> > With regards to the U.N. assignment, question #4 states "What
> > sources of international law are applicable to the case?"Do you mean the
> > various councils involvedd in the case such as the international court of
> > justice? 

No, I am not actually referring to the various councils of the United Nations. 
Rather, I am referring to the four traditionally accepted sources of International 
law, namely:

International Treaties and Conventions,
Internationally Accepted Principles of Law,
Decisions made by the World Court, and
International Custom


To address this topic in your report, you should refer to your textbook, pages 452-467.




> Hey Sir, 
> I just had a quick question pertaining to the homework you assigned: How
> do we allot the points to determine fair wages. Should I be looking for
> an outline sheet posted on the law site? I went on Lesson 9 but
> I found some of the instructions vague so I would really appreciate it
> if you could clarify it for me. 

You bet its vague! If the government dictated exactly HOW one should
evaluate the various occupations employed within a particular company,
then they might as well dictate what the wages will be for various
occupations. In that case, we would be bordering on a communist approach
to resolving the problem of pay equity. Rather, the Pay Equity Act
outlines a vague initiative which every company in Ontario (with more
than 10 employees) must take in order to evaluate the occupations
contained within their organization. How they do this is up to the
individual company. The important thing is that each occupation DOES
evaluate their occupations (ie. secretaries, sales executives,
custodians, mechanics, lab technicians, etc.) and that they use a
consistent approach to evaluating EACH different occupation. A committee
within a company would evaluate each occupation in terms of the
following characteristics: 

     skill, 
     working conditions, 
     responsibility, and 
     effort

After they evaluate the position, then they would use the results of
their evaluation in order to determine an appropriate wage. This way it
is the EVALUATION of a COMMITTEE which determines the wage for an
occupation - NOT the OPINION of an INDIVIDUAL. 









> Q: I still don't feel
> comfortable that i know the amendment of bill C-37 exactly.  Here is my
> answer to it and could you please tell me if i'm missing any points and
> please email me back if i have anything missing. 
> For the amendment of Bill C-37, here are the changes:
>     -more serious crimes commited by the people age 16 or 17 will be
>                 transfered to the adult court
>     -there will be longer sentences for murder
>     -there will be an increase in the time before a parole is permitted
>     -more people for example, the school officials, can access the
>                  information about young offenders
>     -the time to hold the record will be extented longer for the serious
>                   crimes
> 
> There, sir, so for the Bill 37, we only have to know the amendment part
> of it and the points that I stated above. right?


Correct. Bill C-37 is an amendment to the YOA. In other words, it is a law which proposed 
to change another pre-existing law (in this case, the YOA). Therefore, if you know the changes 
it made to the YOA, then you know the entire substance of Bill C-37.





> Q:  Would you mind giving me a couple of pointers for my Oral defense?

The best pointer I can give you is to make your overall argument a
simple one, but be able to prove every point that your argument is based
on. (A personal opinion is not considered a reasonable defence.)
Assume that you will be speaking to a hostile audience that is motivated
to find a weakness in your thesis. A good thesis should be like an
iceberg (only 1/8th of an iceberg sticks out of the water), with a very
small argument positioned at the top of a great deal of supporting
evidence.






> Where can I get information on:
> 1) the penal system versus alternative means of dealing with convicted
> criminals
> 2) Forms of conditional and non-conditional release: Temporary absence
>                                                     Work release
>                                                     Day parole
>                                                     Full parole
>                                                     Statutory release
>                                                     Royal Prerogitive of Mercy
> 
> I have searched the glossary and the text book, but I couldn't find any of
> it!!

One of the handouts on the review sheet will tell you about:

  - Temporary absence
  - Work release
  - Day parole
  - Full parole
  - Statutory release

You will find it at:

http://www.sgc.gc.ca/EFact/econdrls.htm

Don't worry about Royal Prerogitive of Mercy - it won't be on the test.

The defence can set out to "prove" certain points if they wish. However, the defence does not have to prove a single ORIGINAL point. The defence just has to PREVENT the Crown from proving THEIR points.

Remember, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all accused individuals are to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Thus, if the crown fails to PROVE guilt, then the original assumption of innocence must stand. The defence can seek to prove points that would effectively contradict a point which the crown is trying to prove. One can easily begin to see how appropriately named the "defence" lawyer is - as they play an entirely "defensive" game.

Question: What is the prosecution?

The prosecution refers to the attorney, or the team of attorneys, hired by the government to prove the criminal charges made against an accused individual. This lawyer is also referred to as the "Crown Attorney" - as they represent the crown (the government) in court.

Question: Arresting without a warrant can only be done if there is "reasonable and probable grounds" to believe that a person (past) has committed an indictable offense, (present) is committing a summary or indictable offense, and (future) Is about to commit an indictable offense. Is it only summary for present?

An officer can arrest someone without a warrant if they catch in the act (ie. in the present) performing EITHER an indictable or a summary offence.

Question: Were women subject to trial by ordeal?

Absolutely. For the most part women suffered at the hands of brutal adjudicators who accused them of witchcraft.

Question: Can the Reasonable Limits Clause involve the limits for the freedom of speech?

You bet. Otherwise, people could promote hatred towards identifiable groups, or even conspire to commit crimes.

Question: Can you explain substantive equality and provide an example?

Substantive equality refers to equality of opportunity. Substantive equality may require someone to treat people differently in order to compensate for differences in opportunity. For example, building a ramp for people in wheelchairs. Such an effort is required just to provide people in wheelchairs with the opportunity to enter a building.

Question: What is an example of formal equality?

Providing a staircase for everyone to use in order to get into your building. Everyone has access to the same staircase - thus, everyone is treated equally in the "formal" sense.