Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 154 views

    LRT Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    prachi
    The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture program in Quebec schools. The Court found that the Catholic parents who brought the challenge failed to prove the program violated their freedom of religion or conscience. To establish an infringement of these rights, the Court clarified that a claimant must demonstrate objective proof that they cannot practice their religion or beliefs, rather than just a belief that their religion has been infringed. The program's objective of exposing students to various religious traditions did not in itself constitute a violation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LRT Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    prachi
    154 views5 pages
    The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture program in Quebec schools. The Court found that the Catholic parents who brought the challenge failed to prove the program violated their freedom of religion or conscience. To establish an infringement of these rights, the Court clarified that a claimant must demonstrate objective proof that they cannot practice their religion or beliefs, rather than just a belief that their religion has been infringed. The program's objective of exposing students to various religious traditions did not in itself constitute a violation.

    Original Description:

    Brief

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture program in Quebec schools. The Court found that the Catholic parents who brought the challenge failed to prove the program violated their freedom of religion or conscience. To establish an infringement of these rights, the Court clarified that a claimant must demonstrate objective proof that they cannot practice their religion or beliefs, rather than just a belief that their religion has been infringed. The program's objective of exposing students to various religious traditions did not in itself constitute a violation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    154 views5 pages

    LRT Case Brief

    Uploaded by

    prachi
    The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture program in Quebec schools. The Court found that the Catholic parents who brought the challenge failed to prove the program violated their freedom of religion or conscience. To establish an infringement of these rights, the Court clarified that a claimant must demonstrate objective proof that they cannot practice their religion or beliefs, rather than just a belief that their religion has been infringed. The program's objective of exposing students to various religious traditions did not in itself constitute a violation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    Ontario Justice Education Network

    LEGAL REASONING TOOL


    HOW TO WRITE A CASE BRIEF
    WHAT IS A CASE BRIEF?

    OVERVIEW OF A
    CASE BRIEF

    A case brief is a written summary of a legal


    decision. It outlines the facts, history, issues,
    outcome and reasoning of a particular case.

    CASE NAME AND CITATION1

    Also referred to as the style of cause, this section


    identifies the parties involved in the case.

    HOW ARE CASE BRIEFS


    HELPFUL?

    For example:

    Case briefs are useful because they:

    R v Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, [2009] 1 SCR 579.

    the most important aspects of a case,


    Identify
    making it easier to synthesize the information;
    the legal principles and rules that
    Outline
    were established in a case;
    cases in context with other material
    Put
    learned in a course; and
    Are a great study tool.

    FACTS
    This section provides an overview of the most
    important facts of the case, including all of the
    relevant people, actions, locations and objects
    involved. Only the material facts of the case (i.e.
    the facts that really matter to the outcome) need
    to be included. The goal is to tell the story of the
    case without forgetting something important or
    including something irrelevant. When outlining the
    facts of the case, be sure to include the titles of the
    people being written about.

    WHAT IS INCLUDED IN A
    CASE BRIEF?
    1. Who was involved in the case? [case name

    and citation]

    For example:

    suspected the appellant, Mr. Patrick, of


    Police
    operating an ecstasy lab in his home, and on

    2. What happened in the case? [facts]


    3. Which courts have heard the case already?

    several occasions, seized garbage bags that had


    been left at the rear edge of his property for city
    garbage pickup. Police did not set foot on the
    appellants property, but did reach through the
    airspace over his property line in order to seize
    the bags. Police used items in the bag, some of
    which were contaminated with ecstasy, to acquire
    a search warrant of the appellants property and to
    charge him. The appellant argued that police

    [procedural history]

    4. What are the legal issues the court must

    decide? [issues]
    5. How did the judge decide the case? [decision]
    6. What legal principle does this decision stand

    for? [the ratio]

    7. What is the explanation the court gave for its

    decision? [reasons]

    For further information, refer to OJENs Guide to Legal Citation for High
    School Student.

    ojen.ca 2013

    Ontario Justice Education Network

    HOW TO WRITE A CASE BRIEF

    violated his right under s. 8 of the Canadian


    Charter of Rights and Freedoms by searching
    his garbage.
    it was found that the appellant did
    Atnottrial,
    have a reasonable expectation of privacy
    over his discarded garbage bags, making their
    search and seizure a lawful exercise of police
    powers. The trial judge therefore admitted the
    seized evidence and convicted the appellant of
    unlawfully producing, possessing and trafficking in
    a controlled substance.

    WHOS WHO IN COURT


    First trial in civil court:

    Plaintiff (the party is bringing a claim)


    Defendant (the party accused of wrongdoing)
    First trial in criminal court:

    Crown (the government)


    (the party accused of a
    Accused/Defendant
    crime)
    In the case of an appeal trial:

    Appellant (the party who is bringing the appeal)


    (the party who won the previous
    Respondant
    trial and is now responding to the appeal)

    PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    This section should explain how the case has moved
    through the court system, starting from the time
    the matter went to trial to the present decision. The
    procedural history should include the following
    information:
    original trial decision [often the trial is the
    The
    first level, but sometimes there are steps before];
    court level of the decision made before
    The
    this trial [what court was the case previously
    heard in?]; and

    current status of the case being reviewed


    The
    (i.e. what court is the case at now?)

    For example:
    The trial Court convicted Mr. Patrick of unlawfully
    producing, possessing and trafficking a controlled
    substance and the Court of Appeal for Alberta
    upheld the conviction. Mr. Patrick appealed this
    decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

    ISSUES
    This section outlines the main legal questions that
    the court was asked to decide. The legal issues can
    be written in question form and should summarize
    what legal questions are being addressed by the
    case. It is often helpful to write the questions in
    yes/no format.

    For example:
    Was the warrantless search and seizure of garbage
    bags from the appellants property a lawful exercise
    of police powers in accordance with s. 8 of the
    Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
    Or in an appeal case
    Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

    2 ojen.ca 2013

    Ontario Justice Education Network

    HOW TO WRITE A CASE BRIEF


    DECISION

    REASONS

    The decision section outlines what the Court decided


    and what action or remedy was ordered, if any.
    This section provides the answers to the questions
    outlined in the Issues section.

    This section provides an explanation of how the


    Court reached its decision, including the legal rules
    or precedents it followed and how it justified its
    application of the law in this particular case..

    For example:

    For example:

    The evidence from the garbage bags was admitted


    and Mr. Patrick was convicted.

    The Court indicated that at issue was whether the


    appellant retained a reasonable expectation of
    privacy in the contents of his garbage. The majority
    found that the appellant had abandoned his privacy
    interest by leaving his garbage bags out for collection
    at the edge of his property. The Court indicated that
    placement of the bags was key, as it suggested that
    bags placed nearer to the house might have been
    protected by s. 8 of the Charter, while bags left just
    inside the property line (unprotected from passersby)
    were not.

    Or in an appeal case
    Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

    RATIO
    The ratio (or ratio decidendi) is a statement of the
    legal rule that the Court used to make its decision.
    The ratio identifies what is important about a case
    from a legal perspective and also what effect it might
    have on society. Outlining the ratio is important
    because in a common law system like Canadas,
    the legal precedents set by the Supreme Court of
    Canada are binding on lower courts and will therefore
    influence how they decide similar cases. The ratio
    should be written as a statement.

    For example:

    In a concurring judgment, Justice Abella held that


    the appellant retained a privacy interest in his
    garbage bags, as the waste was left out for the
    specific purpose of garbage collection. However,
    Justice Abella found that since the police had a
    reasonable suspicion that the appellant was
    operating an ecstasy lab, the search was lawful and
    not in violation of the Defendants s. 8 Charter right.

    There is no reasonable expectation of privacy over


    garbage left out for collection on personal property
    such that a persons s. 8 rights to privacy under the
    Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is activated
    or infringed by police search and seizure.

    ojen.ca 2013

    Ontario Justice Education Network

    HOW TO WRITE A CASE BRIEF

    SAMPLE CASE BRIEF


    SL v COMMISSION SCOLAIRE DES CHNES, 2012 SCC 7,
    [2012] 1 SCR 235
    Facts
    In 2008, a mandatory Ethics and Religious
    Culture (ERC) program was introduced in
    Quebec elementary and secondary schools.
    The program replaced existing Catholic and
    Protestant religion programs and provides
    general instruction to students about ethics,
    morality and world religious traditions
    including Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and
    Judaism, among others.
    That same year, two Catholic parents
    requested that their childrens school board
    exempt their children from the ERC program
    on the grounds that the program infringed
    both their own and their childrens right to
    freedom of conscience and religion. The
    parents argued that they had an obligation
    to pass on the tenets of their Catholic
    religion to their children. They argued that
    the ERC interfered with their ability to do
    so by confusing their children and causing
    disruption by exposing them to different
    religious ideas.
    Ultimately, the school board refused to
    exempt the children from the program. As
    a result, the parents sought a declaration
    from the Quebec Superior Court that the
    ERC program infringed their freedom of
    conscience and religion.
    4 ojen.ca 2013

    Procedural History
    The Superior Court held that the objective
    presentation of various religions to students
    does not infringe the parents or students
    freedom of conscience and religion. The
    decision was appealed and the Court of Appeal
    for Quebec upheld the Superior Court decision.

    Issues
    Does compelling children to be exposed to
    religious diversity necessarily infringe upon
    freedom of conscience and religion?
    Is a sincere belief that such exposure threatens
    parents ability to pass on their faith to their
    children sufficient proof that it does so?

    Decision
    The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)
    unanimously found that the claimants had
    failed to show that the mandatory program
    violated their freedom of religion or conscience.

    Ontario Justice Education Network

    HOW TO WRITE A CASE BRIEF

    Ratio
    The SCC considered whether the course
    infringed the right to freedom of conscience
    and religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian
    Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision
    clarifies what is required to establish a
    violation of the right to freedom of conscience
    and religion. To prove an infringement, the
    claimant must demonstrate, on the basis of
    objective proof, that s/he cannot actually
    practice his/her religion or exercise his/her
    beliefs. A claimants mere belief that his/
    her religious practices or beliefs have been
    infringed is not sufficient to establish an
    infringement.

    Reasons

    In addition, two of the SCC judges held that


    the Superior Court erred in failing to consider
    content of the ERC program in assessing the
    programs impact on the parents ability to
    fulfill their religious obligations. Nevertheless,
    these two concurred with their colleagues in
    finding that the parents had failed to prove
    that freedom of conscience and religion had
    been infringed, as the program material filed
    as exhibits for the case provided no insight
    into how the program would be implemented
    and taught. As a result, these two SCC judges
    left the door open to the possibility that the
    ECR program and the teaching methods used
    to implement it may in the future be found
    to infringe individuals freedom of conscience
    and religion.

    The SCC unanimously concluded that


    although exposure to a variety of religious
    facts can be a source of friction, exposing
    children to a variety of religious traditions
    does not in and of itself infringe the parents or
    childrens freedom of conscience and religion.
    The Court found that while the parents
    sincerely believed that they had an obligation
    to pass on the tenets of their faith to their
    children, they could not prove that the ERC
    interfered with or obstructed this practice.

    ojen.ca 2013

    You might also like