assignment_1 - ADMN 390: Assignment 1 Your Name: 1 of 5...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ADMN 390: Assignment 1 Your Name: 1 of 5 Assignment 1 Complete Assignment 1 after Unit 2. Follow the general directions provided under “Course Assessment” in the Study Guide. MULTIPLE CHOICE Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or answers the question. ONE MARK EACH (8 marks for section) 1. Which of the following best describes the role of the lawyer? A) The client makes decisions regarding civil matters; the lawyer makes decisions regarding criminal matters. B) The lawyer is simply one of the experts the businessperson consults. C) The client must follow the lawyerʹs instructions, as long as they are lawful. D) The lawyer makes the legal decisions for the client. E) The lawyer makes decisions regarding civil matters; the client makes decisions regarding criminal matters. 2. Which of the following will override a particular provincial common‐law rule as articulated by a trial‐court judge of the highest trial level court in the province? A) A contrary ruling by a small claims court judge B) A new provincial statute to the contrary in another province C) A contrary ruling by an appeal court judge in another province D) A similar subsequent ruling by a trial‐court judge in another province E) A contrary subsequent ruling by the Court of Appeal of the province 3. Which one of the following is not generally recognized as a source of the common law? A) Roman civil law B) The law of equity C) Local British customs and traditions D) Church (or canon) law E) The law merchant TRU Open Learning ADMN 390: Assignment 1 Your Name: 2 of 5 4. In Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court of Canada A) held that only the federal legislation was invalid. B) held that only the provincial legislation was invalid. C) concluded that the federal and provincial legislation were in conflict, with the result that paramountcy would apply. D) concluded that the federal and provincial legislation were not in conflict; one simply went further than the other. E) held that both the federal and provincial legislation were invalid. 5. Which of the following is not a rule of natural justice? A) A person must be allowed to retain a lawyer. B) A person must be given an opportunity to put his side forward. C) The decision maker must be impartial. D) A person affected by a decision must be notified that the decision is to be made. E) A person must be given the opportunity to cross‐examine a witness or complainant if that is the only way to defend himself. 6. Which one of the following statements is correct with respect to how the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms affected parliamentary supremacy? A) The federal parliament is now supreme and can override anything done by the provincial legislatures or the courts. B) Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court can declare some things done by both levels of government unlawful. C) The power of the parliament and the provincial legislatures is now supreme in the areas assigned to them under the Constitution. D) With the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Parliament of Canada has become Canadaʹs final court of appeal. E) Now in Canada there is an effective system of checks and balances where the prime minister on some occasions can overrule decisions made by parliament or the Supreme Court of Canada. TRU Open Learning ADMN 390: Assignment 1 Your Name: 3 of 5 7. Although nothing at all had been stolen, the storedetective thought Al and Ed had stolen some records. After they exited from the store, the detective said to both of them, ʺHold it! Youʹll have to wait right here for the police; youʹll be charged with theft!ʺ While Ed stopped and protested, Al just hurried off and drove away. Ed felt compelled to submit to the detective. After some time the police finally arrived. It was only then that the detective realized that no crime had been committed. Ed was released. On these facts, which of the following is true? A) Both Al and Ed could sue for assault and battery. B) Neither Al nor Ed could sue because neither was confined in a closed space. C) Only Ed has a cause of action for false imprisonment (i.e., a legal right to sue). D) Both Al and Ed could sue for the tort of false imprisonment because there had been no crime committed. E) Both Al and Ed could sue for the tort of false imprisonment because both had been falsely accused of committing a crime. 8. A land appraiser prepared an appraisal of a property for a real‐estate development company. The appraiser had been told that the appraisal would be used by the company to attract potential investors. Because the appraiser forgot to check the recent changes in the zoning by‐laws, the appraisal was not accurate; the investor, a party unknown to the appraiser, was misled about the value of the land and, consequently, suffered a financial loss. On these facts, which of the following is true? A) A land appraiser owes a duty of care to his client, and to potential investors only if he knows the name of the investor. B) A land appraiser owes a duty of care to his client, the company, but not to any potential investors. C) The investor might sue the appraiser for ʺnegligent misstatement causing economic loss.ʺ D) A person cannot be sued for words that cause loss, only for actions that cause physical injury. E) The investor must suffer his own loss, because an investor takes the risk and so must take care. TRU Open Learning ADMN 390: Assignment 1 Your Name: 4 of 5 SHORT ANSWER In no more than three sentences, write the answers to the following four questions. THREE MARKS EACH (12 marks for section) 1. Contrast substantive law and procedural law. 2. ʺAn individual who is refused service at a restaurant because of his race has had his Charter rights violated.ʺ Comment on the accuracy of this statement. 3. 4. What is meant by a statute? Indicate three situations where someone affected by the decision of an administrator can turn to the courts for relief. ESSAY QUESTIONS 1. Explain the relationship between common law and equity in the development of our legal system. What important feature distinguishes the Civil Codes (used in Quebec and continental Europe) from common law? (15 marks) 2. Discuss the constitutional rigidity created by the 1867 division of powers and the means used by the federal and provincial governments to overcome this. (15 marks) 3. Discuss how legislation has impacted in the field of negligence. Give at least three examples of statutes that cover topics previously covered by common law. Give practical examples of the kind of negligence they cover. (15 marks) TRU Open Learning ADMN 390: Assignment 1 Your Name: 5 of 5 CASE STUDIES 1. Dan lived next door to a mean‐spirited neighbour, Bubba, who constantly complained about Dan and his family. Eventually Dan decided to sell his house and hired Rob, a real estate agent. One day Bubba yelled insults at Rob as Rob was leaving an open house. Bubba suddenly rushed toward Rob, and although Rob tried to defend himself by throwing his briefcase at Bubba, Bubba hit him above the eye, causing a serious cut requiring stitches. Bubba was arrested, convicted, and sentenced in a criminal action for his attack. Rob couldnʹt work for two months because of the injury. Dan took his house off the market and rented it to a couple who seemed quiet but had noisy parties that woke Bubba every weekend. The couple also acquired a dog that kept digging holes under the fence so that it could bury bones in Bubba’s back yard. Dan refused to do anything about this when Bubba complained. Rob and Bubba sued each other for assault. Bubba sued Dan and the couple for nuisance. Explain what law suits may (or may not) succeed and why, citing what elements of these torts must be proved and any defences that might be raised. (20 marks) 2. Joe was drunk and driving his car on a lonely road. When he saw Leone (who turned out to be a concert pianist) waiting at the side of the road, he opened the door and offered her a lift. Leone got in despite the fact that she could smell alcohol on Joeʹs breath. Subsequently, Joe was in an accident, in which Leone’s hand was smashed. Leone has sued him for negligence. Indicate what likely defence Joe would use in these circumstances and whether it would be successful. In addition, Joe argued that there is no way he could have known Leone was a concert pianist. Explain the outcome of this argument. (15 marks) TRU Open Learning ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online