CLU 3M1

UNIT ONE

Rule of Law: The principle of justice stating that the law is necessary to regulate society. Retribution: payment made by the offender to the victim of a crime. Revenge: Justice based on vengeance and punishment. Adversarial System: The judicial process whereby evidence is presented by two opposing parties to an impartial judge or jury. Case Law: A method of deciding cased based on recorded decisions of similar cases. Common Law: Relies on case law, and is common to all people. stare Decisis: Latin phrase meaning "To stand by the decision". Rule of precedent: Applying a previous decision to a case that has similar circumstances. Magna Carta: A charter of political and civil rights signed in 1215. Habeas Corpus: A court order designed to prevent unlawful arrest by ensuring anyone detained is charged before a court within a reasonable time. Bylaws: Laws that deal with local issues and are passed by municipal governments.

Ancient Laws Throughout our history, we have seen many different ways of laws throughout society: Code of Hammurabi: One of the earliest- known sets of recorded laws. (written by King Hammurabi Babylon) "Eye for an eye". Mosaic Law: Laws given to Moses to guide the Hebrew people, and recorded in the bible. - Included the 10 commandments. Law according to the Romans: Formed the basis of civil laws and criminal laws. Magna Carta: A charter of political and civil rights signed in 1215. Trial by Ordeal: Requiring a person to undergo torture to determine guilt or innocence. Trial by oath helping: Requiring friends of the accused to swear on the Bible that he/ she is innocent. Trial by combat: Determining guilt or innocence by having a duel. Divine Right: The concept that monarchs and their successors derived their power to rule from God and were accountable only to God.

Three Main Sources of Law in Canada: Constitutional Law Statue Law Common Law Constitutional LawDetermines the law making of the federal and provincial governments. Each level of government passes their own laws in their own domains. Federal Jurisdiction in Canada Federal government enacts laws that apply to everyone in Canada. Examples: Criminal law, armed forces and postal services. Provincial Jurisdiction in Canada Pass laws that apply to those in particular provinces Examples: Education, highways and property rights. Municipal Jurisdiction in CanadaMake bylaws that deal with local issues. Example: Garbage collection. Statute Law Laws passed by elected representatives at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Common Law (Case law) Based on decisions by judges. Used when there is no statute law, or to add onto a statute law.

Due to disputes rarely fitting into one category, there are multiple categories of law, and they are: International LawLaws that govern that relationships between independent nations. Example: Trade laws. Domestic LawLaws that govern activity within a nation's own boarders. It is broken down into 2 further categories: Substantive Law. Procedural Law. Substantive LawDefines the rights and duties of citizens and government. The "do's" and "don't's". Example: The right to own and protect a property. Procedural LawDeals with the content of the law-- enforcing, and following laws. helps ensure all citizens are being treated fairly. It is broken down into 2 further categories: Public law. Private Law. Public LawDeals with the relationships between person and government. Private LawRegulates and conducts/ compensates individuals who have been harmed by wrongful actions of others. Example: Tort law.

The types of Law International Law Domestic Law Substantive Law Procedural Law Private Law Public Law Constitutional Law Tort law Administrative Law Contract Law Criminal Law Family Law Wills and Estates Property Law Employment Law Definition of Each type Of law and examples (Case Examples) Constitutional:Body of law dealing with the distribution and exercise of government powers Example: The Notwithstanding Clause in the Working Ontario v Ontario caseAdministrative: Deals with the relationships between people and government departments etc. Example: Criminal: Law that identifies crimes and prescribes punishment. Example: A murder is committed.Tort: A branch of civil law, where people sue one another. Example: I got hit by a car and is suing the other person. Contract: A branch of civil law that provides rules regarding agreements between people and businesses. Example: A phone contract is not payed. Family: A branch of civil law that deals with various aspects of family life. Example: A divorced couple is in a custody battle for their child. Wills and Estates: A branch of civil law concerned with the division and distribution of property after death. Example: A person's grandma passed, and has left a will for her grandchildren. Property: The branch of civil law that governs ownership rights in property. Example: A tenant Employment:The branch of civil law that governs employer-employee relationships. Example: An employee is treated differently by an employer due to their race.

Here is a comparison chart for public and private law.

How a Bill Becomes a Law For a law to be passed and become a bill, it needs to go through the following steps: Above is the flow chart done in class, this flow chart explains the steps needed for a bill to become a law. 

LegislativeFunction: Makes laws for the government of a nation. Members: Queen.Bodies: Senate and House of Commons. Elected or appointed?: Members of the commons are elected and the senate is appointed by the governor general Responsibilities: Make and pass laws. Executive:Function: Enact and enforce the laws of a nation. Members: Prime Minister and Queen. Bodies: Cabinet. Elected or appointed?: Cabinet is appointed - chosen by Prime Minister. Responsibilities: Enforce Laws. JudicialFunction: Interpret and apply laws made by parliament. Members: Judges. Bodies: Supreme Court of Canada. Elected or appointed?: Supreme Court of Canada judges are appointed by the Governor General.Responsibilities: Apply laws and resolve conflicts.

UNIT TWO

Right: A legal, moral r social entitlement that all people have because they are human beings. Freedom: The ability to conduct one's affairs without being hampered or frustrated. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Discrimination: Notwithstanding clause: S. 33 of the charter allows federal and provincial governments to pass legislation that is exempt from s. 2 and s. 7-15 of the charter. Capital Offence: A crime punishable by death in some jurisdiction. Extradition: Surrendering an accused person to another jurisdiction to stand trial. Human rights: Fundamental rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled. Prejudice: A opinion based off of a stereotype or false information. Constructive Discrimination: Employment policies that inadvertently exclude certain individuals, which results in discrimination. Direct Discrimination: An overt act of discrimination. Harassment: Persistent behaviour that violates the human right of the victim. Sexual Harassment: Unwelcome sexual contact, remarks etc. Poisoned environment: Am uncomfortable or disturbing atmosphere created by the negative comments or behaviour of others.

Sections of the Charter Guarantee of rights and freedoms – section 1Fundamental freedoms – section 2Democratic rights – sections 3 to 5Mobility rights – section 6Legal rights – sections 7 to 14Equality rights – section 15Official languages of Canada – sections 16 to 22Minority language educational rights – section 23Enforcement – section 24General – sections 25 to 31Application of Charter – sections 32 and 33Citation – section 34The charter applies to everyone in Canada, and the rights and freedoms protected in the charter do not apply equally to all persons.

Throughout the course, we began to look at cases and apply the charter to real life cases and events: Some examples are: -The R v Morgentaler case, this case deals strongly with women's right, and the right to our bodies. The result of the case was a win for women, as, it made abortion legal in Canada. An article that we read was on the protest convoys in Ottawa a few weeks ago. We discussed whether the charter protects all freedoms without limits and the answer is no. The charter will protect freedom of speech to an extent, there is a limit, (ie. Hate crimes) and the Keegstra case is another example of where the freedom of speech was limited, since, his opinion and freedom of speech was essentially a hate crime against the Jewish people.

5 Types of Discrimination Harassment -Those we are harassed feel unsafe, scared, uncomfortable, and begin to feel many other negative side effects. -Those who face harassment are unwelcome, or known to be unwanted. Examples: Racism, Verbal/ emotional abuse. Sexual/ Gender Based Harassment -Those affected can lose their appetite, turn to drugs, or feel isolated, angry and alone. -A distinction of sexual harassment is seeing someone say/ do sexual things to another without consent. Examples: Starting sexual rumours about another. Constructive Discrimination -Those affected can feel violated, and be denied certain rights. -A distinction of constructive discrimination is that it occurs in a seemingly neutral environment, but has a discriminatory effect. Examples: All employees must.. Poisoned Environment: -Those affected can feel defeated and hurt. -A distinction is toxic words to another, and created a poisoned/ toxic environment. Examples: Bullying. Systemic Discrimination-Those affected can feel lower than others, not as "deserving" and a whole group of people can be denied. -A distinction is discrimination on a social level as a whole. Examples: Bias, racism, and unequal treatment.

The Indian act is a part of our history that will always be remembered: Indian Act is a major example of discrimination. The Indian Act discriminated against the Indigenous people in Canada. It disadvantaged Indigenous women's rights and freedoms and removed their integrity, broke them down. The Indigenous people were treated unfairly. Residential schools are also another major form of discrimination in our history. Their Indigenous culture was essentially stripped of them. Here is an article regarding Canada wanting to amend for the Indian Act. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113262

The Legal Rights Under the Charter Legally, every person in Canada has the right to these rights. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The police must have reasonable grounds for searching you and your home and any evidence that is unlawfully obtained my be excluded at trial. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. - they must be brought before a judge or justice before 24 hours. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention to be informed promptly of the reasons and to consult counsel without delay and to be informed of that right. The police use the Charter warning to provide this information. Everyone has the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Crown counsel must present evidence to an unbiased judge or jury in an open court to prove the accused guilt. The accused does not have to prove anything or call any evidence). Everyone has the right to be tried by a judge and jury where the punishment for the offence charged is over 5 years imprisonment. Everyone has the right not to be compelled as a witness and to remain silent when accused of a crime. Everyone has the right to not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishments.

The charter states this democratic rights for citizens: Every citizen has the right to vote at an election. A new federal and provincial government must be elected every 5 years. Parliament and legislative assemblies must hold at least one session each year.

The fundamental freedoms under the charter are: (a) freedom of conscience and religion (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of the press and other media communications (c) freedom of peaceful assembly (d) freedom of association

In class we looked at and discussed 3 case involving fundamental freedoms and how those freedoms apply/ are being broken, here are 2 examples. "Calgary teen ordered to have blood transfusion" Article Link https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary-teen-must-receive-blood-transfusions-court-1.328022 16 year- old teen girl, who is a Jehovah witness has leukaemia and had been ordered by a judge to continue with blood transfusions. Their religion says that no one should consume blood in any way, and those who do, will not go to paradise. In the girl's appeal she said that forcing her to continue these transfusions went against her constitutional rights. The verdict at the end of the trial was that she would be forced to continue the blood transfusions. This went against fundamental freedom. (a) freedom of conscience and religion and (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression including freedom of the press and other media communications. Since she was forced, and she did not want to due to her religion broke/ went against (a) and (b). R V Keegstra Article Link https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/695/index.doKeegstra was a teacher at a high school. He taught his class his personal beliefs rather than the actual facts, he taught the class that the holocaust was simply fake and all make believe and that Jews were bad and the root to all our problems. The R V Keegstra case deals with (b) of the fundamental freedoms, (Right to freedom of expression) we all have the right to freedom of expression and our beliefs to a certain extent.

UNIT THREE

Quasi- criminal laws: laws covering less serious offences at the provincial or municipal level (Most often punishable by fines). Actus Reus: "The guilty act". Mens Rea: A deliberate intention to commit a wrongful act, with reckless disregard for the consequences. Intent: the desire to carry out the act and knows what the results will be. General Intent: The desire to commit a wrongful act, with no ulterior motive or purpose. Specific Intent: The desire to commit one wrongful act for the sake of accomplishing another. Motive: The reason a person commits a crime. Criminal Negligence: Wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others. Sometimes causing serious injury or death. Wilful Blindness: A deliberate closing of one's mind to the possible consequences of one's actions. Regulatory Laws: Deferral or provincial statutes meant to protect the public welfare. Liability: Legal responsibility for a wrongful act. Strict Liability Offence: Offences that do not require mens rea but to which the accused can offer the defence of due diligence. Due diligence: The defence that the accused took every reasonable precaution to avoid committing a particular offence. Perpetrator: The one who commits the act Parties to an offence: Those people who are indirectly involved in committing a crime. Aiding: A criminal offence that involves helping a perpetrator commit a crime. Abetting: The crime of encouraging the perpetrator to commit an offence. Counselling: A crime that involves advising, recommending, or persuading another to commit a crime. Accessory after the fact: Someone who knowingly receives, comforts, or assists a perpetrator in escaping from the police. Party to common intention: The shared responsibility among criminals for any additional offences that are committed in the Course of the crime they originally intended to commit.

Crime scene: The site where the offence took place. Centre: The area in which the offence was actually committed. Perimeter: The areas surrounding the centre, where the offender may have been present or may have left evidence. Contamination: The loss, destruction, or alteration of physical evidence. Police log: A written record of what an officer has witnessed. Physical evidence: Any object, impression, or body element that can be used to prove or disprove facts relating to an offence. Forensic science: The use of biochemical and other scientific techniques to analyze evidence in a criminal investigation. Impressions: Patterns or marks found on surfaces and caused by various patterns. Latent fingerprint: The print formed by natural oils and perspiration on the fingertip' it is invisible to the naked eye. Chain of custody: The witnessed, written record of the people who maintained unbroken control over an item of evidence. Reasonable grounds: Information that would lead reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed a criminal offence. Reverse onus: The burden of proof shifts to the defence.

Summary offence: less serious crime, with less serious penalties. Indictable offence: More serious crimes, with heavier penalties. Hybrid offence: could be tried has either summary or indictable. Homicide: Killing of another. Culpable homicide: A killing where the accused can be held legally responsible. Non-culpable homicide: A killing where the accused can not be held legally responsible. Murder: Intentional killing of another. First- degree murder: Planned or deliberate killing. Second- degree murder: Any murder not classified as first- degree. Infanticide: The killing of a newborn infant by the child's mother. Manslaughter: Any culpable homicide not classified as murder or infanticide. Provocation: Words or actions that could cause a reasonable person to behave irrationally or lose self-control .Assault: Threatened or actual physical contact without consent. Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm: Injuring a person in a way that has serious consequences for the victim's health or comfort. Aggravated assault: Wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or endangering the life of the vicim. Sexual assault: Touching of a sexual nature that is not invited or consensual. Aggravated sexual assault: Sexual assault that involves wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or endangering the life of the victim. Theft: Taking property permanently or temporally, without the owner's permission. Colour of right: The honest belief that a person owns or has permission to use an item. Theft over: over $5000 is indictable. Theft Under: Under $5000 is summary. Robbery: Theft through violence. Breaking and entering: Breaking or opening something to enter the premises without permission. Mischief: willfully destroying or damaging property or data. Public mischief: Providing false information that caused police to start or continue an investigation without cause. Fraud: Intentionally deceiving someone in order to cause a loss of property, money, or service. Disorderly house: A common bawdy, betting, or gaming house. Controlled substance: Any drug listed in schedules I to V of the controlled drugs and substances act. Possession: The state of having knowledge of and control over something. Trafficking: A criminal Offence that involves selling, giving, transporting, or distributing a controlled substance or an authorization for a controlled substance. Money Laundering: Transferring cash other property to conceal its illegal origin.

Provincial Court: The lowest level in the hierarchy of Canadian Courts. Preliminary Hearing: A judicial inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to put the accused person on trial. Appeal: An application to a higher court to review the decision made by a lower court. Superior Court of the Province: The highest criminal and civil court, consisting of a trial division and an appeal division. Court of Appeal: A court with the authority the review decisions made by lower courts. Federal Court of Canada: A court with jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases referred by federal boards or commissions and to rule on constitutional issues referred by the attorney general. Supreme Court of Canada: The highest appeal court in Canada. Beyond a reasonable doubt: There is no chance the accused is not guilty and vice versa. Roles in the Court Judge: The court official appointed to try cases in a court of law and to sentence convicted persons. Justice of the Peace: A court official who has less authority than a judge but can issue warrants and preform some other judicial functions. Accused: In criminal court, the person charged with committing a criminal offence. Duty Counsel: A lawyer or duty in a courtroom or police station to give free legal advice to persons just arrested or brought before the court. Defence Counsel: A lawyer who defends an accused person on trial. Crown Counsel: The lawyer representing the government, responsible for instituting legal proceedings against the accused. Evidence: Information that tends to prove or disprove the elements of an offence. Court Clerk: The court official who assists the judge. Court reporter: The court official who records everything said in court during trial. Bailiff: Assist the sheriff. Challenge for cause: The right of the crown or defence to exclude someone from a jury for a particular reason. Peremptory Challenge: The right of the crown or defence to exclude someone from a jury without providing a reason. Empaneling: Burden of proof: The crown's obligation to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Direct examination: The first questioning of a witness to determine what he or she observed about the crime. Cross- Examination: The second questioning of a witness to test the accuracy of the testimony; preformed by the opposing counsel. Motion for dismissal: A request by defence counsel that the judge dismiss the chargers against the defendant. Directed verdict: A decision by the judge to withdraw the case from the jury and enter a verdict of not guilty. Rebut: To contradict evidence introduced by the opposing side. Surrebuttal: A reply to the opposing side's rebuttal. Hearsay evidence: Evidence given by a witness based on information received from someone else rather than personal knowledge. Direct Evidence: Testimony given by a witness to prove an alleged fact. Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect evidence that leads to a reasonable inference of the defendant's guilt. Charge to the jury: The judge's explanation to the jurors of how the law applies to the case before them. Hung Jury: A jury that cannot reach a unanimous verdict.

Conditions that Must Exist for an act to be considered aa crimeThe act is considered wrong by society. The act causes harm to society in general or to minors/ those who can't protect themselves. The harm is serious. The solution must be handled by the criminal system. (Amos. 4) What is the Criminal Code? It is a federal statute that contains the criminal laws passed by parliament. It lists the offences and punishments, reflects societal values, and can be amended, revised or appealed over time. The criminal code is divided into 28 parts: (Amos. 5) The 6 parts of the criminal code we focused on: Part 1- Sections 4-45 - General. Part 2- 46-83- Offences Against public Order. Part 3- 84-117- Fire Arms and Other Weapons. Part 4- 118- 149- Offences Against the Administration of Law and Justice. Part 5- 150-182- Sexual Offences, Public Morals, and Disorderly Conduct. Part 6- 183- 196- Invasion of Privacy. Level of Offences Summary: Less serious crime, with lesser punishments Indictable: More serious Crime, with heavier punishments Hybrid Offence: Can be tried as summary or indictable. (Amos. 7) Quasi- Criminal Laws Laws covering less serious offences at the provincial or municipal level, the laws when broken are usually punished with fines. These laws allow provinces to pass their own laws and are not considered criminal law, but is written as criminal law. Example: Traffic violations. (Amos. 8) Elements of a CrimeIn order to convict a person of a criminal offence, the intention and the act itself must be evident. The Act- Acts Reus Actus Reus is the guilty act and shows that you committed the act voluntarily or by omission. CANNOT BE FORCED (Amos. 10) The Intention- Mens Rea. Mens Rea is the guilty mind, the act was intentional, knowing, negligent or willfully blind. (Amos. 11) Liabilities The legal responsibility. (Amos. 15)

Elements of a CrimeIn order to convict a person of a criminal offence, the intention and the act itself must be evident. The Act- Acts Reus Actus Reus is the guilty act and shows that you committed the act voluntarily or by omission. CANNOT BE FORCED (Amos. 10) The Intention- Mens Rea. Mens Rea is the guilty mind, the act was intentional, knowing, negligent or willfully blind. (Amos. 11) Liabilities The legal responsibility. (Amos. 15)

Crimes Against Another Classifying Homicide: Culpable Homicide: First and second degree murder, includes manslaughter and infanticide. Non- Culpable Homicide: Accident, self defence. but is different than not criminally responsible. (Amos. 2) First Degree Murder: It is planned. Victim is a law enforcement agent. Death conjunction with another offence. Murder for Hire. (Amos. 3) Second Degree Murder and Manslaughter: The intent must be specific and anything that is not classified as first degree, is classified as second degree or manslaughter. Both can carry a life imprisonment penalty, and manslaughter has a general intent. (Amos. 4) Manslaughter: Culpable homicide that is not murder or infanticide is manslaughter. Every person who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable. (Amos. 5)Infanticide: Wilful act or omission causes a women to kill her new-born baby. The punishments for infanticide include: an offence punishable on summary offences or, and indictable offence and liable for imprisonment for a term less than 5 years. (Amos. 7) Assault: There are 3 levels of assault. They are; Intentionally applying force directly or indirectly without consent. Assault with a weapon and or causing bodily harm--- resulting with the consequences of a person's health. Aggravated Assault- wound maim or disfigure. (Amos. 8) Sexual Assault: There are 3 levels of sexual assault. They are; Violates a victim's sexual integrity. Sexual assault with a weapon. causing bodily harm. Aggravated sexual assault. - wound, maim, and disfigure or endangerment to life. (Amos. 9) Commodification of Sexual Assault: Not in the criminal code, and involved soliciting, which is' involved attempting or stopping a vehicle. impedes vehicle or pedestrian flow. stops or attempts for the purpose of communicating sexual activities. (Amos. 10) Punishment for Murder: first and second degree murder, will be sentenced to life in prison. (Amos. 5)

Property OffencesTheft: When someone takes another's belongings without owner's permission. The magic number for theft is $5000, anything under is hybird, and anything over is indictable. (Amos. 2) Robbery: When someone takes another's belonging without owner's permission through violence. The maximum imprisonment is life. (Amos. 3) Breaking and Entering: Entering a premises without permission. (Amos. 4) Mischief: Willfully destroying, interfering, or interfering with person with regard to damaging property/ data and public mischief. (Amos. 4) Fraud: Intentionally deceiving someone to cause loss of property, money or service. The convict someone of fraud, the intent must be evident. The magic number for fraud is also $5000. (Amos. 6) Gambling: Disorderly house, for gambling. If making a profit off gambling in your own home, it is disorderly house. (Amos. 7)

There Arrest and Pre Trail Process What happens when a police officer arrests you and what to expect At a Traffic Stop: Common reasons to be stopped at a traffic light: To ensure they have valid government identification (driver's license, permit etc). To ensure road safety and the safety of others. There are 2 categories offences can fall into: 1- Moving violations. 2- Non-Moving violations. Other reasons you may be stopped: Criminal driving infractions. Criminal investigations involve a suspect, or suspect vehicle- which you or your car might look like. Courtesy or safety concerns. R.I.D.E program. A Person Stop Will be stopped if an officer believes: You have committed a crime. Is about to commit a crime. Has evidence of a crime. Children may be stopped if out late with no parent/ guardian 18 or older. Also could be looking for information or enforcing laws. Police in/at your HomeThe police can enter your residence if: They have the consent of a resident. They have an arrest or search warrant. There are exigent circumstances. Preforming public safety functions. If you are Arrested When you are arrested, the following will happen:They officers will identify themselves as officers. You will be told that you are under arrest. Uou will be told the reason for the arrest. The officer will take physical control of you. The officer will inform you that:  You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.  You have the right to telephone any lawyer you wish. You have the right to free advice from a Legal Aid lawyer.  If you are charged with an offence you may apply to the Ontario Legal Aid Plan for legal assistance. You will be asked the following: If you understand your rights. If you wish to call a lawyer. You will be searched and should expect to be handcuffed to the rear. You may be subject to a further search.  You may be released or taken to a police station, depending on the circumstances. If you are taken to the police station, you will talk to the Officer in Charge of the station; who will ask you a series of questions. You may also ask questions of the Officer in Charge. At the station, you may be placed in an interview room or a holding cell. You may be released by the Officer in Charge, or held to appear before a Justice of the Peace. If you are released by the Officer in Charge, the release may be with or without conditions. -If you are charged with an offence, you may wish to talk with a lawyer. You may apply to the Ontario Legal Aid Plan for legal assistance.

Policing is an extremely difficult job, mentally and physically. There are Many requirements, pre requisites and expectations in order to be a police officer. Police have an important job, and that is to protect our communities. Police get a "bad rep" as "pigs" and other hurtful names when all they do is try to help make our communities safe for us. Policing is a hard field to work in as police officers have to make many crucial, difficult decisions.

Arrests: Two Case Studies Two case studies looked at in class were the Nova Scotia Rampage case and the cam McLeod and Bryer Schmegelsky Manhunt These two cases involve police investigations and how the police did their work. The cases were similar and different in ways, but the focus is the police work involved with each case. Kam McLeod and Bryer Schmegelsky were on the run from the police, it was a manhunt. The terrain was very grassy, bushy, hot and rural making it hard for the police to pinpoint their exact location or where they were headed. The police were given/ found a video recording of the two boys at a gas station and from there they were able to follow the trail. The police got evidence, and followed a trail finding more evidence such as one of the victim's backpack. The second case is the Nova Scotia Rampage. The police work was a bit different as it the man committing these crimes committed multiple, in different small towns in Nova Scotia. The man drove a replica car of the police cars in the area, but the police officers did not understand the extent of how much his car looked like theirs, which potentially allowed for him to kill more people and commit the crimes he did, Maybe if the police recognized ti was to the extent it was at, they could have caught him sooner. However, despite that, the police were able to follow him to the towns he was committing the crimes in and eventually apprehend him. Finally, another case we looked at was the James Forcillo case.

Interrogations are used by police officers to try and get the truth out of another individual, typically an accused, whether they are guilty or not. There are two commonly used interrogation techniques used in our society. Those are the Reid Technique and the PEACE technique. The two techniques are extremely different from one another. The PEACE techniques differs from the Reid Technique in the simple way that, there are no mind games, manipulation and typically, there are no false confessions forced out of the suspect. The Reid Technique very often leads to false confessions due to how investigators treat them.

The 9 steps involved with the Reid Technique Step 1. Direct/ positive confrontation. Present evidence. Confident the suspect is guilty. Step 2. Theme development "Why did you do it?" - ask suspect why they did it, not if they did it. Give the suspect a moral excuse. Step 3. Handling Denials If the suspect denies- it will up their confidence (Don't allow their confidence to boost). Investigators will chip away the suspect's confidence to wear them down. Step 4. Overcoming objections Turn objections into they did the act, but it was a mistake. Comfort the suspect, make them feel comfortable with you. Step 5. procurement and retention of suspect's attention Gain suspect's attention. Step 6. Handling the suspect's mood Support suspect, tell them it is okay and you understand it was a mistake. Step 7. Alternative question Give the suspect two crimes to "choose" from, both crimes make the suspect guilty, but one is less serious. Step 8. Orally relay various details of the offence Provide open-ended questions to increase stress level- get them to confess. Step 9. Written Reflection Get the suspect to write a written confession.

5 steps in the PEACE Technique P- preparation and planning (Conduct evidence before interrogation, suspect is innocent until proven guilty). E- Engage and explain (Non- confrontational). A- Account (Take time to develop account, the suspect can share/speak). C- Closure (bring information to a close). E- Evaluate (Evaluate information).

There are many different ways an accused can defend themselves in court, they are: Alibi: The accused was elsewhere when the crime was committed and it is on the crown to be able to prove it. (Amos. 2) Mental States: If they are not mentally fit to understand the trail proceedings, a judge can issue an assessment. (Amos. 3) Mental Disorder: Unable to form the mens rea to be criminally responsible. This can happen in 2 ways: The accused is not capable of understanding the consequences for their actions. The accused is not capable of understanding that the action they committed was wrong. (Amos. 4) When a judge deals with an issued that is not mentally fit, there are 3 options that they have. Absolute discharge Partial discharge Term in a psychiatric facility. (Amos. 5) Automatism: The accused is/ was unaware of the act they committed. The acts reas is not evident. Insane automatism vs. non- sane automatism: Insane automatism: a from of automatism caused by a mental disorder. Non- insane automatism: a form of automatism caused by external force. (Amos. 6) Intoxication: The accused was overpowered by drugs or alcohol, however, this not does excuse their behaviour, but van be used in specific intent crimes. (Amos. 7) Self Defence: There is a use of force to defend yourself, but the force is reasonable. If a threat is evident, and it is lethal to your life, force can be used if; if it is because of the reasonable apprehension of death or previous harm from an assault If they cannot do otherwise. (Amos. 8) Battered Women Syndrome: It is not a defence, strictly- speaking, but is used to establish a state of mind which can then be used to justify an act of violence. (Amos. 9) Defence of Dwelling (Home): Remove a trespasser in a reasonable manner, and defend your home. If the trespasser refused to leave your home, they are legally committing a crime. (Amos. 10) Necessity: The accused/defendant did not have a reasonable alternative to commit an illegal act. They must show the following; Avoid greater harm No reasonable opportunity for an alternative The harm inflicted must be less serious than the threat (Amos. 11) Compulsion or DuressThe accused if forced by a threat or violence to commit an illegal act against their will. (Amos. 12) Provocation:Words or actions that are insulting enough that cause an ordinary person to lose control. These element must be proven; Wrongful act or insult occurred Caused the loss of self-control There was a sudden response There was a response before the accused had time to cool down. (Amos. 13) Not Criminally Responsible: A court verdict stating that a person has committed an illegal act but, at the time, was suffering from a serious mental illness that made them capable of understanding the consequences of the act.

The Criminal Court SystemStructure A split between provincial and federal involvement. Ensures proceedings are within principles of fairness. Oversee the entire process of prosecuting criminal offences. Responsibilities Provincial: Organizing, administering and maintaining court systems. Appoints judges to lowest level in the hierarchy of courts. Some responsibilities vary between provinces. Federal: Appoints judges to superior courts. Appoints judges to provincial courts of appeal. Preliminary Hearing: (before trial) accused first contact with the criminal court system. A judicial inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to put the accused on trail. Appeal An application to a higher court to review the decision made by a lower court. Summary convictions: hear by single judges at Provincial levels. Indictable convictions: heard by the appeal division of the Provincial. Supreme Court, comprised of a panel of three judges. The Participants: The judge. Justice of the Peers. The defence. The prosecution (Crown). Other court personnel: Court clerk, court reporter, court security officer, sheriff, bailiff. Witnesses. Jury.

Here is a layout of the court room, with roles and where everyone is seated.

Above, off of the powerpoint done in yesterdays class is the flow chart of how a criminal offence would get tried.

1) There is no substitution for questioning. 2) Have an objective. 3) Baby steps- can lead to your point. 4) For Cross examination, lead, lead, lead, lead. 5) Know yourself. 6) Be aware of the court atmosphere. 7) Know when to script and when to deviate. 8) Know your audience. 9) Know the rules. 10) Know the judge.

Jury Basis Comprised of 12 people. Resolve conflicts. Reflect the conscience of the community. Used for serious indictable offences because they are expensive. Benefits Typically there is no bias. Multiple opinions (Perspectives) not just one judge. Public involvement. 12 people to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Draw Backs Disruption to a jury's life - Demanding on citizens selected. Could use emotions and feelings to form opinion. Expensive.

Juries are selected through empaneling: The process of selecting the 12 jurors, which can take many days. A list of eligible jurors living in the area is created - Based off of a questionnaire sent out to Ontario's. Names are randomly drawn, if they do not show they can be faced with criminal charges. (The judge can expect anyone with personal interest in the case or with personal hardship) 75-100 names are brought forward. jurors have a civic duty to serve but you can not attend if: Being sick. Working in a certain profession. Hardships. Jurors can request a deferral - Jury service be rescheduled to a later date or be fully excused from jury duty. Jury must be 18 or older. NOTE: only a judge can grant a deferral or excusal. Once screened, crown prosecutor and defence ask jurors specific questions. They consider: Age, sex, ethnicity, religion, occupation, financial status and intelligence. After questioning lawyers then can make: A challenged for cause. Peremptory Challenge. occupations that can not serve as jurors: Medical practitioner. Police officer. firefighter. Superintendent. Sheriff. armed forces. Politicians.

Medical practitioner. Police officer. firefighter. Superintendent. Sheriff. armed forces. Politicians.

If you are selected: A judge will provide instruction about what to do next. Most trails begin on the same day the jury is selected and last between a couple of days and a few weeks. You will be told the estimated length of the trail. You will likely go home each day at about 4:30 pm. You would only stay in a hotel if deliberations have begun and the jury has not reached the destination. Jurors must adhere to some restrictions to help ensure fair trail. Have only transmitting or receiving devices. Post information relating to the trial on social media. read or watch the new related to the trail.

UNIT FOUR

Mediation: Solving issues before/ without having to go to trial.

Some things involved with being a civil law lawyer: Day to day negotiation Lot less court time- not as often trials Represent insurance companies Environmental defence Personal Injury Cap on general damages: $400,000 is the cap for general damages, Claim to rest of working life- Car accident- threshold and deductible mediator/ mediation Dispute resolution Never really want to be the one to challenge jurors. jury work is about them liking you, you are their trusted advisor Civil jury is rare in Ontario/ Canada (expensive)

Solve things without having to go into trial Mandatory mediation: Have to mediate the case before going to trial Combination of the two: Mediations and trail 98% go to settlement before trail 2% just went to trial If no mediation can be resolved- goes to trial Pressure of trial causes resolution Have trials go halfway- Start with trial, then the two sides begin mediating to resolve issues.

Look under "Private Vs.. Public Law" under the "Legal Foundations" units.

During our talk with Jay Skukowski, he mentioned two civil law cases he worked with. Those cases are; Van de Grande v Butkowsky Festival Hall v Galota Here is a quick summary of one of the cases: Festival Hall v Galota Article Link https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2016/2016onca585/2016onca585.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAXRmVzdGl2YWwgSGFsbCB2LiBHYWxvdGEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1Plaintiff, was a young women who fell off a dance floor at a nigh club. The women then, used an occupier's liability action against Republic in December 2007, she claimed she was injured as a result of unsafe conditions on the dance floor. Rebuplik was who she used, but they are the tenant and Festival is the landlord/ owner. The claim was an insured claim and the plaintiff issued an appeal. However, the appeal was denied as no other party could have responsibility for her injury.

Clifford Olsen: Cash for bodies Went to jail at least 83 times Kept souvenirs from Victims"Beast of BC" Angelina Napolitano: Killed her husband Husband was extremely abusive Mickey Mcarthur: Lots of robberies Car theft In and out of jail many times - escaped prison lots Maple Syrup Heist: Stole $18 million dollars with of maple syrup The Great Winnipeg Gold Heist: "Flying Bandit" - get away plane $385,000 worth of gold stolen- Today is worth $3 million. Canada's largest gold heist Ken Leishmen Robert Pickton: Buried bodies at his farm Fed victim's bodies to his pigs Killed 49 women Charged with 23 counts of first- degree murder Missing Indigenous women and children. Jennifer Pan: Hired a hitman to kill her mother/ parents Mother died and father survived Parents did not approve of her boyfriend- she did not like that She felt pressure of parents Paul Bernardo: Raped and killed women along side his wife Him and his wife recorded them raping and killing his wife's little sisterCarla took the plea Peter Woodcock: 3 children victims scattered pennies, and paper clips around his victim's bodies Put in a mental facility rather than jail. The Butter- Box Killers (Lila and William Young) 2 confirmed manslaughter convictions Sold babies - Desirable Babies deemed undesirable would be starved Child neglect Violated the Maternity Boarding House Act Illegally selling babies Acquitted on all offences (no jail time) In 1935When convicted of illegally selling babies, they were fined 428.90 Significance- Maternity Boarding House Act was created due to this caseLuke Rocco Magnotta First- degree murder, canabalism and Beastiality- gruesomely harmed animals and Jun LinsSent body parts with a note Juns dismantled and disfigured torso was found Recorded many of his crimes Neglifeilia

Look under the "Bill Flow Chart" in the Legal Foundations section of the Mindomo to see how a bill is processed and passed. Just to recap:

Look under the "Elements of a Crime" subtopic under the "Intro" topic under the Criminal Law section. Includes Mens Rea and Actus Reus.

Just to recap: The Act- Actus Reus Actus Reus is the guilty act and shows that you committed the act voluntarily or by omission. CANNOT BE FORCED The Intention- Mens Rea. Mens Rea is the guilty mind, the act was intentional, knowing, negligent or willfully blind. For example; During our mock trial, Michael Hudson (Jaiden) killed his mother in law and severely hurt his father in law. However, while he committed these actions, he was sleepwalking. Since, Michael was sleepwalking the mens rea was not there, the "guilty mind" was not evident and both the mens rea and the actus reus need to be evident in order for a conviction to occur.

Criminal/ Property offences are under the "Criminal Offences" and "Property Offences" Under the "Criminal Law" main topic.

Summary: Less serious crimes, less serious punishments Indictable: More serious crimes, more heavier punishmentsHybrid: Can be charged as either summary or indictable - crown decides

In July of 2013, Officer Forcillo shot 18 year- old Sammy Yatim. Sammy was in a train car holding a knife, he was all alone and did not pose a threat. There were at least 20 officers on the scene and Yatim had no hostages on the train car. Officer Forcillo told Yatim if he took one step he would shoot. Sammy did take a small step and Forcillo shot Sammy 3 times in the chest, there was a small pause, then he shot another 6 bullets and finally tased Sammy's body. Sammy was not a threat and should not have been shot the 9 times he was. Officer Forcillo argued self- defence for the first 3 shots, which the judge agreed with. However, the 6 shits that followed were unnecessary. Forcillo tried arguing that he saw Sammy try to get up. But there was no possible way Sammy survived the first 3 shots fired, even if he did, he would not have been a threat. In the end, Officer Forcillo was charged with attempted murder - due to the 6 shots fired after and not second- degree murder because he was an officer, and he felt his life was at risk. The Sammy Yatim and Forcillo case was one that outraged the public, and led to multiple protests over the loss of 18-year old Sammy. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/james-forcillo-sammy-yatim-parole-1.5434443 Above is a link posted in 2020, regarding Forcillo being granted full parole.

The Notwithstanding Clause can also be referred to as a power override. The notwithstanding clause definition by textbook is: "S. 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which allows federal and provincial governments to pass legislation that is exempt from s. 2 and ss. 7 to 15 of the charter" Allows for governments to temporarily overside sections 2, and 7-15. The Function of the Notwithstanding Clause is to "Prevent a person from brining an action in court claiming that a law violates fundamental freedoms, legal rights, or equality rights and is therefor invalid. (Notwithstanding Clause)Example of a case involving the Notwithstanding Clause: http://www.thecourt.ca/working-families-ontario-v-ontario-ontario-invokes-notwithstanding-clause/ The case was one I used for the unit one culminating assignment. This case is Working Families Ontario v Ontario and this case deals with the amendments to Ontario's election finances at RSO. Employing the Notwithstanding Clause in this circumstance violates these families fundamental freedoms.

Sequence of events: Choose jury Opening statements from the crown Crown witnesses Cross- examination on crown witnesses by the defence Opening statements from the defence Accused Defence witnesses Cross- examination on defence witness by crown Rebuttle / Rebuttle witnesses Closing statements by crown closing statements by defence Jury deliberate Verdict is decided Sentencing by judge Verdict: The verdict at the end of the trial was that Michael was not guilty. The reason the jury deemed him not guilty was because in order to be convicted (Deemed guilty) you must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and Michael's sleepwalking history, and good relationship with his parents in law meant there was no clear motive, therefor; was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Actual Case- Kenneth Park (Real life case) left all the doors open drove 23 kilometers Nearly strangled father in law 6 stabs to mother in law, went to police station - I think I killed a women Cut tenants of all his fingers (Flexer tenants) - felt no pain - not awake Acquitted Found not guilty Sleepwalking history Family sleepwalking history Sleep deprived 48 hours Rugby- out of shape (Physical strength) Mental health - gambler- made his relationship with his wife harder No motivation Actually convened his wife to go back to parents after she ran away "Gentle Giant" Actually divorced years later Going to their house the next day for a BBQ - on very good terms with parents in law No control over his body

Under the "Intro" section under the Rights and Freedoms topic I have listed the sections of the charter. To recap: Guarantee of rights and freedoms – section 1Fundamental freedoms – section 2Democratic rights – sections 3 to 5Mobility rights – section 6Legal rights – sections 7 to 14Equality rights – section 15Official languages of Canada – sections 16 to 22Minority language educational rights – section 23Enforcement – section 24General – sections 25 to 31Application of Charter – sections 32 and 33Citation – section 34

Code of Hammurabi: One of the earliest- known sets of recorded laws. (written by King Hammurabi Babylon) "Eye for an eye". Mosaic Law: Laws given to Moses to guide the Hebrew people, and recorded in the bible. - Included the 10 commandments. Law according to the Romans: Formed the basis of civil laws and criminal laws. Magna Carta: A charter of political and civil rights signed in 1215. Trial by Ordeal: Requiring a person to undergo torture to determine guilt or innocence. Trial by oath helping: Requiring friends of the accused to swear on the Bible that he/ she is innocent. Trial by combat: Determining guilt or innocence by having a duel. Divine Right: The concept that monarchs and their successors derived their power to rule from God and were accountable only to God.

Also be found in "Branches of Government" Under "Legal Foundations" LegislativeFunction: Makes laws for the government of a nation. Members: Queen.Bodies: Senate and House of Commons. Elected or appointed?: Members of the commons are elected and the senate is appointed by the governor general Responsibilities: Make and pass laws. Executive:Function: Enact and enforce the laws of a nation. Members: Prime Minister and Queen. Bodies: Cabinet. Elected or appointed?: Cabinet is appointed - chosen by Prime Minister. Responsibilities: Enforce Laws. JudicialFunction: Interpret and apply laws made by parliament. Members: Judges. Bodies: Supreme Court of Canada. Elected or appointed?: Supreme Court of Canada judges are appointed by the Governor General.Responsibilities: Apply laws and resolve conflicts.

Examples: R v Oaks R v Morgentaler

Subjective Statements and controversial topics are: Opinions, preferences values and feelings regarding important issues. Topics that can go both ways Usually deal with important issues such as; Abortion, gun control, etc. Example: "Do you think the mask mandate should have been lifted" "Should Sir. John. A McDonald Street name be changed?"

Should someone who is intoxicated/ sleepwalking or anyone who does not have the mens rea when an act is committed be convicted? It goes both ways, yes and no. If someone is intoxicated, they are choosing to do so, and most people know how their behaviour changes when they drink or do drugs etc. So I do feel that those who are intoxicated and commit a crime should be convicted. Whereas, if it is the case, for example, someone is sleepwalking. That person should be let off, just as how Kenneth Parks was. He had no intention of doing the things he did, and had no control over when it was happening. Someone who is intoxicated, still has some form of control.

Best Debate Topic The model parliament task was definitely my favourite. I was pleased with my performance and the debates were in depth with the topics. Everyone played their parts and argued their bills really well. I was in a group with Emma Bruce and Emma Harral, we were the NPD party and our bill dealt with raising minimum and student wage in Canada. Emma H wasn't able to come in that day, so I was nervous since she is most definitely the more talkative out of the two of us. Emma Bruce introduced the bill and then I pretty much had it from there which, I was very pleased with. That is probably why this was one of my favourites, I was overall very proud of my work and performance. Furthermore, the model parliament was also the best debate topic. Jack and Maci had a good debate topic going with Clayton, Kent, and Jaiden. The main debate was over vaccine mandates and seeing every party play their part well was amazing, despite them believing in what their party wanted or not.

One of my Favourites The interrogation improve was a fun task, it required improve and fast thinking. I was in a group with Ella and Emma H, and we interrogated Clayton using the Reid Technique. I however, did not talk much during the interrogation as I was nervous but it was an overall fun and enjoyable experience. Watching the other interrogations was cool, seeing how others employed the Reid Technique and the laughs that followed were enjoyable and memorable.

Most Interesting The most notorious criminal case culminating task was one I really enjoyed. Criminal cases like the ones we explored and learned about in class during the presentations interest me a lot, which is why when I"m older I want to go into the law enforcement field or criminology area. I'd like to be a criminal psychologist and work with people to find out why they do what they do, learning about Peter Woodcock, Clifford Olsen and Paul Bernardo's childhood was super interesting to me and convinced me for to be into the criminology field. To continue, I enjoyed watching the presentations and learning lots about all the notorious cases, they were very informative and well done.

There isn't much I can think of that could be improved in this course. Mr. Amos was and is an amazing teacher, the class was full of laughs and his way of teaching is different than most teachers. It was very easy to stay focused in class, everyday was something new, exciting and informative. You did an amazing job this quad Mr. Amos.

Overall, I really enjoyed my time in this course. On the first day I was a little worried because Mr. Amos said you gotta talk in this class, and that is not something I'm good at. However, throughout the course I did begin to break out of my shell a little more, the group activities were fun and I found it easier with each one to feel more comfortable with public speaking. Mr. Amos does an incredible job teaching, his lessons are more of a conversation rather than "Here is what we're doing" on the board which I liked a lot. Mr. Amos also made me feel safe with public speaking and there were tons of laughs in the class. Definitely taking grade 12 law next year.

The mock trial was a fun, informative assignment. The trial was based off of the Kenneth Park case. It was interesting to see how a court trial would play out, and the order one takes place in. I learnt the sequence of events that take place during a trial, and I learnt how things work in a trial; Jury, opening statements, witnesses, cross- examination, how jurors deliberate, and how a verdict is ultimately decided.

Calgary teen must receive blood transfusions: court. CBC News, February, 21, 2002. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary-teen-must-receive-blood-transfusions-court-1.328022Canada urged to amend transgenerational Discriminatory Indian Act. UN News Global perspective human stories, March, 3, 2022. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113262James Forcillo, ex- officer who shot and killed teen on streetcar, granted full parole. CBC News, January, 21, 2020. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/james-forcillo-sammy-yatim-parole-1.5434443Galota v. Festival Hall Developments Limited, 2016 ONCA 585 (CanLII). CanLii, July, 21, 2016. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2016/2016onca585/2016onca585.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAXRmVzdGl2YWwgSGFsbCB2LiBHYWxvdGEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Government of Canada, March, 24, 2022. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian- heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html Notwithstanding Clause. CENTRE for CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES. https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/notwithstanding-clause/R v Keegstra. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, December, 23, 1990. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc- csc/en/item/695/index.do