into the garage and put her in his car‚ he then turned the engine on and poisoned her with carbon monoxide. Tracey’s mother was not involved in this‚ Latimer denied killing her at first but he later then confessed for his actions .In the trial R. V Latimer (1997) Robert was convicted for second degree murder although the Supreme
Premium English-language films Family American films
Case Brief By: Ashley Tam R. v. Martineau (1991)‚ 58 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.) Facts: The appellant‚ Martineau‚ was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code but the decision was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal who concluded that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could no longer be in effect. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada whether or not the appeal court was correct in
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Abortion Canada
THABO MELI v R Fact of the case : The defendants had taken their intended victim to a hut and plied him with drink so that he became intoxicated. They then hit the victim around the head‚ intending to kill him. In fact the defendants only succeeded in knocking him unconscious‚ but believing the victim to be dead‚ they threw his body over a cliff. The victim survived but died of exposure some time later. The defendants were convicted of murder‚ and appealed to the Privy Council on the ground that
Premium Causality Death Criminal law
Case Brief: R v.Shankar Citation: Regina v. Corey Shankar‚ 2007 ONCA 280 (CanLII) Facts: The accused was driving his car without the required laminated taillights when officers pulled him over late October 2004. The police asked Shankar for his licence‚ registration‚ and insurance. The accused handed over a licence in the name of Jason Singh‚ the insurance information handwritten on an informal yellow sticky note‚ and a photocopy of the vehicle registration. When inquired about the spelling of
Premium Appeal English-language films Judgment
Written by Sambhav Dhawan Advocating for the Appellant Multani v. Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys and Attorney General of Quebec The appellant Balvir Singh Multani and his son Gurbaj Singh Multani are orthodox Sikhs 1. Gurbaj Singh‚ born in 19892‚ as being a devoted Sikh follower. Gurbaj believes that his religion requires him to wear a kirpan at all times. A kirpan is as small religious object which symbolizes the purity of the faith and his commitment to defend it3.It bears a
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The reason I chose this case was due to the fact it was a popular case throughout my childhood and because my cousin was a quadriplegic and had a form of cerebral palsy where she was limited to being taken care of by medical and hospital staff I was just a small child at this time my family would have regular visits with her One summer she got extremely sick and went into a coma my aunt then had to make the decision to keep her on life support or to let her go So this case is very relevant to what
Premium Family Crime Police
Abortion Rights R.v. Morgentaler‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R.30 Canada has a history with the controversial issue of abortion. The two sides to this topic have strong opinions about the right and wrong decisions when it comes to abortion. One might believe that abortion should not exist in Canadian society. These people are most likely known as pro-life; who believe abortion is equal to murder. Others believe that abortion is a good thing‚ and has had a strong impact on Canadian society. These people are
Premium Abortion Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
LEGAL ISSUE R. Williams Construction Company v. OSHRC is a case regarding the rules and regulations of OSHA verse the practices of a construction company. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) is a government regulated organization that was created to ensure the safety of employees while on the job. The regulations of OSHA have been put in place to eliminate and/or reduce the number of on the job injuries and deaths. Therefore‚ legal issue of this case is whether or not the courts should
Premium Occupational safety and health Employment Construction
Personally‚ I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the landmark case of R. v. Dyment. Particularly‚ with La Forest J. commentary it provided on the importance of privacy: “…society has come to realize that privacy is at the heart of liberty in modern state…Grounded in man’s physical and moral autonomy privacy is essential for the well being of the individual. For this reason alone‚ it is worthy of constitutional protection‚ but it also has profound significance for the public order. The restraints
Premium Law Human rights United States Constitution
R. v. Dudley and Stephens I am arguing the Defence and I’m seeking the verdict of not guilty. The Defence of Necessity clearly states three points. The first one being that there must be an urgent situation of clear and imminent peril. The second one being that the accused must have had no reasonable legal alternative to breaking the law. The last one states that the harm inflicted by the accused must be proportional to the harm avoided by the accused. Tom Dudley‚ Richard Parker‚ Edmund
Premium