Dr. Patrick Ryan

Exam Instructions

Final Exam for CYS 2212F/G - Thursday April 20 - 7PM

The Final Exam is worth 35% of your mark, it will be two and a half hours in duration.

Preparation:  You'll have to commit ideas and facts to memory, but the questions will be drawn from the preparatory exercises, key concepts, and resources presented each week - which are themselves based on the documents and articles assigned. These will have been reviewed in the lectures and practiced in our mooting. 

Here are two exam preparations ideas: Flash Cards and Briefing/Holding Charts

There will be three types of questions:

A. (20%) Short Factual Responses.  Some of these may be true or false, matching, or fill-in-the-blank, but most are multiple-choice. There will be ten of these, each worth 2%. They will all be draw from the key concepts list in the course schedule.

B. (32%) Long Answers identify (define) and explain the significance of major concepts, doctrines, statutes, and cases. There will be four of these each worth 8%. At least one of the four on your test will ask you about the 30 bolded cases and their associated "key concepts" on the course schedule, which are not one of the 9 cases we briefed and/or mooted (see part C).

C. (48%) Case Brief summarize the 1) legally relevant procedural history and facts, 2) the legal question(s), 3) the holding of the court, and 4) significance of the decision.

You will be given five cases (out of the 9 we focused upon) and will be asked to write four case briefs from memory. They will each be worth 12%.  For the 2023 version of this course, they are the following:

1. E. v. Eve [1986] SCC
2. Canadian Foundation v. Canada [2004] SCC
3. Van de Perre v. Edwards [2001] SCC
4. Ellis v. Wentzell-Ellis [2010] OCA
5. Langner v. Canada [1994] FCA
6. R. v. Kaija [2007] OCA
7. Multani v. Comm. Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys [2006] SCC
8. A.C. v. Manitoba [2009] SCC
9. R. v. D.B. [2008] SCC

Unlike briefs you will prepare weekly, your exam case brief's must be written in complete sentences without the use of your notes or other sources. As a result, students may only lightly explain the reasoning of the holding (although you are not prohibited from explaining it in detail if you are capable of doing so). On the other hand, there is a high expectation that you will be able to explain the significance of the decision. This is because the complexity of 'legal reasoning' is much more difficult to reconstruct from memory without notes, but you should be able to name and explain the significance of the holding without notes because this is a matter of comprehension.