Grade 10 Civics
Unit 3 – Canada’s Legal System
Criminal and Civil Law
In civil law, a private party (e.g., a corporation or individual person) files the
lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by
the government, who is called the prosecution.
Punishment
The notion that the threat of punishment will deter criminal conduct is based on
the principle that human beings are rational. In reality, criminals are either
impulsive (i.e., not rational) or believe that they will not be caught. Therefore, the
threat of punishment does not deter criminal conduct
Legal theory considers the possibility of loss of freedom (i.e., incarceration / jail)
as much more serious than merely paying damages. As a result of this high
value placed on personal freedom, criminal litigation is more serious than civil
litigation. As such, criminal defendants have more rights and protections than
civil defendants. Why? The answer is economic. People would prefer to spend
one year in prison than pay a million dollars from their personal assets.
Criminal Law
A guilty defendant is punished by either (1) incarceration in a jail or prison
or (2) fine paid to the government.
Crimes are divided into two broad classes:
(1)
felonies have a maximum possible sentence of more than one
year incarceration, and
(2)
misdemeanors have a maximum possible sentence of less than
one year incarceration.
Civil Law
A defendant is never incarcerated. In general, a losing defendant only
reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior.
Burden of Proof
Criminal Law
The burden of proof is always on the State. The State must prove that the
defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to be innocent.
There are exceptions. If the defendant wishes to claim that he/she is insane
and therefore not guilty, the defendant bears the burden of proving his/her
insanity. Other exceptions include defendants who claim self-defense or
duress.
The State must prove that the defendant satisfied each element of the
statutory definition of the crime, and the defendant's participation, "beyond
a reasonable doubt" (e.g., numerical value of "at least 99%" certainty of
guilt).
Criminal and Civil Law…Page 2
Civil Law
The burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff.
The plaintiff wins if the evidence favours the plaintiff. If a jury believes that
there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in
causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins.
A few tort claims (e.g., fraud) require that plaintiff prove his/her case at a
level of "clear and convincing evidence but less than beyond a reasonable
doubt."
You Decide
Read the example
Decide whether it is a criminal or civil offense
Place a check mark in the column of your decision
Example
You slip on a slippery sidewalk and become injured.
You steal a car and wreck it on a joyride.
You are caught smoking marijuana.
You are driving a car. Another car hits your car, and you
are hurt in the accident.
On a summer job, you hurt your back while working and
can never work again.
You rape a friend.
You hire a contractor to build a deck, but the finished
product is poorly built and has to be fixed.
Your doctor does not discover that you have cancer in
time for the cancer to be treated.
You are broke and need money to feed your younger
brother and sister. You break into a house and steal
some cash.
You alter a friend’s driving license so it has your picture
and suggests you are eighteen.
Criminal
Civil
Criminal and Civil Law…Answers for Page 2
Civil Law
The burden of proof is initially on the plaintiff.
The plaintiff wins if the evidence favours the plaintiff. If a jury believes that
there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in
causing the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff wins.
A few tort claims (e.g., fraud) require that plaintiff prove his/her case at a
level of "clear and convincing evidence but less than beyond a reasonable
doubt."
You Decide
Read the example
Decide whether it is a criminal or civil offense
Place a check mark in the column of your decision
Example
Criminal
You slip on a slippery sidewalk and become injured.
Civil
X
You steal a car and wreck it on a joyride.
X
You are caught smoking marijuana.
X
You are driving a car. Another car hits your car, and you
are hurt in the accident.
X
On a summer job, you hurt your back while working and
can never work again.
X
You rape a friend.
X
You hire a contractor to build a deck, but the finished
product is poorly built and has to be fixed.
X
Your doctor does not discover that you have cancer in
time for the cancer to be treated.
X
You are broke and need money to feed your younger
brother and sister. You break into a house and steal
some cash.
X
You alter a friend’s driving license so it has your picture
and suggests you are eighteen.
X
Grade 10 Civics
Unit 3 – Canada’s Legal System
Criminal and Civil Law
You be the Judge
The Facts
McErlean, age 14, was riding a trail bike in an abandoned gravel pit owned
by the City of Brampton. The gravel pit was a place that was popular among
local trail bike riders. As McErlean raced down a smooth gravel road, he
and another boy, Sarel, collided at a sharp, blind curve in the road.
McErlean had been riding at speeds from 55 to 80 kilometres an hour.
Sarel had difficulty controlling his bike and was driving on the wrong side of
the road.
McErlean suffered brain damage that left him paralyzed and unable to
speak.
McErlean sued Sarel for negligence, and the City of Brampton for
negligence as owners of the property.
Questions to Consider
What standard of care applied to the boys while riding their trail bikes?
Was McErlean negligent in racing his trail bike on the road at the gravel pit?
Was Sarel negligent?
Was the City of Brampton, the owner of the land, responsible because it
allowed an unusual danger (the gravel road with the curve in it) to exist?
How would you decide this case and why?
Judge’s Decision
The trial judge found Sarel negligent and held that the City of Brampton was also
responsible. The City had allowed an unusual danger, the blind curve, to harm
McErlean. McErlean was also responsible too; his fault was set at 10%, Sarel’s
at 15% and the City’s at 75%.
The City of Brampton appealed. On the appeal the City argued that the blind
curve was not an unusual danger.
The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s finding that the City was not
liable. It held that the road was not an usual danger for its users. The boys were
not young enough to make it an unusual danger for them. Also, the boys had
been engaged in an adult activity, so their conduct would be measured against
adult standards.
The Court of Appeal found the boys were each 50% at fault.
Criminal and Civil Law - You be the Judge…Page 2
The Facts
Derrick Robertson, Matthew Butler and several other friends were riding
motorized trail bikes. The back brake of Matthew’s trail bike was not
working. During the afternoon the front brake lever dislodged. One of the
boys wedged it back in place, but the rider still had to hold it in place. All the
boys were aware of this.
Derrick borrowed Matthew’s bike and began riding it down a hill. The brakes
failed; he hit a rock and broke his arm and leg.
He and his parents sued Matthew’s parents for damages.
Questions to Consider
What standard of care would you expect a 14-year-old to use when
operating a motorized trail bike? On rocky terrain?
Would that standard of care change if the trail bike drivers were only ten
years old?
Would that standard of care change if the young people involved were
riding go-carts? Skateboards? Bicycles?
Were Matthew’s parents liable for not ensuring that the bike was used
safely?
How would you decide this case and why?
Judge’s Decision
The judge held that Derrick and Matthew were both liable for Derrick’s injuries.
Matthew was partly responsible for Derrick’s injuries, and Matthew’s parents
failed to supervise and control Matthew’s actions. It was their responsibility to
train Matthew to operate a trail bike properly and to ensure that he would obey
their instructions. They did not do this; they were found liable for 25% of Derrick’s
injuries.
Ordinarily the standard of care expected of a child depends on the age,
intelligence and experience of the particular child. The court also considers the
kind of activity in which they are engaged. The judge held Derrick to an adult
standard because driving a trail bike is an adult activity. Derrick’s conduct in
driving the trail bike did not meet this standard. The judge said Derrick should
have checked the brakes before starting down the hill. He was held 75% at fault
for his own injuries.
More Questions to Consider
In this case Derrick recovered only 25% of his damages from Matthew’s
parents. Damages were assessed at about $16,000; therefore, Derrick
recovered only $4,000. Was it a good idea to sue in this case?
What other options could Derrick and his family have considered?
Criminal and Civil Law - You be the Judge…Page 3
The Facts
Peter Poirier and John Murphy, both 18 years of age, agreed to carry out a
"stunt." The stunt was performed in an underground parking garage. Peter
stood underneath a water sprinkler pipe. After Peter nodded, John began
driving his car from about 60 m away and, at the last moment, Peter would
jump up, grab the pipe, do a chin-up, swerve his hips and legs to one side
and clear the car.
Drinking was not involved.
The stunt was performed as a form of amusement for Peter and John, and
a group of their friends who were in the car with them.
The stunt was performed safely a first time, but the second time Peter was
not prepared for it. Peter was hit by the car and injured. He became
unconscious, suffered a brain injury, and underwent lasting personality and
emotional changes.
Questions to Consider
Did Peter knowingly assume the risk of harm when he agreed to carry out
the stunt?
Was John negligent? Did he fail to take proper care to avoid harm to Peter?
Did Peter contribute to his own injuries by not taking reasonable care of
himself?
How would you decide the case and why?
Judge’s Decision
The judge held that Peter had given up his right to sue for negligence the first
time the stunt was performed, because he willingly assumed the risk of harm.
The second performance of the stunt was different because Peter was not ready
to perform the stunt. Peter did not assume a risk until he nodded his approval,
and he did not do so for the second run.
Both Peter and John were negligent. John was negligent because he owed a
duty as the driver of the car to take care. He should have realized that Peter was
not ready for the second stunt. John was 2/3 at fault.
Peter was also partly responsible for his own injuries. He was negligent in
agreeing to do the stunt and in not removing himself from the risk of harm before
the second stunt. Peter was 1/3 at fault.
Criminal and Civil Law - You be the Judge…Page 4
The Facts
Five-year old Donald Wilkins ran into the street from the sidewalk near a
crosswalk and was struck by a car driven by Hellen Allaby. Donald,
accompanied by a day-care teacher and three other children, was returning
to the day-care centre after an outing to a toy store.
At the time of the accident Donald was five years and ten months old. He
walked to the day-care centre with his mother and crossed busy streets to
get there. He often went on supervised walks from the day-care centre and
crossed busy city streets, including the street where the accident occurred.
Donald was bright, intelligent and experienced.
Hellen Allaby saw the children beside the road, but she did not reduce her
speed.
Questions to Consider
Can a five-year old child be held responsible for contributing to his own
harm?
What things should be considered in deciding whether a young child is
responsible or not?
How would you decide this case and why?
Judge’s Decision
The driver of the car, Hellen Allaby, was liable for damages caused by her
negligent driving. She had seen the children on the sidewalk, but had not
reduced her speed. There is a heavy responsibility on the driver of a car when
she or he is aware that children are waiting to cross a busy street. Because the
driver had not reduced her speed, she was at fault.
A young child should be judged by standards appropriate for a child of similar
age, intelligence and experience. Donald was a child of average intelligence, and
was experienced in crossing city streets. Children are not held to adult standards
of care. But a child such as Donald might be expected to take care not to cross
the street when cars are coming. A child who had no experience crossing city
streets, or a younger child, would not be held to the same standard.