In Mr. Andrew Beckett’s case, he was wrongfully terminated from his counsellor position at Wyatt, Wheeler & Brown, and has the opportunity to approach the legal options of a civil case, Charter of Rights and Freedoms case, or a Human Rights complaint. Each legal option has its advantages and disadvantages, although, there is one particular option which contains all of the facts and evidence that will be most effective for Mr. Beckett, due to his lack of time and need of financial income. After examining a Human Rights case, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and civil case, it is clearly evident that Mr. Beckett should take the approach of the Human Rights case due to the fact that it is most optimum legal choice regarding the predicament Mr. Beckett is facing.
A civil action would be a satisfying legal option to accelerate with because it entirely excludes government issues, as it mainly consists of one individual suing the other, such as Beckett v. Wyatt, Wheeler and Brown. Initially, in a civil suit, one can receive an immense amount of financial outcome, which for Mr. Beckett, would ultimately lead to the right approach. Although, with Mr. Beckett’s circumstance of having a limited time to live, due to his Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, before justice is served a civil case is an immoderately slow process, which essentially eliminates the option of Mr. Beckett proceeding with a civil case. In order to receive the financial remedies within a civil case, Mr. Beckett is required to be alive. Due to his medical condition, it would factually not be enough time to go forth with a civil case, as it is an excessively long process. This process consists of going through multiple procedures; cause of action (complaint or reason for suing), writ of summons (issued by the court), statement of claims (the facts according to the plaintiff), statement of defense (defendant’s response or counterclaim), reply, examination for discovery (evidence examined by...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document