reading a case primerfinal - representing yourself canada · 2019-08-07 · reading a case in order...
TRANSCRIPT
Reading and Understanding
Case Reports: A Guide for
Self-Represented Litigants
Margarita Dvorkina & Julie Macfarlane
The National Self-Represented Litigants Project September 2017
2
TableofContents
BeforeYouGetStarted 3PartI:NavigatingaCaseReport 51. Whatisacasereport? 52. Doallcasereportsdescribeatrial? 53. Howdoyouknowwhichcasereportsaretrialdecisions? 64. Whatinformationcanyouexpecttofindinacasereport? 8
a. Thecaption 9b. Thecasecitation 11c. Theheadnote 11d. Theauthoringjudge 12e. Thefactsofthecase 13f. Proceduralhistoryandappeals 14g. Referencestoothercases 15h. Legalprinciplesandotherauthoritativesources 16i. Theoutcome 18
PartII:UsingaCaseReporttoMakeYourOwnCase 19
a. Understandingprecedent 19b. Checkingthatacaseis“goodlaw” 20c. Understandingthefacts 22d. Understandingtheargumentsmadebyeachparty 22e. Findingthegemofthecase(ratiodecidendi) 23f. Whatistheimportanceoftheobiterdictumcommentsinacasereport? 25
g. Howdoyouknowwhatispartoftheratioandwhatisobiterdictum? 26
AppendixA:GlossaryofTerms 28AppendixB:CanadianCourtAbbreviations 32OurappreciativethankstoCynthiaEagan,DaynaCornwall,HopeMoonandCindyFreitagfortheireditorialandsubstantivecommentsonearlierdrafts.
3
BeforeYouGetStartedThegoalofReadingandUnderstandingCaseReportsistoequipself-representedlitigants(SRLs)withthenecessaryunderstandingtoreadareportedcourtdecision–a“casereport”–whenconductinglegalresearchandpreparingtopresenttheirowncasetoacourt.Weshallusetheterm“casereport”throughout,butyoumayalsoseeacourtdecisionreferredtoasa“judicialopinion”ora“judicialdecision”,sincewhenyouarereadingacasereport,youarereadingajudge’srulingonalegaldispute.ThisPrimerisdividedintotwoparts,andincludestwoappendices.
PartIexplainsthestructureofacasereport.Thiswillteachyouwhatyoushouldlookforwhenreadingacaseinordertoassessitsrelevancetoyourownmatter.PartIIoffersguidanceonunderstandingwhatyoureadinacasereport,themostimportantsections,andtherelevanceofthedifferentpartsofacasereport.AppendixAprovidesyouwithaGlossaryofimportanttermsthatwillbeusefulwhenyouarereadingacase,andpreparingmaterialsforpresentingyourmatter.Whenyouseeaterminboldred,youcanfindanexplanationofthattermintheGlossary.AppendixBprovidesyouwithalistofsomeofthecourtabbreviationsthatyoumaycomeacrosswhilereadingcasereports.
OnlinelegalservicessuchasCanLIIpublishcasereportsfromalloverCanadaandareanexcellentresourceforpreparingtopresentyourownarguments.UsingCanLll,youcanresearchandreadpreviouscasereportsoncasessimilartoyourown,andinthesamejurisdiction.Somelegaldatabasesareonlyavailabletolawyersandlawstudents,andatafee,butCanLllisfreeandpubliclyavailable.CanLllcanbechallengingtouse,becausetodosoeffectivelyyouneedtounderstandwhichcasesaremostrelevantandimportanttoyou.InordertomakethebestuseofReadingandUnderstandingCaseReports,werecommend
4
thatyouuseitincombinationwithNSRLP’sCanLIIPrimer(alsoavailableinFrench).BotharefreeonlineNSRLPPrimerswrittenspecificallyforSRLs.Inordertoconductyourownlegalresearchusingcasereports,youneedtobeabletodotwothings:1. Identifywhichearliercourtdecisions(foundviaCanLIIorotherlegaldatabases)willcarrythegreatestweightinrelationtoyourownlegalmatter.Thismeansunderstandingthesystemofprecedentandthestructureofthecourts,bothofwhichareexplainedintheCanLIIPrimer.Thisknowledgewillenableyoutonarrowdownwhichcasereportsmaybeusefultoyouinyourowncasepreparation.Werecommendthatyoureviewthisframeworkbeforegettingstartedwithyourlegalresearch1.WealsorecommendthatyoureadCindyFreitag’sblog,“CaselawResearchisLikeCheesecake.”
2. Analyzeandunderstandanindividualcasereport.Thisincludesunderstandinghowacasereportisstructured,whattolookforwhenreadingacaseinordertodetermineitsusefulness,andwhichpartsarethemostimportantandrelevanttoyourownmatter.
TheCanLllPrimerfocusesonthefirstofthesetasks–howtofindcasesthatmaybehelpfultoyourmatter.ThisPrimerwillhelpyouaccomplishthesecond–howtoread,understandandthenevaluatethosecases.WehavewrittenthisPrimerbecausereadingandanalyzingcasereportsisverychallengingandourgoalistohelpyoutoovercomeobstacles.Trynottogetdiscouragedifthecasereportyouarereadingseemsunclearorconfusing.Somejudicialwritingisvagueandambiguous.Someofthe“elements”describedinPartImightnotbepresentinthecasereport,ortheymaybeorganizedinadifferentsequence.Sometimesimportantfactswillbeomitted,makingthereasoninghardtofollow.Themorecasereportsyoulookat,theeasieritwillbecometonavigateandanalyzewhatyouarereading.Youwillbegintorecognizethebasicstructureandbecomefamiliarwiththetermsandlanguageused.Thismeansthatyouareonyourwaytoidentifyingthebestcasestouseaspartofyourownargumentstothecourt.
1Pages11-13inboththeEnglishandFrenchversionsoftheCanLIIPrimer.
5
PartI:NavigatingaCaseReport1. Whatisacasereport?
Whenalegaldisputeisfiledinacourt,thejudgesinthatcourtwillmakeadecision(sometimesaseriesofdeterminationsanddecisions)aboutthatdispute.Manyofthesedecisionsarepublishedascasereports.Acasereportisthewrittendecisionofajudgethatexplainshisorherreasoningforresolvingadisputeinaparticularway.Itdiscussestherelevantlegalprinciplesthatwillgenerallyapplyinsimilarsituations.Thisiswhyreadingearliercasereportscanbeusefultoyouasyoupreparetopresentyourownargumenttothecourt.
2. Doallcasereportsdescribeatrial?
No.Oftenthe“parties”(asthesidesinalegalcasearecalled)willnegotiateandsettletheirdisputebeforeafulltrial.But,inthemeantime,theremaybecasereportsonpreliminarymatters,suchaswhatevidencecanbebroughtforwardinthecase,whatpartiesareinvolved,orinwhichcourtitshouldbeheard.Thismeansthatsomecasereportsyouwillseewillnotprovideafinaldecisiononthemeritsofthatcase,butinsteadareinterimdecisionsdealingwithproceduralissues.Inotherwords,theyareaproceduralruling,notafinaldecisiononthemeritsofthecase(“trial”).Theymayprovideimportantbackgroundinformation,buttheyarenotgoingtohelpyouarguethelegalmeritsofyourowncase.Forthat,youwillneedtofindthefulltrialdecision(describedbelowat(3)).Theseproceduralhearingsthattakeplacebeforeatrialarecalled“motions”.Amotionisawrittenrequestthatapartycansubmittothecourtaskingthecourttomakeacertaindecision.Commonexamplesincludearequesttochangeachildsupportorder,arequestforanorderoncosts,arequestforanadjournment(toresumetrialatalaterdate),arequestfordocumentsfromtheotherside,arequesttoaddorremoveapartytothelawsuit,orevenarequesttostrikeouttheotherside’scase(“summaryjudgment”;seeNSRLP’s
Don’tfixateonaparticularwordthatisunfamiliarorhardtounderstand–insteadworkonunderstandingtheoverallcontextandthenreturntothatwordwhenyouhavefinishedreadingthecasereport.
6
ResearchReportonsummaryjudgments).Thesemotionscanbebroughtatanypointbeforethecaseissettledorgoestoafulltrial.Acasereportmaydescribeaproceduralrulingorafinaldecisiononthemeritsofthecase.Thehistoryofanymotionsmayalsoshowupinthecasereportofatrial.
3. Howdoyouknowwhichcasereportsaretrialdecisions?
Generally,yourresearchisgoingtofocusoncasereportsoftrialdecisionswhichsupportyourargument,notproceduralrulings.Atrialdecisionisthecourt’s“final”wordonresolvingalegaldisputeonitsmerits(unlessitisappealed;see(4.f.)below).Unlikeproceduralrulings,whicharelimitedtothesingleissuerequestedinthemotion,trialdecisionsofferexplanationsoflawandlegalprinciples,andsuggesthowacourtwoulddecideasimilarlegalmatter.Youwillgenerallybeabletospotaproceduralrulingbyreferencesinthebeginningofthereportthatmightsay“MOTION”,etc.Belowaresomeexamples.InFigure1below,thescreenshotshowsthebeginningofacasereportinCanLII.Youcanseethattheveryfirstheadingstatesthatthiswillbeamotionfordirections,whichmeansthatapartyfiledarequestforthecourt’sfurtherdirectionsfollowingthecourt’sorder.Figure1:Motionsexample1
7
Thesamecasereportstatesthattheonlyissuebeforethejudge“atthistime”willbetogivefurtherdirectionsonsecurityforcosts,andtoexplaintheeffectofthatorder.Thistypeoflanguageisanadditionalcluethatthisisaproceduralrulingratherthanadecisionfollowingafulltrial:Figure2:Motionsexample2
InFigure2above,youcanseethatthisisaproceduralreportratherthanatrialdecisionbecauseofthereferenceto“motion”andthenatureofthatmotion(“amotionforsummaryjudgmentrequestingthedismissalofthisaction”).Figure3showsaresponsetoonepartybringingamotionrequestingasummaryjudgment,whichisarequestaskingthecourttorulethattheotherpartyhasnomerittotheircase.Thelanguageofthisparagraphhelpsyoutofurtheridentifythatthisisaproceduralrulingbecauseitsaysspecificallythatthisdecisionwill“notaddresstheinformationinrelationtothespecificallegationsofdiscrimination”andthatthoseallegations“willbeaddressedinthefinaldecision”.Figure3:Motionsexample3
8
CompareFigure4belowwiththeexamplesofproceduralrulingsinFigures1-3,above.Figure4isacasereportfollowingatrial.Unlikeaproceduralrulingononecomponentofacaseinresponsetoamotion,acasereportthatisatrialdecisionaddressestheentirelawsuit,includingthefactsandargumentsmade.Figure4isanexampleofatrialdecision.Thisparticularcasereportisthedecisionofacourtofappeal;thiscasewasinitiallyheardbyalowercourt,andthe“losing”partyrequestedtheoutcomebereviewedbyahighercourt.(appealsarediscussedingreaterdetailbelowunderProceduralHistory(4.f.).Figure4:Atrialdecision
4. Whatinformationcanyouexpecttofindinacasereport?Usually,casereportsfollowatypicalstructure.Thissectionaimstohelpyouidentifythevariouspartsofthecasereportandtounderstandtheirsignificance.
9
a. ThecaptionThecaptionisthetitleornameofthecase–forexample,Moorev.ApolloHealth&BeautyCare(captionsareusuallyitalicizedwhenwritingalegalbrief).Itconsistsofthenamesofthepeopleororganizationsinvolvedinthedispute,whoarereferredtoasthepartiesorthelitigants.AsseeninFigure5,Ms.Moore(theplaintiff)issuingApolloHealth&BeautyCare(herformeremployer,thedefendant)Figure5:Two-partycivilcasecaption
HereishowthiscasecaptionlooksinCanLII:
Sometimestherearemorethantwopartiestothedispute.Whenyousee“etal.”,aLatinabbreviationfor“andother”,afterthenameofoneofthepartiesinthecaption,itmeansthatadditionalpersonsororganizationsarepartiestothedispute.Inthenextexample(Figure6below)fromCanLll,apartynamedAl-MandlawiissuingapartynamedGaraandotherparties,whoareindicatedbytheuseofetal.inthecaption.
MoorevsApolloHealth&BeautyCare
Caption
Parties/Litigants
10
Figure6:Multi-partycivilcasecaption
Itisimportanttonotethatthecaptionwillappeardifferentlyincriminalcases.Whenapersonischargedwithacriminaloffence,casesarealmostalwaysbroughtbytheState,notbyprivateparties.Thegovernmentbecomesapartytothecase,andisthefirstpartyinthecaption.CanadiancriminalcasesidentifythegovernmentasthepartythatisbringingalawsuitusingtheLatinwords“Rex”or“Regina”(“king”or“queen”,currently“Regina”).Inthecaption,Reginaisabbreviatedtojustoneletter–“R”.SothecasecaptionR.v.Smith(asseeninFigure7)meansthatthegovernmentisbringingthecase(aprosecution)againstMr.Smith(theaccused).Figure7:Criminalcasecaption
11
b. ThecasecitationUsually,thecasecitationwillfollowdirectlyunderneaththecaption,ortotherightofit.AsyoucanseeinFigure8,thecaptionofthecaseisfollowedbysomelettersandnumberswhichtellyou:
● theyearofthedecision● thenameofthecourtinwhichthecasewasdecided● the“reporter”inwhichyouwillalsofindthecasereport.The“reporter”isacollectionofcasereportsforthatcourtandthatyear.Thisusuallyincludesthevolumenumber(thereareoftenmultiplevolumesforanygivenyear).Inmanycases,the“reporter”willbeCanLll.
Figure8:Casecitation
InthecaseofMoorev.ApolloHealth&BeautyCare,thecasecitationincludesthenamesoftheparties,followedby2017(theyearthatthecasewasdecided),andthen“ONCA”(anacronymfortheOntarioCourtofAppeal).DifferentcourtsacrosstheprovincesandterritoriesofCanadaarereferredtobyvariousacronyms–foralistofsomeofthemostcommon,pleaserefertoAppendixB.Thenumber“383”isthepagenumberwherethedecisioncanbefoundinthereporter,whichhereisCanLII.
c. TheheadnoteManycasereportsalsoincludeaheadnote,typicallylocatedunderthecitationandbeforethemainbodyofthecasereport.Aheadnoteisusuallyabriefsummaryofalegalprincipleorrulediscussedinthecasereport,andabriefsummaryofthelegalissuethatthejudgmentunderneathwillfocuson.Aheadnotecanalsoincludeinformationonlegislationorothercasereportsthatarerelevanttothiscase,andwhetherthiscaseisonappeal.
12
Forresearchpurposes,theheadnotecanbeausefulquicksummary,butpleasekeepinmindthattheheadnoteisnotadirectquotefromthecasereportitselfandisnotwrittenbythejudge.Don’tquoteitwhenpresentingyourowncase.
Figure9:Theheadnote
TheheadnoteinFigure9tellsyouthatthiscasereportfocusesonanoralinsurancecontractandbrieflystatesthemainlegalprinciplesinvolved.Asintheaboveexample,theheadnoteissometimesitalicized.Theheadnoteisausefulplacetobegin,butifyouspotanissuetherethatrelatestoyourcase,youshouldreadthewholecasereport,ifpossible,inordertounderstandhowthecourtappliedthelawinthisearliercase.
d. TheauthoringjudgeUnderthecitation,youwillalsofindthenameofthejudgewhowrotetheopinion.Mostoften,itwillbealastnamefollowedbytheletter“J”whichstandsforJudgeorJustice.Figure10:Authoringjudge
13
InMoorev.Apollo(seeFigure10above),thedecisionwaswrittenbyBrown,J.A.orJusticeBrown,anAppealCourtjudge.Ifhewereajudgeofthetrialcourt,hewouldbedescribedsimplyas“BrownJ.”orJusticeBrown.Insomecasereportsyoumayalsoseetheabbreviationof“C.J.”whichstandsforChiefJustice.Notethatsomeopinionsareauthoredbymultiplejudges.
e. ThefactsofthecaseYouarenowatthemainbodyofthecasereport.Thisparttypicallyconsistsofthefactsofthecase,answeringthequestion“whathappened?”inthedisputenowbeforethecourt.
Youhavetokeepinmindthatnotallthefactsofagivencasearenecessarilydescribedinthe“facts”section:asajudgeauthorsanopinion,heorshedescribesthemostimportantfactsasheorsheunderstandsthem,andthoseconsideredtobemostrelevanttothedecisionthatfollows.
Often,thebeginningofthe“Facts”sectionisclearlyidentifiedbyaheading,asseeninFigure11.Figure11:Thefacts
Becausethesystemofprecedentrequiresthatcourtsinthesamejurisdictionfollowearlierdecisions,youwillbelookingatthefactstoseehowcloselyyoucanrelateyourownmattertothisone(seealsoPartII(b)below).
Don’tgetboggeddowninthedetailsofacase–youarelookingfor
differencesand/orsimilaritiestoyour
owncase.
14
f. ProceduralhistoryandappealsTrialdecisionsoftenincludeaproceduralhistory.Whereasthefactsofacase(above)describetheeventsthatoccurredbeforethedisputeenteredthecourtsystem,theproceduralhistorydescribeswhathappenedinthecaseafteritwasfiledincourt.Theproceduralhistoryofacasemayincludeanymotionsthathavebeenbrought(seethediscussionofmotionsabove),earlierpreliminaryhearingssuchascasemanagementconferencesorsettlementconferences,andinthecaseofanappeal,theearlier,lowercourttrialdecisionthatisnowbeingreviewed.Acasemaybeappealedwhenoneofthepartiesfilesarequesttoahighercourttoreviewtheoutcomeofthatcase.Whenacaseisappealed,itisreviewedbyahighercourt,whichcanoverruleandreplacethepreviousdecision,oragreewiththatdecisionandthusconfirmit.Theproceduralhistoryofacasewilltellyouwhetherthecasereportyouarereadinghassincebeenoverruledonappealbyahighercourt.Thisisimportantbecauseyouwanttoestablishthatthiscaseisstill“goodlaw”–meaning,ithasnotbeenoverruledandreplaced.Let’sreturntothecaseofMoorev.Apollo,andthecasereportofthetrialdecisionintheOntarioCourtofAppeal.Theproceduralhistoryis(typically)givenatthebeginningofthecasereport.Hereitisdescribedundertheheading“Overview”,asseeninFigure12.TheproceduralhistorytellsusthatthiscasebeganintheSmallClaimsCourt,whereMs.Moore,aself-representedlitigant,suedherformeremployer,ApolloHealth&BeautyCare.Shelost,andisnowappealingtotheOntarioCourtofAppeal.Figure12:Proceduralhistory
15
Paragraphs12and13describetheearlierSmallClaimsCourttrial.Itisimportanttocheckwhetherthecasereportyouarereadingisthe“finalword”or“goodlaw”onthecase,orwhetherithassincebeenappealedtoahighercourtandperhapschanged.PartIIreturnstothistopicandgivesyousometipsonhowtocheckthatthecasereportyouarerelyingoninyourownargumentisstill“goodlaw”.
g. Referencestoothercases
Acasereportwillofteninclude(sometimesintheproceduralhistory)areferencetoearlierdecisionsthatthecourtconsidersrelevanttotheirjudgment.Sometimesthecourtwill“citeto”suchdecisionswithapproval–andsometimestheywill“distinguish”them.Thismeansthatthecourtdiscussesanearliercasebutdecidesthatitisnotrelevanthere.Itmaybeusefulforyoutoreadthecases“citedto”withapproval,butlessusefultoreadthosethatare“distinguished”.Thesubsequentproceduralhistoryofacasecanalsotellyouwhenandhowthisdecisionhasbeenreferredto(“citedby”)bylatercases.Thiswillgiveyouanideaofhowwidelyappliedandknownthecaseis,andisusefulfor“tracking”howthecasehasbeensubsequentlyinterpretedbyothercourts.YoucangetthisinformationinCanLllbyclickingonthe“citedby”linkonthemainpageofyourcasereport.ThisprocessisexplainedintheCanLIIPrimer,onpages20–21(bothEnglishandFrenchversions).
Makesurethatthedecisionyouarereadingisthefinalwordinthatcase–thatithasnotbeenoverruledandreplacedlaterbyahighercourt’sdecision.
16
h. Legalprinciplesandotherauthoritativesources
Youarefinallyreachingthepointinthecasereportwherethelegalprinciplesbehindthedecisionarediscussed!Typically,youwillfirstseeadiscussionofthegenerallegalprinciplesrelevanttothefactsofthecase.Next,thecasewilldiscusshowtheselegalprinciplesmaybedirectlyappliedtothefactsofthecaseyouarereading.Itistheapplicationoftheserelevantlawstothefactsofthecasethatwilldetermineandexplainthecaseoutcome.Thelegalprinciplesthatarerelevanttothecasemaycomefromseveraldifferentsources.Ajudgemayuseprinciplesthatarewritteninlegislationorstatutes–lawspassedbytheCanadianParliament.Ajudgemayalsodiscusslegalprinciplesandrulesthatcomefromcommonlaw.Usually,thetermcommonlawreferstothebodyofpreviouscasereports,alsoknownasprecedents,thatarerelevanttothiscase2.Finally,anargumentmaydrawonanother“authoritative”source;forexample,astatementofprinciplesfromaprofessionalorganization,orfromthepublishedwritingofarespectedjurist.Sometimesthecasereportwillincludealengthydiscussionofhowaparticularlegalprincipleiscentraltothejudge’sreasoning.Let’sreturntothecaseofMoorev.Apolloforanexample.
Undertheheading“Misapprehensionoftheevidence”(Figure13,below),thecasereportaddressesoneoftheissuesraisedonappealbyMs.Moore.Thiswasthatthejudgeather(SmallClaimsCourt)trial“misapprehended”(failedtoconsider)herevidence.InParagraph37(circled),thejudgesetsouttherelevantlaw.Inthenextparagraph(Para38),hediscusseshowthislegalprincipleisrelevanthere,applyingthelawtoMs.Moore’scase.
2Forareviewofprecedentincommonlaw,seetheNSRLPCanLIIPrimeratpage11,1.2“SystemofPrecedent”
17
Figure13:Legalprinciples
YoucanalsoseethatinParagraph37thejudge“citesto”tothecaseofRv.Morrissey,anearliercasethatdiscussesthegenerallegalprinciplesgoverningthemisapprehensionofevidence.
Anotherheadinginthecasereportreads“Ascertainingwhetheraself-representedpersonhasabandonedpartofherclaim”(Figure14).Thisprovidesanexcellentexampleofreferencetoan“authoritativesource”thatisneithercaselawnorstatute.Figure14:Anauthoritativesource
Theprinciplesthejudgereferstoherearenotfoundincourtdecisions.TheyaretheStatementofPrinciplesofSelf-representedLitigantsandAccusedPersonswrittenbytheCanadianJudicialCouncil.ThejudgeexplainsthatthisStatement
18
hasbeenapprovedbytheSupremeCourtinthecaseofPinteav.Johns3in2017(anotherexampleof”citingto”).Aftersettingouttherelevantlawandotherauthoritativesources(andlegislation,ifapplicable),mostjudgesgoontofurtherexplainandjustifytheirreasoning.Sometimesjudgeswillemphasizetheimportanceofpublicpolicy–thatis,makingsuretheoutcomeofthiscaseisconsistentwithestablishedpublicpolicyprinciples(forexample,notupholdingan“unconscionable”or“immoral”contract).Similarly,thejudge’sreasoningmayrefertoprinciplesofproceduralfairnessandjusticethatareseenasfoundationaltothelegalsystem(forexampletheprincipleof“opencourt”).InPartIIweshallexplainhowyoucanencapsulatethejudge’sreasoningasthe“ratiodecidendi”orthe“gem”attheheartofthecase.
i. Theoutcome
Attheendofthejudge’sopinion,youwillseea“holding”ordisposition,whichsetsoutwhatactionthecourtordersinthiscase.IfthecaseisbeingheardbyanAppealCourt,andmorethanonejudgeissitting,thejudgmentyoureadinacasereportisthedecisionofallorthemajorityofthejudgeshearingthecase(butitiswrittenbyjustoneofthem,the“authoringjudge”).Sometimesjudgeswhoagreewiththemajoritywillissueaseparate,additional(usuallyshort)decisionstatingthatthey“concur”butemphasizingaparticularpointorlineofreasoningthatdiffersslightlyfromthemajoritydecision.Ifajudgewritesaconcurringdecision,theyhavestillreachedthesameresultastherestofthecourt,butdidsobyusingadifferentlegalprincipleorforadifferentreason.
Whenoneormorejudgeshaveadifferentopinionthanthemajorityandhavereachedadifferentresult,theyprovidea“dissent”.Adissentingopinionnotonlyidentifiesadifferentlegalprinciple,butalsoarguesthattheresult(themajoritydecision)shouldhavebeendifferent.
3Pinteav.Johns,2017SCC23(CanLII)
19
Also,inacasereportofanappealdecision,youwillseethefollowinglanguagethattellsyouwhatthe(new)outcomeis:
➢ TheAppealCourtmayaffirmthedecisionthatwasmadeearlierbythelowercourt.Ifadecisionisaffirmeditmeansthatthecourtfindsnoerrorinthedecisionofalowercourt,andagreeswithit,comingtothesameresult.
➢ TheAppealCourtmayreversethelowercourt’sdecision.Thismeansthatthedecisionofalowercourtisoverturned.
➢ Occasionally,thecourtmayremandalowercourt’sdecision,whichmeansthatthecasewillbesentbacktothatlowercourttobeheardagain.
PartII:UsingaCaseReporttoMakeYourOwnCaseNoteverycasereportyoureadwillhelpyoutomakeyourownargument.Onceyouarefamiliarwithwhatinformationisavailableinacasereport,youarereadytostartevaluatingwhichcaseswillhelpyoutomakeapersuasiveargumenttothecourt.
a. UnderstandingprecedentThefirstthingyouneedtodoisreviewhowthesystemofprecedentworksinCanadianlaw.Thisisacommonsensesystem,withthedecisionsofhighercourtsalways“trumping”(iftheycometoadifferentdecision,overruling)thoseoflowercourts.Thereisalsovalueinfindingacaseinthesamejurisdiction(province,court)astheoneyouareapplyingto.ThesystemofprecedentwerefertothroughoutthisPrimerisreviewedbytheEnglishandFrenchCanLIIPrimersandyoushouldlookatthesedocumentsifyouneeda“refresher”.
Don’tgetoverwhelmedbyreadingtoomany
cases.Don’tgodowneveryrabbithole.Youdon’thavetohaveeverypossible
precedent–yourgoalistofindtwoorthree(orevenjustone)reallyclear,strongprecedentsforyourownargument.
20
b. Checkingthatacaseis“goodlaw”Ifyouhavefoundacaseinyourjurisdictionwhichyouthinkissimilartoyourownandwillsupportyourargument,younextwanttobesurethatthecasereportyouarereadingisstill“goodlaw”andhasnotbeenappealedandoverruled(seeabovePartI(f)).Ifthiscasewasappealedandtheoriginaldecisionoverruled(reviewedandchanged),itwillnothelpyourownargument.Herearesometipsforcheckingwhetheracaseis“goodlaw”inCanLll:(a) DecisionsoftheSupremeCourtofCanadaarealwaysthefinalword
onacase–thisisthehighestcourtofthecountry.IfthecasereportyouarereadingisfromtheSupremeCourtofCanada,restassuredthatitisthefinalword.
(b) IfthecaseyouarereadingisadecisionofaprovincialCourtofAppeal(anappealcourtthatreviewstheoriginaldecisionbyalowerprovincialcourt,forexample:theOntarioCourtofAppealintheexampleaboveatFigure12),unlessthereisafurtherappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanada,whatyouhaveisthefinaloutcomeofthatcase.SinceJanuary2006,CanLlllinksalldecisionsissuedbyCourtsofAppealtotheappealedlowercourtdecision.Asthehighercourt,theCourtofAppealdecisionis“goodlaw”,whetherornottheappealjudgesagreedwiththelowercourt’sdecision.
(c) Ifyouarestillunsure,onewaytofindoutwhethertherewereanyfurtherappealsinthecasereportyouarereadingistorunasearchinCanLllusingthenameofthecase(itscaption,explainedaboveinPartI,section4.a.).Let’sworkthroughanexampleusingthecaseofMoorev.Apollo.
Step1:CutandpastethecaptionintothemainCanLllsearchpage.Toreturntothemainsearchpage,clickonthelarge“CanLII”symbolinthetopleftcorner.Figure15illustrateswhatyouwillsee.
21
Figure15:MainCanLllsearchpage
StepTwo: Youcannowpastethecaptionintooneofthreeplaces.The“Documenttext”or“Casename,legislationtitle,citationordocket”fieldsallowforabroadersearch(youcanlearnmoreaboutthespecificsofthesearchofeachfieldbyclickingthequestionmarksonthefarright).Thelowerfield(“Noteup”)isdesignedforalimited,morespecificsearch.PuttingthecaptionforMoorevApolloin“Documenttext”takesustothefollowingresult(Figure16):
Figure16:Isthiscasereportthefinalword,orhasitbeenappealed?
22
StepThree:Interpretingyourresults.YoucanseefromthesearchresultsinFigure16thatthe2016casereportofMoorevApolloisnotthefinalword–in2017therewasanappealtotheOntarioCourtofAppeal(ONCA).YoucannowclickonthesecondresultandreadthefinalappealandholdingofMoorev.Apollo.
c. Understandingthefacts
Ifyouwishtouseacasereporttosupportyourownargumenttothecourt,youmustbeabletoshowthatitisfactuallysimilar.Makenoteofthefactorsthatshapethecasereportandthedisputeitisdescribing(seeabove,PartIsection4.e.).Canyouaddressanyfactualdifferencesthatmightpreventthesetwosituationsfrombeingresolvedinthesameway?Alternatively,youmayreadacasereportthatreachesadifferentoutcometotheoneyouwanttoargueforinyourowncase–andalthoughthefactslooksimilar,youthinktherearesomeimportantdifferences.Inthiscase,youcanusethiscasereporttoshowhowyourowncaseisfactuallydifferentandthereforeshouldbedecideddifferently–inotherwords,youwouldliketodistinguishthiscaseinyourownargument.Ifthisisyourgoal,makenoteofthefactorsthatsetthetwocasesapart.
d. Understandingtheargumentsmadebyeachparty
Trytolocatetheargumentsmadebyeachpartyinthecasereport.Ifyouunderstandtheclaimsmadebyeachside,itwillbeeasiertounderstandthecaseoutcome.Moreover,asyoureadthroughthecasereportyouwillseehowthecourtreactedtoeachargument.Thisallowsyoutoseewherethepartiessucceeded,andwheretheirclaimswererejected.Itcanbehelpfultomakebriefnotesoneachparty’sclaimandargument.Whatistheoutcometheyareaskingfor?Whatargumentsdotheyuse?(Andperhaps,whatothercasesdotheyreferto?)Whatdoesthecourtsayaboutit?Whydoesthecourtgrantthemtheoutcometheyaskedfor,orrefuseit?Whatcasesdoesthecourtcitetowithapprovalinreachingitsdecision?
23
Understandingtheargumentmadebyapartyinasimilar-factcasewhotakesapositiondifferenttoyourownisveryimportant.Thiswillallowyoutobetteranticipatethequestionsthatthecourtmightaskyouinordertojustifyyourownargument.
e. Findingthegemofthecase(ratiodecidendi)
PartIexplainedhowthecasereportwilldescribetheoutcomeofthecase,andtheresultingactionsofthecourt.Nowyouneedtogoastepfurtherinanalyzingthatoutcome.Asyoureadthroughthejudge’sreasoning,youwilleventuallyreachthemostimportantelementofeverycasereport–theratiodecidendiorratioforshort.ThisLatinphrasemeans“thereasonforthedecision”.Theratio–ortheruleofthecase–explainsandjustifiesthecourt’ssolutiontothelegalissueathand.Ifyouarereadinganappealcourtjudgment,youwanttolookfortheratiointhemajoritydecision.Itwillnotbefoundinaconcurringdecision,althoughthisanalysisisconsidered“persuasive”infuturecases.Anditwillnotbefoundinany“dissent”(seeabovePartIsection4.i.).Adissentissometimesdescribedas“strong”whereitpointsoutaseriousflawinthereasoningofthemajoritydecision.However,adissentisnotadecisionthatyoucanrelyontomakeyourownargument–rememberthatthemajoritydisagreedwiththisposition.Atbest,youcanuseittoraisesomedoubtsandnewideas.
Theratiodecidendiisthe“gem”thatyouaresearchingforinyouranalysis.Theratioiscrucialforfutureinterpretationofsimilarlegalissues.Anythingthatthejudgesaystojustifythedecision,andanycaseorstatuteorotherauthoritativesourcethatisreliedoninthatreasoning,formspartoftheratio.Theratioisyourmostimportant“take-away”.Not
onlydoesitdescribethecourt’sresolvedoutcometothedisputeathand,butitalsorepresentsthelegalprinciple(s)inthiscase.Andbecauseoftheprincipleofprecedent,theratioisbindingonlowercourtsconsideringsimilarfactcases–perhapsincludingyours.
Yourultimategoalistofindthegemofthecase–ratiodecidendi,thefinalwordofthecourtinthatcaseandthemainoutcomeofthe
decision.
24
Noteverythinginthedecision(ormajoritydecision)istheratio,andyouneedtodistillwhatisessentialtothereasoning.Let’slookatthisexamplefromthecaseofMs.Moore(Figure17).Figure17:Ratiodecidendi
Here,thejudgenolongerdiscusseslegalprinciplesintheabstract.Hehasalreadyreferredtotheauthorities(above,Figures13&14)thathebelievesapplytothiscaseandhasappliedthemtothefactshere.Nowhestatesalegalprinciplewhichwillbecomeapartoftheratio.Itcanbesummarizedasfollows:
“Judgesmustmakespecificinquirieswhenthereisaquestionraisedaboutevidenceoftheself-representedlitigant.”
Thisrationotonlystatesalegalprinciple,butgivespracticalinstructionsonhowtoensurethatitisfollowedinfuturecases.Findingtheratioisthesinglemostchallenging,andthemostimportant,partofreadingandanalyzingacase.Ifyoucandothiseffectively,youwillbeabletousethecasesthatyouhaveidentifiedasrelevanttoyourowncaseinapowerfulway.Thisisnoteasy–ittakeslawyersyearsofpracticeandisanacquiredskill.Thesetipsmayhelp:
● Theratioisoftenprecededbywordslike“wefindthat…”“ourrulingisthat…”etc.
25
● Theratioiscentraltothejudge’sreasoningonwhoisgoingtowin–sowhenyoustarttogetasenseofwhosesidethejudgeisgoingtotake,youareinratioterritory!4
● Theratioisnotjustanabstractdescriptionofthelaw,butapragmaticapplicationtothefactsofthiscase.
● Theratiomaybestatedbroadly(whichwillhelpyoumakeit“fit”yourowncase)oritmaybeverynarrowandfact-specific.Ifitisstatednarrowly,becarefulabout“stretching”ittoyourowncaseunlessthefactsareverysimilar.
Remember:thisisanartnotascience.Thereisnodefinitiveratioforeachcase–lawyersargueoverthisendlessly–justuseyourbestguessaboutwhatisatthecoreofthedecision.Youwillgetbetteratthisthemorecasereportsyouread.
f. Whatistheimportanceoftheobiterdictumcommentsinacasereport?
Whiletheratioisthemostimportantpartofthecasereport,youwillalsowanttonotethecourt’scommentsthat,whilenotpartofthesolutiontothelegalissueathand,areofferedasobservationsbythejudge.Thesestatementsarecalledobiterdictum(singular)ordicta(plural),aLatinexpressionthatmeans“thingssaidbytheway”.Commentsmadeobiterdictumarenotasimportantorasusefultoyouastheratio,whichistheultimatelegalprinciple.Nonetheless,obitercommentscanbeimportant.Althoughitwillnotformpartoftheprecedent(thisislimitedtotheratio),obiterdictacanbe“persuasive”–meaningthattheymayinfluence,althoughnotdetermine,futuredecisions.Sometimesnewcaseswillincorporateearlierobitercommentsintoanewdecisionorratio.ObiterdictafromaSupremeCourtofCanadadecisionareespeciallyinfluentialinlowercourts.
4Describedasthe“aha”momentbySurviveLaw,July18th2017
26
g. Howdoyouknowwhatispartoftheratioandwhatisobiterdictum?
Thisisatoughcall.Generally,obiterdictaarecommentsofferedbyajudgewhicharenotdirectlyneededtosolvethelegaldispute.Thesecommentssometimestaketheformofahypotheticalexample,usingdifferentfactsfromthecaseathand,inordertoillustrateaprincipleoflaw.Hereisanexamplefromaveryoldandwell-knowncase,Carlillv.CarbolicSmokeBallCompany5:“IfIadvertisetotheworldthatmydogislost,andthatanybodywhobringsthedogtoaparticularplacewillbepaidsomemoney,areallthepoliceorotherpersonswhosebusinessitistofindlostdogstobeexpectedtositdownandwritemeanotesayingthattheyhaveacceptedmyproposal?Why,ofcoursenot!”ThefactsofthecaseofCarlillv.CarbolicSmokeBallCompanydidnotinvolveanylostdogs,butthejudge’shypotheticalexampleisanillustrationofthecontractualprinciplethatislatersetoutintheratioofthecase.Thisexample,however,isobiter.Obitercommentsmayalsorefertoorsetthecontextforthedecision.Forexample,inthecaseofMoorev.Apollo,thejudgeisaskedtoruleonwhetherinthiscaseMs.Moorewasgivensufficientjudicialassistance(hesaidno).Hewasnotaskedtomakeanydeterminationabouttheincreasednumberofself-representedlitigantsinthecourts;nevertheless,hechosetohighlightthisas“thenewreality”Para41,seeFigure18below).Thesecomments,sincetheyarenotdirectlyrelatedtotheoutcomeinthiscase,areobiter:Figure18:Obiterdictum
5Carlillv.CarbolicSmokeBallCo.,[1893]1QB256
27
Itispossibletoimaginequotingthephrase“newreality”inanargumentinanothercaseaboutjudicialassistanceforSRLs–notasalegallybindingprinciplelikearatio,butasimportantcontext.
28
AppendixAGlossaryofTerms
Accused: apersonwhoischargedwithacrime.Action: acivillawsuit.Act: astatute(oralaw)passedbylegislature.Affirm: anAppealCourtmayaffirmadecisionmadeearlierby
Ifadecisionisaffirmeditmeansthatthecourtfindsnoerrorinthedecisionofalowercourt,andagreeswithit,comingtothesameresult.
Appeal: whenapartyasksahighercourttoreviewthedecision
ofalowercourt.Appellant: apersonwhoisappealingadecisionofacourtby
askingforreviewbyahighercourt.Appellatecourt: acourtthathearsappealsofcasedecisionsfromlower
courts.Caption: thetitleornameofacasereport.Citation: thepartofacasereportthatusuallyfollowsthe
captionorisdirectlyunderneaththecaption;thecitationstatesthenameofthecourtwherethecasewasdecided,the“reporter”(collectionofcasereports)wherethetextwillbefound,thereporter’svolumenumber,andtheyearthecasewasdecided.
Citesto: whenacourt“citesto”itmentionsorreferstoan
earlierdecision.Citedby: whenandhowoftenthisparticularcasehasbeen
referredto(“citedby”)byothercases.
29
CommonLaw: agenerictermforthejusticesystemwhichoperatesincountriessuchasCanada,theUnitedKingdom,andtheUnitedStates,wherebylawiscreatedviapreviousjudicialdecisions(precedent).
Counsel: anothertermforlawyerorlegalrepresentative.Concurringdecision: anopinionwrittenbyajudge(orjudges)thatagrees
withthemajoritydecisionbutdescribesadifferentreason(oradditionalreasonorlegalprinciple)forreachingthesameoutcome.
Damages: theremedy,usuallymonetarycompensation,awarded
tothewinningpartyinalawsuit.Decisiononmerits: thefinaldecisioninalawsuit,basedonweighingthe
evidenceandthearguments.Defendant: apartyagainstwhomacivillawsuitisbrought,ora
personwhoischargedwithacriminaloffence.Disposition: outcomeofthecase.Dissentingopinion: adecisionwrittenbyajudge(orjudges)thatdisagrees
withthemajoritydecisionintheoutcome.Thedissentisnotthefinaloutcomeortheruleofacase.
Distinguish: wherethecourtdiscussesanearliercasebutdecides
thatitisnotrelevanttothecurrentcaseHearing: anyproceedingbeforeacourt.Headnote: apartofacasereport,typicallylocatedunderthe
citationandbeforethemainbodyofthecasereport.Aheadnoteisusuallyabriefsummaryofalegalprincipleorrulediscussedinthecasereport.Theheadnoteisnotapartofthecasejudgmentandisnotwrittenbytheauthoringjudge.
30
Holding: thedecisionreachedbythecourt.Legalbrief: alegaldocumentwrittenbyonepartyandsubmitted
tocourtthatcontainsthisparty’sargument.Legaldatabases: collectionsofcasereportsthatareusuallyaccessed
onlineLegislation: alaworabodyoflawthatiscreated(“passed”)bythe
legislature.Legislature: thegovernmentalbodythathastheauthoritytomake
laws.Motion: arequesttoacourtfiledbyonepartyaskingfora
proceduraldecisionthatwillaffecttheprogressofthecase.
Obiterdictum (pluralObiterDicta)a“passingremark”,commentary
madebyajudgeinadecisionwhichisnotpartofthelegalreasoning(“ratio”)andwhichisnotbindingonfuturedecision-makers.
Plaintiff: apersonwhobringsalawsuitoraction.Party: oneoftheparticipantsorsidesinalawsuit.Petition: awrittenapplicationfromapartytoacourtaskingfor
“relief”.“Relief”maybeanorderforcompensation,variationofanexistingorder,adivorce,orotherrequest.
Precedent: onecase–sometimesagroupofcases-thatestablisha
patternthatisbindingandwhichmustbefollowedbylowercourts(orthesamecourt)inthatjurisdictionunless“distinguished”onthefacts.
31
Proceduralhistory: informationonhowthecasehasprogressedsinceitbegan(includeslowercourtdecisions,motionshearings).
Proceduralruling: acourtorderregardingaspecificrequestmadebyone
ofthepartiestoalawsuitaboutaproceduralmattersuchasaddingorremovingapartytothelawsuit,arequestfordocumentsorotherinformationfromtheotherside,orarequestforsummaryjudgment.
Prosecution: acriminaltrialinwhichachargeisbroughtbythe
StateagainstanaccusedRatiodecidendi: thepartofthecasereportthatisiscrucialforfuture
interpretationofsimilarlegalissues.Anythingthatthejudgesaystojustifythedecision,andanycaseorstatuteorotherauthoritativesourcethatisreliedoninthatreasoning,formspartoftheratio.
Reverse: anAppealCourtmayreversethelowercourt’sdecision.Thismeansthatthedecisionofalowercourtisoverturned.
Remand: occasionally,anAppealCourtmayremandalower
court’sdecision,whichmeansthatthecasewillbesentbacktoalowercourttobeheardagain.
Respondent: apartyagainstwhomapetitionisfiled.Forexample,
theotherspousewhenonespousefilesfordivorce,ortheotherpartywhenoneside(the“appellant”)filesanappeal.
Statute: alawpassedbythelegislature.Summaryjudgment: arequesttothecourtbymotiontodismissthecaseof
theotherpartywithoutafulltrial.Trialcourt alsosometimesreferredtoasthe“originalcourt”ina
proceduralhistory,thetrialcourtiswherethecasewasfirstpresented.
32
AppendixB
CanadianCourtAbbreviationsAlbertaCourtofAppeal: ABCAAlbertaCourtofQueen’sBench: ABQBBritishColumbiaCourtofAppeal: BCCABritishColumbiaSupremeCourt: BCSCManitobaCourtofAppeal: MBCAManitobaCourtofQueen’sBench: MBQBNewBrunswickCourtofQueen’sBench: NBQBNewBrunswickCourtofAppeal: NBCANewfoundlandandLabradorCourtofAppeal: NLCANewfoundlandandLabradorSupremeCourt: NLTD(G)(TrialDivision)NovaScotiaCourtofAppeal: NSCANovaScotiaSupremeCourt: NSSCNunavutCourtofAppeal: NUCANunavutCourtofJustice: NUCJOntarioCourtofAppeal: ONCAOntarioSuperiorCourtofJustice: ONSCOntarioCourtofJustice: ONCJPrinceEdwardIslandCourtofAppeal: PECAPrinceEdwardIslandSupremeCourt: PEICourSupérieureduQuébec: QCCSCourduQuébec: QCCQSaskatchewanCourtofQueen’sBench: SKCASaskatchewanSuperiorCourt: SKSC
33
YukonTerritoryCourtofAppeal: YTCAYukonTerritorySupremeCourt: YTSCNorthwestTerritoriesCourtofAppeal: NWTCANorthwestTerritoriesSupremeCourt: NWTSCSupremeCourtofCanada: SCC