Case
Summary
The
written assignment for this course consists of a case summary on a chosen topic drawn from a list provided below. Topics
that are not specified in the list will not be accepted. The essay
assignment is worth 30% of the final grade.
Case Summary:
5-7 pages
How to
prepare a case brief/summary by Michael
Mac Neil:
In writing the summary of a judicial decision, it is
important to keep in mind the purposes for which you are writing it. The
summary is a way of forcing yourself to ask key questions that assist you in
understanding the decision. In addition, the summary then provides a
quick and easy means of recalling what you have read. Finally, the
summary put you in a position to start asking critical questions about a
judicial decision. Hence the summary is being written both to help you learn
about the contents of the decision, to help you in recalling those contents
at some point in the future, and to prepare the way for critical reflection.
Nature
of the Case
The
substantive part of the summary should start with a very brief statement of the nature of the case. This basically answers the
question of why there is a legal action before the court, the nature of that
action, and what remedy is being sought. The action might be a suit
claiming breach of contract for which damages are being sought. Another
example might be a suit brought by a prisoner claiming that he was unfairly
denied parole. The particular decision might be an appeal of a lower
court decision, or it might be an application for judicial review of an
administrative tribunal’s decision. The key is to discover who is asking
this particular court for what.
Try to put this statement of the nature of the case in words that you, the
student, understand. Merely repeating the language of the court without
understanding what the court is saying is of little assistance in terms of
advancing understanding.
The
Facts
The
next part of the summary should provide a succinct statement of the facts of
the case. Only those facts that are relevant to the main legal issues
should be noted. Sometimes the court itself provides a useful summary of
the facts at the beginning of the decision, but sometimes it is necessary to
cull the facts from the decision as a whole. Even where the court
provides a summary, the summary that you write for yourself will likely be a
condensation of the facts as reported by the judge. The summary of facts should
not be any longer than three or four sentences, forcing you to hone on the key
elements of the case. It is usually impossible to tell what the most
relevant facts are until you have read the whole case, as the final decision
may turn on a particular fact or set of facts that is only revealed or
discussed near the end of the decision.
Issue
The
summary should contain a clear statement of the legal issue addressed in the
decision. To the extent that a court decision purports to resolve a
dispute between the parties on the basis of a legal rule, the legal issue in
the case involves an identification of the appropriate legal rule to apply to
the resolution of the dispute. It is often appropriate to state the legal
issue in the form of a question, such as “where is a contract formed when
the acceptance is communicated by fax?” Another example might be:
“Does the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights
preserve a union’s right to engage in picketing?” One problem that
arises in identifying the issue is that the court often purports to raise and
answer several questions. In many cases there is one central issue on
which the resolution of the dispute revolves, and in that situation, it is
desirable to only state that one issue. However, if it is clear that the
court is basing its decision on several issues, then by all means feel free to
include them in the summary. The statement of each issue, however, should
normally be no longer than a sentence. The key to identifying the issues
in a case is to reflect upon who wants what, did they succeed or fail in
getting it, and thinking of the issue in the case as explaining why they
may have succeeded or failed.
Concise
Rule of Law
Provide
a statement of the general principle of law that the case illustrates. For
example, “A contract is formed in the place where an acceptance by fax is
received.” or “Picketing in the form of leafleting aimed at consumers
is a form of freedom of expression protected by the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.” The identification of the rule of law is similar to the
identification of the issue, but is most often best stated in a declarative
fashion, and with somewhat more precision than the statement of the issue.
Holding
and Decision
Explain
the court’s rationale in reaching its conclusion. Explain how the court
applied the general rule of law to the facts of the case, and the public policy
issues or other factors that may influence the judge’s reasoning. Finish
with a statement indicating how the case was finally decided. For
example, “the plaintiff’s claim for damages was disallowed” or
“the appeal was allowed”. (This, of course, assumes that in the
description of the nature of the case, you have clearly stated the nature of
the plaintiff’s claim, or the basis of the appeal).
Court Cases:
Freedom of Religion:
R.
v. Big Drug Mart (1985)
R.
v. Edwards Books and Arts (1986)
Multani v. Commission Scolaire
Marguerite-Bourgeoys (2006)
Syndicat
Northcrest v. Amselem (2004)
Freedom of Expression:
R.
v. Zundel (1992)
R.
v. Keegstra (1990)
R.
v. Butler (1992)
R.
v. Sharpe (2001)
Little
Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (2000)
Freedom of Association:
Dummore
v. Ontario (2001)
Delisle
v. Canada (1999)
Lavigne
v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (1991)
Fundamental Justice:
Morgentaler
v. The Queen (1989)
Sing
v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985)
Chaoulli
v. Quebec (2005)
Gosselin
v. Quebec (Attorney General, 2002).
Reference
re. B.C. Motor Vehicle Act (1985)
Equality Rights:
Andrews
v. Law Society of B.C. (1989)
Vriend
v. Alberta, [1989]
Egan
et al. v. The Queen, (1995)
Aboriginal Rights:
R.
v. Sparrow (1990)
Delgamuukw
v. British Columbia (1997)
R.
v. Marshall (1999)
Mikisew
Cree First Nation v.Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage, 2005)
