERAL - signs the bill into law - this is called, "Royal Assent".  Once this happens the bill is "Proclaimed Into Law" and it then takes effect.

Day 8 & 9 Hammurabi's Code and the History of Law Project

Today we're looking at the history of law in the world.  It is important to note that law is constantly evolving.  Each of the records of Law that you will cover (list is below) had an impact on laws written hundreds or even thousands of years later.  For example, the Napoleonic Code was based heavily on the Justinian Code, and civil law in Quebec is based on the Napoleonic Code, and there are many many more examples.

The first set of ancient laws that we will look at is the Code of Hammurabi (this is a complete text of it).  In 1,800 B.C. the Amorite king, Hammurabi, took the throne of the new Babylonian dynasty in what is today modern Iraq. He was the sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon. Immediatley he began to expand his new empire to eventually include Assyria and northern Syria. Hammurabi was a great military leader and lawgiver. In the first year of his reign Hammurabi fulfilled a promise to the Babylonian god Marduk and established an extensive law system which encompassed nearly every area of ancient life. The document was over 300 paragraphs long and included sections on social, moral, religious, commercial and civil law.

Kings of the day often posted large monuments listing their laws with an accompanying statue carving of themselves to identify the law with the king. Hammurabi was no different in this practice. There were many copies of this law erected throughout the kingdom usually in temples dedicated to local gods. One of the original pillars now resides in the Louvre Museum, in Paris.

Mosaic Law (c. 1240 BC) and the 10 Commandments

Today I introduced the History of Law Project.  You are to create a presentation similar to my Hammurabi's Code presentation from yesterday.  The Project Outline is below as is the marking scheme for it.

History of Law Project
History of Law Marking Scheme

DAY 7 Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

We started by going through each of your parts of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were assigned yesterday.  You did a very good job with interpreting your first Canadian Law!  Well done!

I then distributed the Government of Canada's official guide to the Charter and we clarified some of the sections of it.  We discovered some interesting things about the Charter including:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a set of laws containing the basic rules about how our country operates.  For examples, it contains the powers of the federal government and the powers of the provincial governments of Canada.

The Charter also sets out the Rights and Freedoms that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society including:

• Freedom of Expression
• Our right to live and seek employment anywhere in Canada
• Our right to a democratic government
• The rights of anyone accused of crimes
• Aboriginal Peoples' rights
• The right to equality, including the equality of women and men
• Our right to use either of Canada's official languages (French, English)
• The right of linguistic minorities to an education in their own language
• The protection of Canada's multicultural heritage

WHY is it important that the Charter is part of our Constitution?
The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and all other laws must be consistent with the rules set out in the Constitution - if they are not they may not be valid.  Because the Charter is part of the Constitution, laws that limit Charter rights may be invalid.  This makes the Charter the most important law we have in Canada.

The Charter does, however, allow governments to put some limits on some Charter rights.  This is set out in Section 1 which says that other laws may limit the rights and freedoms in the Charter so long as those laws are reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society.  So, a law that limits a Charter right is still valid if it confirms with Section 1.

Also, the federal Department of Justice must make sure that new laws proposed by the federal government comply with the Charter.

How Long has the Charter been in Force?
The Charter came into effect on April 17, 1982 as part of a package of reforms contained in The Constitution Act, 1982.

Are All of Your Rights contained in the Charter?
No.  The Charter contains those rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are essential in a free and democratic country.  Many other laws create rights too.  The federal, provincial and territorial governments all have laws that provide rights and freedoms: laws against discrimination in employment and accommodation, consumer protection laws, environmental laws, and, in the area of criminal law, laws that give rights to witnesses, victims and those accused of crimes.  There are many more as well.

Who Enjoys Charter Rights?
Generally, any person in Canada, whether a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident or a newcomer, has the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter.  There are some exceptions as follows:
Some rights are limited only to Canadian citizens: the right to vote (s.3) and the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada (s.6).

What Can I Do If My Charter Rights Have Been Denied?
The Charter allows for three kinds of actions to those whose rights have been denied.  They are called, "legal remedies."

1. A person can ask a court for a remedy that is "appropriate and just in the circumstances."  For example a court may stop proceedings against a person charged with an offence if his or her right to a trial within a reasonable time has been denied.

2. A second remedy is available when persons carrying out investigations for the government (e.g. police officers) violate a person's Charter rights.  This may happen when the police improperly search for evidence on a private property and violate a person's right to privacy.  In this situation a person can ask a court to order that the evidence not be used against the person in a trial.  A court would make an order like this if the evidence at a trial would "bring the administration of justice into disrepute." (s.24)

3. Finally, if a court finds that a law violates Charter rights, it can rule that the law has no force (s.52of the Constitution Act, 1982).

DAY 6 (Sept 9) Lost in a Cave and Our Rights

DAY 6 (Sept 9) Lost in a Cave and Our Rights

Today we're having a look at the old Law Gem, Lost in a Cave.  In your assigned groups you are to address all of the questions and then present your findings to the class on large chart paper.

Some of the main legal points addressed here are (these are notes from today's class discussion and your presentations):

1. There is a difference between Rules and Laws.
Rules generally apply  within a restricted situation, e.g. Hockey Game, Game of Monopoly, School Environment, Work Environment, your own Home . . . etc.
Laws apply to everyone in the country equally (including those who write the laws and those in political power).   Laws can be quite powerful and they might be able to take away your freedom (jail) or money (fines).

2. Society - everyone is governed by the laws (rules) of that society equally.  The boys in the cave, all Canadians, etc.

3. Are they part of society of old?  Yes, although physically separated they still have the old society's mindset, however, they're making their own laws that will govern only them.

4. Despite their isolation, Canadian Law still governs their actions.  What Canadian Law does NOT account for is NATURAL LAW - which, without food for too long, would have killed all three boys.

I also distributed your texts today.  These are brand new, All About Law, 6th Ed., Murphy et al, and I have put your names in the book.  I explained that at the end of the semester I'll collect these and my expectation is that they are still in excellent, almost pristine shape, with no graffiti or other marks and that the binding is still in tact so please take good care of these books.  For a list of who has which book please see my Student Text List.  I've also posted this in the Information You Might Need link, upper right of the blog main page.

Tonight I expect each of you to return to class tomorrow having had a good look at your assigned part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, p. 598, and ready to explain it to the class tomorrow.  Please don't worry, I'll help you all along in this task.

Day 4 - The Star Chamber and Intro to Law

The synopsis of the film is on the previous blog.

Please consider these

Please write a two paragraph reflection on this film and how it relates to justice being served versus the written law and how we enforce it.  In your work please refer to specifics in the film including, but not limited to:

• The roles of judges. E.g. the older judge, Caulfield, said:  "What happened to the law?  We're the law.  We let it happen!").  

• E.g. 2 - the younger judge, Hardin, said, "My responsibility is to give a fair trial according to the law."

• What are the implications / outcomes of always ensuring a fair trial, according to the law, for those accused of serious crimes and for their victims?

• Your ideas of the differences between "right" and "wrong" and who decides on what is right or wrong. The young judge, Hardin, said, "There is no right and wrong.  There’s only the Law!"

• Reflections on the differences and similarities between the Law and Justice. The older judge said, “Someone has hijacked justice and hidden it in the Law!”

• Your opinion on whether or not you think we should have a Star Chamber in our legal system today in Canada to finish off the cases in which guilty people are set free because of “loopholes” in the law? Exactly what would we gain or lose with a made in Canada Star Chamber?

When your work is done, please log into Turnitin Originality Checker to submit your work.  You'll have to create your own account.  Then go to this class, Law CLU Intro to  Canadian Law and use the dropbox for this Star Chamber assignment to upload your work - SHARE your Google Doc link and then within Turn It In - Submit, make sure the "Cut and Paste" option is changed to "Single File Upload" (you'll see the little arrow to change it) and then Upload from Google, the last option in the list at the bottom.  The course is ID # 8590865 and the password is  " acton "  .

Day 1 Intro to Law

Star Chamber and Justice

Please complete this Contact Information Form .

We started the course today with a look at the film, The Star Chamber, which deals with Judge Hardin (Michael Douglas) as an idealistic Los Angeles judge who is frustrated when the technicalities of the law prevent the prosecution of two men who are accused of raping and killing a 10-year-old boy. Judge Hardin joins a modern-day "Star Chamber", group of judges who identify criminals who fell through the judicial system's cracks and then 'do something about them' by issuing appropriate sentences for the crimes committed.  All of this, of course, occurs behind closed doors in secret and outside the parameters of legalities in our modern-day society.


The term "Star Chamber" comes from an old English Court of Law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. It was made up of Privy Counselors as well as common law judges, and it supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon and became a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.

It was mistakenly thought that in 1487 an act was passed which established a special "Court of Star Chamber" to deal with the nobles; however, the only legislation passed in that year in this context was to set up a tribunal to prevent the intimidation of juries and to stop "retaining", i.e. the keeping of private armies by persons of rank. It seems to have gone out of use by 1509 and it had no connection with the later Court of Star Chamber whose primary purpose was to hear political treason and libel cases.

In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, Star Chambers. This is a pejorative (negative) term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of any politically motivated charges has led to substantial reforms in English law in most jurisdictions since that time.

Clearly there are connections between the idea of the old Star Chamber of England and the depiction in the film of the administration of justice, or rather, because of what we call "legal technicalities", the lack of administration of justice, especially in serious criminal cases.

EXAM Review

Here's a link to our Law Class Exam Review.

Looks like this:

CLU3M Canadian Law Exam REVIEW

Welcome to exam review!  Your exam consists of the following:

Part 1

20 Multiple Choice Questions covering concepts from the entire year.

• All of the historical sets of laws that we covered
• Defences to Negligence - There are some defences to negligence cases including voluntary assumption of risk and inevitable accident – explain these
• Precedents in court proceedings
• How are laws created in Canada, in particular what happens in the House of Commons?
• A precedent is a legal decision that serves as an example for future cases – similar facts in cases will result in similar decisions.
• What are quasi-criminal, hybrid, indictable, and summary criminal offences and which are most common?
• What are examples of each type of criminal offence?
• What are your rights upon arrest as outlined in the Charter of Rights, s. 10?
• What are some examples of the goals of sentencing, in particular rehabilitation and deterrence? And what are the purposes and differences between Specific Deterrence and General Deterrence
• What are some sentences for the various types of homicides?

e.g. 1st Degree Murder is Life in Prison with no parole for 25 years.

• What are and when can an accused use these defences to a criminal offence.
• Mental Illness
• Alibi
• Insanity
• Automatism
• Entrapment
• Duress
• Consent
• Double Jeopardy

• TORT law includes what other areas of law?  
• Exactly what elements are considered in an action of Intentional Tort and what must be proven to prove a negligence claim?
• To prove a negligence claim what must a plaintiff prove?
• In general terms why are contracts important in our general day to day activities in society?
• What are the rights you have upon being arrested? Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, what rights to privacy do offenders have?
• In general terms why are certain actions/behaviours included in Canada’s Criminal Code?  (The same answer applies to every single item in the Criminal Code).
• What functions does the Supreme Court of Canada perform?

Part 2

FOUR short answer questions regarding cases that are presented to you involving the following parts of law:

1. Extenuating circumstances surrounding a murder trial.  What may judges consider when sentencing convicted murderers?

2. When a person is contracted to commit an illegal act and it goes horribly wrong with consequences and injuries to others far beyond what was originally intended, what legal steps should the police and the judicial system take to bring the perpetrators to justice?  

3. Circumstances surrounding a contract that one party is challenging in court.

4. Circumstances surrounding a negligence claim made by the parents of a young person who has been seriously injured in sports.

Part 3

For the long answer essay question I provide you with a short reading about three different legal scenarios.  You are to comment on the reading using, primarily, supporting evidence from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other areas of Law.  You should review it so that you are familiar with it – I will provide you with a copy of the Charter of Rights for the exam so you do NOT need to memorize it.  Three different scenarios will be presented and you need only to answer one in a full essay.

You list the main topics and page / Chapter #s below here and on the back (and then we can review these as a class tomorrow):

DAY 85 - Contracts

Elements of a Contract
We enter into agreements all the time, but only agreements that have certain legally binding elements are considered contracts.

1. OFFER & ACCEPTANCE
One party makes a "serious" offer, often referred to as a "valid" offer to enter into a contract.  To be valid the offer must be clear and precise.  Then, the offeree (the party accepting the contract offer) must accept the offer.  If a "meeting of the minds" takes place, then the offer has been legally offered and accepted...

The offer must be "serious" - offers made in anger or as a joke are not serious and therefore not valid.

Terms of the offer must be clear.   If goods are being sold then specifics must be detailed, e.g. size, weight, colour, delivery date, terms of the sale (date paid).  And some terms can be assumed.

Invitations to Buy - generally we call these advertisements, store displays, signage, etc.  - these are called, "Invitation to Treat".  In most of these cases, courts have determined that a legal contract has not been formed because these invitations are merely that, invitations to enter a contract by buying.

Communicating an Offer - mail, email, fax, verbal, implied - and many other forms of communication can be used in a contract offer.

Terminating an Offer - until an offer has been accepted there is no contract, so if someone never accepts the offer it is terminated.

Acceptance - words, conduct or in writing, the acceptance must follow some legal rules.  Counteroffers can take effect too - e.g. selling real-estate there is often a series of offers and counteroffers that occur before final agreement.

The acceptance must be communicated to indicate acceptance.  If the acceptance is by mail, the envelope's date stamp indicates acceptance on that date.

2.  CONSIDERATION - the exchange of something of value.  Note - the actual value of the things being exchanged are not relevant.

Present consideration happens when the contract is formed.

Future consideration occurs when a promise within the contract is made for something that happens in the future, e.g. the seller didn't get payment until a future date.


3.  CAPACITY - ability to enter into a contract.

Minors - anyone under age 18 is considered a minor in Canada.

Many apprenticeship and employee contracts are valid with minors as well, e.g. McDonald's.

Impairment by drugs, alcohol, other meds or another physical or mental ailment.


4.  CONSENT - there must be free agreement on both parties to enter the contract.

What is non-consent?
1. misrepresentation of the facts/terms (lying)
2. mistake - someone can honestly make an error in understanding.
3. undue influence
4. duress

5.  LAWFUL PURPOSE - any contract that is a crime in Canada is illegal and void.

DAY 81 - Last Day of Tort Law

THORNTON V. PRINCE GEORGE

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 57

Thornton et al. v. Prince George School District No. 57

[1978] 2 S.C.R. 267

Supreme Court of Canada

In 1971, Gary Thornton was participating in a physical education class at Prince George High School in British Columbia.  He was 15 years old and about 185 cm tall.  A box horse had been placed at the lower end of a springboard, so that a spring would elevate the gymnast high enough to do a somersault.  The teacher, David Edamura, had approved this arrangement.  The boys, however, had never before used the equipment this way.  After organizing the class, Edamura went to one end of the gym to complete report cards.  As a result, he was not able to observe the class activity directly.

          After one student had landed on the floor and suffered a broken wrist while attempting a double somersault, foam rubber mats were added around the springboard.  When Thornton’s turn came, he overshot the thick landing mats, landed on his head on the thin foam mats, and was taken immediately to hospital.  Thornton had a fracture of the spinal cord that left him a quadriplegic; he would require constant care for the rest of his life.  His life expectancy was 54 years.  Although physically handicapped, his mental faculties were unimpaired.

          Thornton’s parents brought an action for negligence on his behalf against the school board and the teacher.  In January 1975, the British Columbia Supreme Court awarded $1.5 million.  On appeal by the school board, the Court of Appeal confirmed the negligence of the school board and the teacher but reduced the award to $600 000.  Thornton appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada where, in January 1978, the Court made a final award of $810 000.

          The original trial judgments awarded the plaintiffs $200 000 for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.  The Supreme Court of Canada reduced this amount to $100 000.

Please Answer

1.           Does this case answer in the affirmative (“YES”) to each of the five elements of Negligence?  Explain each one.

2.           Why did Thornton’s parents bring this action to the court on their son’s behalf?

3.           Why was the action brought against the Prince George School Board as well as the teacher?

4.           Did the teacher do what was expected or required of him as a physical education teacher?  Why or why not?

5.            Do you think the Supreme Court’s award of $100 000 for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life was a fair and reasonable settlement?

 

Also, to complete your study of Tort Law, please ensure that you are familiar with each of the terms under Chapter Highlights on page 430 of the text.

Also, please answer, in your notes, pp 430 – 431, Questions:

·         1-7

·         11

·         12 (but not the last part, “Prepare a report . . . “)