Canadian Business law Case report essay

CASE LAW ESSAY GUIDELINES Each student must submit one Case Law Essay based on a Canadian legal case related to an area of law to be covered in this course. The submission deadline is to be found on Learning Hub. Each Case Law Essay will be marked out of 100 (as per the rubrics), though it will count of up to 15% of your final course mark.

The Primary Objective of the Case Law Essay The primary objective of the Case Law Essay is simple: you are writing material as if you were to educate people in your professional environment, in particular, to educate them about issues that are relevant to the areas of law covered in this course. So you must check the Course Outline carefully to ascertain which areas of law are relevant. If you are unsure you can always ask me. Your Case Law Essay must be clear, accurate and brief. Clarity, accuracy and brevity will help you to facilitate understanding of your audience.

The Secondary Objective of the Case Law Essay The secondary objective of the Case Law Essay is to demonstrate that you are able to follow the instructions set out in this memorandum. All Case Law Essays must therefore be organised this way: 1. Briefly describe and explain the area of law. 2. Summarise the important facts (related to that area of the law). 3. State the main legal issue(s) (those that reflect the area of law above). 4. State the Court’s decision and the reasons for it. (This should show how the main legal issues are resolved one way or another explaining the argument or reasoning used by the Court and the counter-argument. You should explain how the court's reasoning meets the argument(s) of the losing side. If the court did not report the counter-argument, there is nothing to be stated in this regard. Formal Requirements: a) 12pt Times New Roman Font; b) Spaced 1.5 in Microsoft Word, with original margins; c) Minimum 2 pages, maximum 4 pages, including bibliography/references; d) Use appropriate academic citations, if needed; e) Case Law Essay Deadline: to be found on Learning Hub; f) To be submitted/uploaded onto Learning Hub, Lecture Link, under “Activities”, “Assignments”. Each student must submit their Case Law Essay on a different case. Check with your colleagues to ensure that only you have chosen a particular case. If you have any doubts about the area of law just ask me ([email protected]) Students may use cases found in the textbook or on the internet but they must look up the full version of their case. The instructor may assign a particular case to students. The case has to be Canadian, and it can usually be located at www.canlii.org. Frequently, full versions of well-known cases can be found simply by Googling them. An example of a Case Law Essay is set out below. It is based on Cowles v. Balac and is available at www.canlii.org.

To look at this case in full, go to: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2005/2005canlii2038/2005canlii2038.html EXAMPLE Cowles v. Balac 2005 CanLII 2038 (ON SC)

Area of law

Negligence: Strict Liability – Fault Not Required to Impose Liability on Owner

Liability in tort often requires some degree of fault, or put differently, some degree of intentional

conduct in order to establish liability. Negligence, on the other hand, involves breach of a duty of

care in circumstances where the defendant (the person who is sued) owed a duty of care to the

plaintiff (the person who incurred damages or injury). So negligence boils down to carelessness in

circumstances where a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have foreseen the

consequences and taken necessary steps to prevent injury or damages. However, under very

specific circumstances, a person could be held liable on the basis of negligence even though that

person did not act careless at all. As a result, liability is imposed regardless of negligence

(carelessness) on the part of that person. Such strict liability is imposed on anyone who keeps an

animal that is known to be inherently dangerous to either humans or other animals.

Facts

David Balac (“Balac”), a student, and Jennifer Cowles (“Cowles”), an exotic dancer, visited the

African Lion & Safari (“ALS”) game farm in 1996. While slowly driving their vehicle through the

tiger reserve section of the park they came across a number of Siberian tigers. The tigers attacked

the vehicle. Balac was startled by the initial attack and accidentally hit a button that rolled down

Cowles’ window. Two Siberian tigers leaned through the passenger window and attack Balac. The

tigers were unable to pull Balac out of the car. One of the tigers then bit Cowles in the head and

tried to pull her out of the vehicle. The tiger dropped Cowles either as a result of Balac moving the

car forward, or as a result of an ALS truck arriving at the scene and shooing the tigers away. Both

Balac and Cowles suffered severe physical and psychological injuries as the result of the attack.

Issue

To determine whether the keeper of wild vicious animals could be held strictly liable for damage

and injuries caused by wild animals regardless of proof of negligence?

Decision

ALS was held to be strictly liable for the injuries sustained by Balac and Cowles under the doctrine

of strict liability, thus liability without proof of negligence. MacFarland, J. noted that the Siberian

tigers were wild and dangerous animals, and that strict liability had to apply to ALS.

ALS relied on three defences, namely: contributory negligence, consent, and/or voluntary

assumption of the risk. The court held that the injuries and damages suffered by Balac and Cowles

had resulted from an unprovoked attack on their vehicle by the tigers. There had not been any

conduct on their part that had constituted contributory negligence. With regard to the defences of

consent and/or voluntary assumption of the risk, the court held that Balac and Cowles had done

exactly what the owners of the ALS had contemplated them to do, namely driving through the park

in their own vehicle with the windows up, occasionally stopping to take photos. The court further

accepted testimony that Balac and Cowles could not recall seeing signs warning visitors to the

park that entry was at own risk. Moreover, the court held that the defences put forward by ALS

were inapplicable to the facts at hand. ALS was held liable for Balac and Cowles’ damages.

Further Instructions: Note how "Facts," "Issue" and "Decision" are all concentrated on explaining the same legal principles described in "Area of Law." The "Decision" essentially answers the question put in the "Issue," even to the extent of using the same or similar language. Note also how under Decision both sides of the issue are presented and as is an explanation of why the winning argument is successful. This helps to make the Case Law Essay clear and understandable. You must explain what the counterargument is [see the second paragraph under Decision above], and if you cannot locate one, do not worry about it.