MRS.FERRY'S BLOG: November 2016

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

LAW Mock Trial Videos--Helpful

http://ojen.ca/resources/videos/mock-trial-how-to

Monday, November 28, 2016

CLU 3M R v Buhay case study

R v. Buhay Answer Key

1.Yes Buhay did have an expectation of privacy.

He had the contract for rental and use of locker for specific amount of time.

He had control of contents due to key.

No right to search it unless the locker contained something that posed a threat to the bus depot’s security. (No sign on the locker that mentions that the lockers could get searched.)

2.This statement is why the Court of appeal felt they could convict Buhay. They felt that the search did not violate his s8 rights because the guards were privately employed.

When private guards found pot, they were merely “transferring control of it” to the police.

No search and seizure violation by police mean that the evidence could be admissible.

3.Supreme Court acquitted Buhay. One can agree with this or not.

4.An appellant is the person appealing their case to a higher court after losing in a lower court.

5.The actual charge was possession for the purposes of trafficking.

6.Two other similar cases are: R v Feeney and R v AM and R v Tessling. They all relate to seach and privacy rights.

Friday, November 25, 2016

CLN 4U civil law case homework--answers Olympic Athlete

The Olympic Athlete Answers:

1.First PAN AM dr is negligent. She had an appointment with him and he assured her incorrectly. There did not seem to be a formal contract with the other dr.

2.Not necessary to know how important the answer was. Dr must do their work to best of their ability. Money riding on their answers should not be a factor. An Olympian patient’s concerns are as important as a housewife’s.

3.I think the one she relied on as team doc is liable.

4.Difficult question to answer bc he was incorrect that it contained no banned substances. This is a complete error. Should have read ingredients. The officials knew it would not have even affected her performance and stripped her anyway.

I would award $ for old contracts only. Future contracts could have failed for another unforeseen reason.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

CLU grade 11 law mock trials

R v Wai
1.Defence lawyers:Lidiya Faheema
2.Crown Lawyers: Andy Kianne
3.Defendant:Jesse Wai--Ibrahim
4.Defence witness Casey-Kymani\
5.Crown Witness Riwi:Enzo
6.Officer Cheyenne:Evyn
7.Court Serivces Officer: hILARY
8.Judge: Hanna

CLU Going to Court!

1.Watch the videos on the court system. It is about BC but applies to Ontario as well.

www.courtsofbc.ca
www.courtsofbc.ca

2.www.courtprep.ca
www.courtprep.ca

CLN 4U Mock Trial

International Law
1.Victim lawyer-hanifa
2.Prosecution-amy and stella
3.Defence-fayo and hank
4.Accused-ashely
4.Solider-darren
6.Witness- child-elexa
7.Parent witness-destiny
8.Witness for defence-Kaitland
8.Judge-emi

Civil Law
Case: PASHA V oPPLLINSKY

1.defence lawyers;Munem and Michael
2.Plaintiff lawyers:Emma R and Katie
3.Plaintiff-Sophie
4.Defendant- Finn
5.Defence witness-emma c
.Witness camp counsellor-destiny
6.Judge-Jon
7.Court Service officer-Spencer

Fadey vs Monarch Park

1.Plaintiff:victoria
2.Plaintiff lawyers-Hilary and KAsha
3.Defence laywers: Geilia and Mickey
4.Defence witness: (Jayme)Kristine
5.Plaintiff witness: teacher Hannah--Tazreen
6.Judge-jon
7.Coco
8.Court service officer-Spencer