Mooting Preparation Exercises
Preparation must happen prior to Mondays Mooting (reading of court reports, viewing recorded lectures, note-taking, submitting your briefs and answers on OWL).
E. v Eve Preparation - Due Before Monday January 23 (Post Answers to OWL)
E. v. Eve [1986] SCC (click here for Dr. Ryan's notations)
P. Ryan, "A Model Brief of E. v. Eve"
P. Ryan, "holding, ruling, and decision"
What Should be Part of a Case Brief?
1. Brief E. v. Eve SCC 1986.
i. name the appellant and the respondent (the parties), the court, and the year
ii. list the legally relevant facts of the case
iii. summarize the procedural history of the case
iv. state the legal question(s) in an interrogative form. This is sometimes called the 'issue.'
v. summarize the holding or the court's answer(s) to the legal question(s).
vi. summarize the reasoning of the majority.
vii. note the judgment.
viii. say what the holding or the reasoning tells us about childhood and the law. (see question 4 below)
2. While reading E. v. Eve, note concepts or passages you find confusing -- obviously these notes should be made after you've done some work on your own (dictionaries, google, wiki). You will have an opportunity to raise these questions the next Wednesday.
3. What is the doctrine of parens patriae and what is its relationship to the "best interests" of the child test?
4. Why does E. v. Eve matter? What do you think is most important about this ruling for the application of parens patriae to children and youth?
Candian Foundation Preparation - Due Before Monday January 30 (Post Answers to OWL)
Canadian FCYL v. Canada (AG) [2004] SCC
Note: Majority para. 1-70; Binnie Dissent para. 71-130; Arbour Dissent para. 131-211; Deschamps Dissent para. 212-247.
P. Ryan, "A Model Brief of Canadian Foundation."
1. Brief Canadian Foundation v. Canada [2004] SCC 1986.
i. name the appellant and the respondent (the parties), the court, and the year
ii. list the legally relevant facts of the case
iii. summarize the procedural history of the case
iv. state the legal question(s) in an interrogative form. This is sometimes called the 'issue.'
v. summarize the holding or the court's (majority) answer(s) to the legal question(s).
vi. summarize the reasoning of the majority and identify the key points of dissent or concurring differences.
vii. note the judgment.
viii. say what the holding or the reasoning tells us about childhood and the law. (see question 4 below)
2. While reading Canadian Foundation v. Canada, note concepts or passages you find confusing -- obviously these notes should be made after you've done some work on your own (dictionaries, google, wiki). You will have an opportunity to raise these questions the next Wednesday.
3. Use the readings and the recorded lecture to compare and contrast the SCC's holdings and reasonings in the cases of Canadian FCYL v. Canada (AG) [2004] SCC and B.(R.) v. CAS Meto. Toronto [1995] SCC. Can you name an important continuity or an important contradiction?
4. Why does Canadian Foundation v. Canada matter? What do you think this case reveals about childhood and the law in Canada?
Van de Perre Preparation - Due Before Monday February 6 (Post Answers to OWL)
Van de Perre v. Edwards [2001] SCC
1. Brief Van de Perre v. Edwards [2001] SCC.
i. name the appellant and the respondent (the parties), the court, and the year
ii. list the legally relevant facts of the case
iii. summarize the procedural history of the case
iv. state the legal question(s) in an interrogative form. This is sometimes called the 'issue.'
v. summarize the holding or the court's (majority) answer(s) to the legal question(s).
vi. summarize the reasoning of the majority and identify the key points of dissent or concurring differences.
vii. note the judgment.
viii. say what the holding or the reasoning tells us about childhood and the law. (see question 4 below)
2. While reading Van de Perre, note concepts or passages you find confusing -- obviously these notes should be made after you've done some work on your own (dictionaries, google, wiki). You will have an opportunity to raise these questions the next Wednesday.
3. In this decision, as in many other cases, the Court tries separate moral judgement of persons and the assessment of fitness to parent (see para. 23-26). Do you think they succeed in this effort? And what thoughts do you have about how they manage such issues?
4. Why does Van de Perre matter? What do you think this case reveals about childhood and the law in Canada?
Ellis Preparation - Due Before Monday February 13 (Post Answers to OWL)
Ellis v. Wentzell-Ellis [2010] OCA
The Hague Convention
1. Brief Ellis v. Wentzell-Ellis [2010] OCA.
i. name the appellant and the respondent (the parties), the court, and the year
ii. list the legally relevant facts of the case
iii. summarize the procedural history of the case
iv. state the legal question(s) in an interrogative form. This is sometimes called the 'issue.'
v. summarize the holding or the court's (majority) answer(s) to the legal question(s).
vi. summarize the reasoning of the majority and identify the key points of dissent or concurring differences.
vii. note the judgment.
viii. say what the holding or the reasoning tells us about childhood and the law. (see question 4 below)
2. List the situations (defenses) when the Hague Convention allows a state to refuse to return a child wrongfully removed or retained.
3. Find and note from Lecture an answer: Name the 2 approaches to the concept of "habitual residence" in the Hague Convention, and focus your attention on how these were handled in either Ellis v. Wentzell-Ellis [OCA. 2010] or CC v. KC [OSCJ., 2009]. How did the courts position the rights of the children involved in one of these cases?
4. Find and note from Lecture an answer: How have Canadian courts handled the specific defense of grave risk (Hague, art 13b) differently than countries like Germany, Israel, and Switzerland, and do you agree (say why or why not) with the 4 implicit rationales for the Canadian position?
The Week of Monday Feb. 13 - Moot Ellis Monday, Lecture Wednesday, complete paper by Friday)
The Week of Monday Feb. 20 - Break
The Week of Monday Feb. 27 - We will meet in the Lecture Hall for a case review and final exam orientation; Wednesday Mar. 1 will begin preparations for Langner v. Canada.
Langner Preparation - Due Before Monday March 6 (Post Answers to OWL)
1. Brief Langer v. Canada [1994] FCA.
i. name the appellant and the respondent (the parties), the court, and the year
ii. list the legally relevant facts of the case
iii. summarize the procedural history of the case
iv. state the legal question(s) in an interrogative form. This is sometimes called the 'issue.'
v. summarize the holding or the court's (majority) answer(s) to the legal question(s).
vi. summarize the reasoning of the majority and identify the key points of dissent or concurring differences.
vii. note the judgment.
viii. say what the holding or the reasoning tells us about childhood and the law.
2. Based on Lecture, what do you find significant about Calvin's Case [1608]?
3. What is a refugee? And what are Canada's obligations to them under the 1951 UN Convention on them? (See Lecture).
4. As it regards the "pre-removal risk assessment," in the case law what has been found to meet the "irreparable harm" standard, and what has not?
Kaija Preparation - Due Before Monday March 13 (Post Answers to OWL)
1. Brief R v. Kaija [2007] OCA [Read the lower court report to inform your brief R v. Kaija [2006] OCJ]
i. name the appellant and the respondent (the parties), the court, and the year
ii. list the legally relevant facts of the case
iii. summarize the procedural history of the case
iv. state the legal question(s) in an interrogative form. This is sometimes called the 'issue.'
v. summarize the holding or the court's (majority) answer(s) to the legal question(s).
vi. summarize the reasoning of the majority and identify the key points of dissent or concurring differences.
vii. note the judgment.
viii. say what the holding or the reasoning tells us about childhood and the law.
2. List the changes in the 2018 Child, Youth, and Family Services Act of Ontario? (See Reading and Lecture)
3. Name the standard of proof in child protection cases. Consider the higher standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the criminal law standard), and the lower standard of “reasonable grounds to believe” (the immediate police intervention standard). Given that child protection cases involve taking children away from their families, which standard of proof do you think is best, and why? (See Lecture)
4. Along with parens patriae and procedural fairness, 'fiduciary duty' is one of a handful of fundamental ideas in Canadian law as it relates to children. Reflect on fiduciary duty and explain whether and why you think Canadian courts are upholding this concept for children in the three cases reviewed in lecture: R. v. Kaija, Blackwater v. Plint, and Brown v. Canada.
Multani Preparation - Due Before Monday March 20 (Post Answers to OWL)
1. Brief Multani v. Comm. scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys [2006] SCC
i. name the appellant and the respondent (the parties), the court, and the year
ii. list the legally relevant facts of the case
iii. summarize the procedural history of the case
iv. state the legal question(s) in an interrogative form. This is sometimes called the 'issue.'
v. summarize the holding or the court's (majority) answer(s) to the legal question(s).
vi. summarize the reasoning of the majority and identify the key points of dissent or concurring differences.
vii. note the judgment.
viii. say what the holding or the reasoning tells us about childhood and the law.
2. As given in the recorded lecture, list the suspendable actions by a pupil at school, on a school activity, "other circumstances where engaging in the activity will have an impact on the school climate." Which of these actions (given the scope of the phrase "school climate") do you believe are reasonable or unreasonable grounds for suspension?
3. From lecture, describe in a few words the difference between how the Court framed the issue of student rights in schools in Ruman (1944) and Troyer (1918) as opposed to Multani (2006) and Tinker (1969). Why might this difference matter, and do you think most Canadians know about this development in the rights of young people?
4. Pay attention to my brief on Peel Board of Education v. BW [1987] OCA. In this case, how did the school authorities handle the presumption of innocence, and do you think this is justifiable (why or why not)?
A.C. v. Manitoba Preparation - Due Before Monday March 27 (Post Answers to OWL)
1. Brief A.C. v. Manitoba [2009] SCC
i. name the appellant and the respondent (the parties), the court, and the year
ii. list the legally relevant facts of the case
iii. summarize the procedural history of the case
iv. state the legal question(s) in an interrogative form. This is sometimes called the 'issue.'
v. summarize the holding or the court's (majority) answer(s) to the legal question(s).
vi. summarize the reasoning of the majority and identify the key points of dissent or concurring differences.
vii. note the judgment.
viii. say what the holding or the reasoning tells us about childhood and the law.
2. Summarize the Mature Minor Doctrine.
3. Define the term "contract" (see lecture).
4. Children may enter into contracts, but they can void the agreement through an act of repudiation (voidability), and the courts are not able to remedy contractual disputes involving children with 'specific performance' (ordering the parties to fulfill promises). In fact, courts can set aside contracts (even without a child's act of repudiation) using the BIC doctrine; What consequences might these protective rules have had upon children and youths participation in the economy during the past century? Explain.
R. v. D.B. Preparation - Due Before Monday April 3 (Post Answers to OWL)
1. Brief R. v. D.B. [2008] SCC
i. name the appellant and the respondent (the parties), the court, and the year
ii. list the legally relevant facts of the case
iii. summarize the procedural history of the case
iv. state the legal question(s) in an interrogative form. This is sometimes called the 'issue.'
v. summarize the holding or the court's (majority) answer(s) to the legal question(s).
vi. summarize the reasoning of the majority and identify the key points of dissent or concurring differences.
vii. note the judgment.
viii. say what the holding or the reasoning tells us about childhood and the law.
2. Name the principle about the law's treatment of youths offenders (those found guilty of a crime) was established in the SCC ruling R. v. D.B. (2008)? (see lecture and the report)
3. What ages are covered by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), and how are children who commit crimes under this age framework handled? (see lecture)
4. Under what 4 conditions are inculpatory statements (confessions) made by minors to authorities (e.g. police) admissible as evidence at trial? Do these conditions apply to an 18 year old confessing to something they did at age 17? What if they deceive the police about their age - pretending to be older? What if they are offered spontaneously before authorities can meet the four criteria?
5. In general - confessions offered outside of police investigations (to friends, for example) are admissible in courts of law; freely offered private confessions are an exception to the hearsay rule. In Canada, a youths' confession offered to police is only admissible, if it was given under certain conditions (see qu. 4). List who has been held to be a "person in authority" (who can be held to stand in the same position as police officers for the purposes of confessions), and briefly state the conditions under which someone who is not a police officer can be held to be "in authority" for the purposes of the admissibility of a minor's confession.
R v. W.(R.) Preparation - Due Before Monday April 10 (Post Answers to OWL) - No Mooting.
1. Brief R. v. W. (R.) [1992] SCC
i. name the appellant and the respondent (the parties), the court, and the year
ii. list the legally relevant facts of the case
iii. summarize the procedural history of the case
iv. state the legal question(s) in an interrogative form. This is sometimes called the 'issue.'
v. summarize the holding or the court's (majority) answer(s) to the legal question(s).
vi. summarize the reasoning of the majority and identify the key points of dissent or concurring differences.
vii. note the judgment.
viii. say what the holding or the reasoning tells us about childhood and the law.
2. How have rulings such as R. v. W. (R.) [1992] SCC and R. v. Khan [1990] SCC, altered older common law assumptions about the testimony? (see lecture)
3. Define what a "party" to a case can do and summarize the assumptions seem to support the denial of party status to children and youth?
4. Name the legal doctrine and its test that supports the prerogative for a judge to interview children in private chambers. (see lecture). Explain the advantages and disadvantages of this practice.
5. Try to write a single sentence that identifies the distinction between an amicus curiae, a litigation guardian, and a child advocate. Which of the three forms of children's legal representation is established in Ontario?