Topic 1.4. R v. Davis (1995) and Gauthier v. Beaumont (1998) (Assignment)

Jagota 1
Sachin Jagota
Mr. Vendramini
CLU3M1-01
September 16, 2021
Topic 1.4. R v. Davis (1995) and Gauthier v. Beaumont (1998) Assignment
Case: R v. Davis (1995) 30 Alta. L.R. (3d) 361 Alberta Provincial Court (p. 16 of
textbook)
1. What type of law is involved in this case?
Criminal law
2. Explain each component for the citation of the case
R v. Davis (1995) 30 Alta. L.R. (3d) 361 Alberta Provincial Court
There are nine components of this citation. The “R” stands for Regina or Rex with is Latin for
queen or king. The “v.” stands for versus. The name, and in this case “Davis”, is the last name of
the defendant or accused. The year, and in this case “1995”, is the year of the decision. The
number after the year, and this case the “30”, is the volume number. The two letters after the
volume number, and in this case “L.R.” is the name of the reporter where the case is reported.
After the initials is the series and, in this case, “3d”. After the series is the page number and, in
this case, “361”. Lastly, following the page number is the jurisdiction and court and, in this case,
“Alberta Provincial Court”
3. Interpret from the case study what actions would constitute assault?
The first action in this case that constitutes assault is that Marlene Davis spat at Darrin Hucaluk
and then Davis throws the contents of her beer at Hucaluk. The main factor in this case that
constitutes assault is that when Davis attempted to throw the contents of her beer at Hucaluk, but
Jagota 2
the mug then slipped out of her hands severely hurting Grant.
4. Why was Davis charged with assault with a weapon?
Davis was charged with assault with a weapon because beer mug was used as a weapon. But, as
a result of Davis’ intent not being to hurt Grant and not to use the mug as a weapon, the judge
lowered her to charge to common assault.
5. Evaluate whether there was an intent to injure.
There was no intent to injure. Davis was in an argument with Hucaluk not Grant. Davis only
meant to spill the contents of the mug, but not the mug itself. Moreover, what happened to Grant
was an accident, but nevertheless, what Davis did was not good.
6. What factors do you think the judge took into consideration in convicting Davis on
the lesser charge of common assault.
I believe that the main factor the judge took into consideration is that Davis had no intent of
hurting Grant. Overall, everything that happened to Grant was an accident and not on purpose.
Case: Gauthier v. Beaumont (1998) 2 S.C.R. 3 Supreme Court of Canada
1. Why did the trial judge dismiss Gauthier’s case? Was he right to do so?
The trial judge dismissed the case because “the case was over the six-year legal limit”. I believe
that the judge was not right to dismiss the case. If the case was that Gauthier was able to testify
during those six years he would have, but, as supported by two psychiatrists, Gauthier was
unable to psychologically to do so. Therefore, supporting why the trial judge should not have
dismissed the case.
2. What factors do you think the supreme court took into consideration in reversing the trial
judge’s decision?
I believe that most likely, the factor that the supreme court took into consideration is that as
Jagota 3
supported by two psychiatrists, Gauthier was unable to psychologically to do so.
3. A Statute of Limitations is set up to prevent legal action after a certain time period.
Identify arguments in favour of and against a six-year limitation period in a civil action.
Not in favour #1: I am against this Statute of Limitations because what if someone was too
scared to take action.
Not in favour #2: I am against this Statute of Limitations because what if someone was
psychologically unable to take legal action.
In favour #1: I am in favour of this Statute of Limitations because after a certain amount of time
(six-years), there may not be enough evidence to support your case.
In favour #2: I am in favour of this Statute of Limitations because it makes people take action
rather than waiting years for no reason.

Topic 1.4. R v. Davis (1995) and Gauthier v. Beaumont (1998) (Assignment)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic 1.4. R v. Davis (1995) and Gauthier v. Beaumont (1998) (Assignment)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic 1.4. R v. Davis (1995) and Gauthier v. Beaumont (1998) (Assignment)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jagota 1

September 16, 2021

Topic 1.4. R v. Davis (1995) and Gauthier v. Beaumont (1998) Assignment

1. What type of law is involved in this case?

2. Explain each component for the citation of the case

R v. Davis (1995) 30 Alta. L.R. (3d) 361 Alberta Provincial Court

“Alberta Provincial Court”

4. Why was Davis charged with assault with a weapon?

lowered her to charge to common assault.

5. Evaluate whether there was an intent to injure.

the lesser charge of common assault.

Case: Gauthier v. Beaumont (1998) 2 S.C.R. 3 Supreme Court of Canada

dismissed the case.

supported by two psychiatrists, Gauthier was unable to psychologically to do so.

scared to take action.

psychologically unable to take legal action.

(six-years), there may not be enough evidence to support your case.

rather than waiting years for no reason.

You might also like