WHO'S THE BOSS?
What principle means the Constitution is the highest law in Canada?
Constitutional supremacy.
“A law is legally valid because it was created through the recognized legal process.” Which theory is speaking?
Legal positivism.
True or false: If a law limits a Charter right, the law is automatically unconstitutional.
False. Charter rights can be subject to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified under s. 1.
What Latin term means the prohibited or 'guilty' act?
Actus reus.
A judge follows the reasoning from an earlier higher-court decision involving a very similar legal issue. What course concept is at work?
Precedent / stare decisis.
What power allows a court to examine government action or legislation for constitutional compliance?
Judicial review.
“A law can be legally valid and still be deeply unjust because law should reflect fundamental moral principles.” Which theory is speaking?
Natural law.
Who is the Charter mainly designed to limit: private individuals or government action?
Government action. The Charter generally applies to Parliament, legislatures and government actors, not ordinary private disputes.
What Latin term refers to the required guilty mental state?
Mens rea.
A controversial law is challenged because the government may not have had constitutional authority to legislate in that area. Is this mainly a question about whether the law is FAIR, or whether the government had JURISDICTION?
Jurisdiction.
Ontario passes a law. Someone argues its real purpose is actually criminal law, which belongs to Parliament. What concept helps a court determine the law's true nature?
Pith and substance / division of powers. The court examines the law's purpose and effects to determine its true character.
Two judges interpret the same vague law differently. Which theory would be especially interested in how their experiences, values and real-world context shaped those decisions?
Legal realism.
Police search a person's phone during an investigation. What Charter concern should immediately come to mind?
Section 8: protection against unreasonable search or seizure. Students do not need to decide the final legality without more facts.
A person recognizes a serious risk that their conduct could cause harm but deliberately goes ahead anyway. Which mental-state concept best fits?
Recklessness.
An accused becomes extremely unpopular online before trial. Name ONE legal principle that becomes especially important and explain why.
Possible answers include presumption of innocence, fair-trial rights, judicial independence, impartial jury/trial fairness, burden of proof. Explanation required.
Parliament passes a law supported by a large majority of MPs. A court later finds that the law violates the Constitution. How can BOTH institutions still be exercising legitimate legal authority?
Parliament has authority to enact legislation, but its authority is constrained by the Constitution. Courts have authority through judicial review to determine whether legislation complies with the Constitution.
A law is written in neutral language, but evidence suggests it affects racialized communities much more severely. Which legal lens would specifically push us to examine that unequal impact?
Critical race theory.
Government restricts a protected form of expression and says the restriction is necessary for public safety. What TWO major questions should a court ask?
Is a Charter right infringed? Second: if so, can the limit be justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit? Stronger answers can discuss the need for evidence/proportionality.
The Crown proves that the accused performed the prohibited act but cannot prove the mental element required by that offence. What should happen, and why?
The accused should not be convicted of that offence because the Crown must prove every required element, including the required mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.
A judge personally dislikes a law but concludes it is constitutionally valid and applies it. Which legal theory best explains the idea that the judge's moral disagreement does not by itself make the law invalid?
Legal positivism is the strongest fit: legal validity is distinct from personal morality. A well-defended alternative may earn credit.
A province says: “Our voters elected us, so courts should not interfere with this law.” Give TWO course concepts that challenge that argument and explain how.
Strong answers could use constitutional supremacy + judicial review; division of powers/pith and substance; judicial independence. The key is explaining that democratic election does not give a legislature unlimited constitutional authority.
A government says one legal system should apply identically to everyone. Give TWO different theoretical reasons someone might challenge that claim using theories from this course.
Many answers possible. E.g., feminist legal theory may question whether 'neutral' rules reflect historically male experiences/power; critical race theory may examine systemic racial effects; Indigenous legal perspectives may challenge treating Canadian state law as the only legitimate legal order; legal realism may question whether identical rules operate identically in practice. Two explained lenses required.
A law is extremely popular and clearly violates a Charter right. Does its popularity make the violation constitutional? Explain using at least TWO concepts.
No. Popularity alone does not determine constitutionality. Strong answers connect constitutional supremacy, judicial review, minority rights, s. 1 justification, and/or the role of independent courts.
Jordan throws a heavy object from a balcony without checking whether anyone is below. It hits someone. You are NOT allowed to decide guilt yet. Identify THREE legal questions you would need answered first.
Possible questions: What offence is alleged and what elements does it require? What did Jordan know/intend? Did Jordan recognize the risk? Could the conduct amount to criminal negligence? Did Jordan's act cause the injury? Is there evidence creating reasonable doubt? Any three relevant, explained questions.
A law is validly enacted, challenged under the Charter, disproportionately affects a marginalized group, and has strong public support. Name FOUR different course concepts or lenses that could be used to analyze it.
Many combinations: constitutional supremacy, judicial review, Charter rights, s. 1, parliamentary authority, critical race theory, feminist legal theory, legal realism, positivism, natural law, Indigenous legal perspectives, jurisdiction. Four relevant concepts/lenses required.