CLN 4U: Charter Brief Assignment
Due Monday November 2nd, 2014
For this assignment, you will create a legal brief on a ruling made by Canadian courts with
respect to Charter rights in Canada. You MUST choose one of the landmark cases below.
Case Options:
Choose one of the four cases below, and follow the instructions that follow to create your brief.
Aboriginal Rights
Legal Issue
Case Option
R. v. Marshall (1999)
Euthanasia
Rodriguez v. British Columbia (1993)
Freedom of expression and hate messages
R. v. Zundel (1992)
Equality and Same Sex Marriages.
R v. Morgentaler (1988)
R v. Askov (1990)
R v. Feeney (1997)
R. v. Aucoin (2012)
R. v. Loewen (2011)
R. v. Tessling (2004)
Halpern v. Canada Reference re: Same Sex
Marriage (2004)
OR Choose one of the Following Cases
R v. Sharpe (2001)
A.C. v. Manitoba (Director of Family and
Childrens Services)
R v. N.S. (2012)
R. v. Tse (2012)
R. v. J.Z.S. (2010)
R. v. Harrison (2009)
Creating Case Briefs
Legal briefs are short summaries, or abstracts, of a case written in your own words. The
purpose is to expose and fully understand the purpose behind a particular court decision. Your
job will be to distinguish pertinent facts from less important information. For this particular
assignment, a simplified version of a brief will be drafted on a particular Supreme Court case.
Your case should include the following sections:
Citation
Identifies the names of parties, which the court heard the case, and the year.
Martin v. Perrie, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 41 (S.C.C.)
Facts of the Case
This portion outlines what is significant in the case, and briefly states the facts. It should include
the following:
- A clear understanding of the events which gave rise to the litigation.
- The cases reviewed in class are edited down from their original length.
- Most cases deal with a great many issues and include many significant facts.
- Your job is to research and capture the most important issues.
Legal Issue(s)
What question(s) must the court address in order to arrive at its decision? Frame the issue in
the form of a single question.
The question should must simply answerable with a yes or no.
Questions can be both narrow and broad in scope. Narrow in scope would apply to the specific
case, but can be broadly addressed to other situations of a similar nature.
Decision
State the decision reached by the majority of the court.
Ratio Decidendi
Latin for “the rationale for the decision”. For this section, identify the rule of law used to support
or rationalize the judge's argument.
This section generally begins by naming the judge who read the decision.
Dissent
Identify the arguments of the judge(s) who did not agree with the majority opinion, if applicable.
Note that in some cases, there is no dissenting voice.
See page 315 in your textbook for further explanation.
Analysis
In this portion, you will evaluate the significance of the case, its relationship to other cases, its
place in history, and what it shows about the Court, its members, its decision-making processes,
or the impact it has on litigants, government, or society.
It is here that the implicit assumptions and values of the Judges or Justices should be probed,
the “rightness” of the decision debated, and the logic of the reasoning considered.
This is the student’s commentary on the case. It is NOT simply a summary of what has already
been stated elsewhere in the brief.
Student Name:
Level R
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
does not
accurately
identify
Explanation of facts
appropriate
/10 facts in the
case
limited
identification
of
appropriate
facts in the
case
some
identification
of
appropriate
facts in the
case
clear and
accurate
identification
of appropriate
facts in the
case.
Legal Issues &
(Thinking/Knowledge)
Analysis of issues
/10
no analysis
of issues
being
examined in
case.
limited
analysis of
issues being
examined in
case.
moderate
analysis of
issues being
examined in
case.
effective
analysis of
issues being
examined in
case.
Legal Issues &
Ratio Dicidendi
(Thinking/Knowledge)
no analysis
of issues
being
examined in
case.
limited
analysis of
court
decision.
moderate
analysis of
majority court
decision;
some or no
analysis of
minority
submission
is not in
appropriate
format
submission is
in
somewhat
appropriate
format but
contains
several
writing errors
seriously
affecting
communicatio
n of
meaning
submission is
in
appropriate
format but
contains
some writing
errors which
affect
communicatio
n of
meaning
effective
analysis of
court
decision, both
the majority
and minority
opinion.
submission is
written in
clear and
accurate
paragraph
form with
few errors
provides
limited
connection of
the
relationship
between
case and
impacts on
society
provides
moderate
connection of
the
relationship
between
case and
impacts on
society
clear,
accurate, &
effective
identification
of
appropriate
facts in the
case
highly
effective
analysis of
issues being
examined in
case.
highly
effective
analysis of
court
decision, both
of the majority
and minority
opinion.
submission is
written in
clear and
accurate
paragraph
form with few,
if any, errors;
thoughts
written with
flair and
attention to
detail
exceeds
expectations
provides clear
and
insightful
connection of
the
relationship
between case
and impacts
on society.
Facts of the Case
(Knowledge)
/10
Communication
Mechanics and proper
FIDS format
/10
Analysis
Significance of case
provides no
connection of
the
relationship
between
/10 case and
impacts on
society
provides solid
connection of
the
relationship
between
case and
impacts on
society