Archive for February 2012
Hi all. If a test question asks you to explain or refer to any relevant cases, you do not need to recite a long description of the case. However, you should be able to show that you know what happened in the case, why it is relevant to your answer, and what the outcome or decision in the case was.
For example, if you were explaining the case Seneca College v. Bhaduaria, which we looked in the second case, you would want to say something like this.
“In Bhandauria v. Seneca College, the worker had been denied jobs at Seneca College and she believed it was due to her ethnicity. She sued the College and argued that she had been discriminated against. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no “tort”, or legal basis under the common law to sue for discrimination in the formation of a contract. The Court said that discrimination in employment contracts has to be dealt with by filing a human rights complaint under the Human Rights Code, not by filing a lawsuit in a common law court.”
Presumably, if you were explaining this case, it would be because you think it helps explain your answer to the question on the test. Therefore, you should have a sentence or two explaining why the decision you just described supports your answer. For example, if the test question gave you a fact scenario that explained that an employee had sued her employer for discrimination on the basis of sex in a lawsuit filed in a court, and you were asked to advise the employer on how to respond to the lawsuit, you might say something like this:
“Therefore, I would advise the employer to argue in its defence that the court should dismiss (throw out) the lawsuit on the basis of the ruling in Bhadauria.”
That would be a very good answer. The key is to show us that you recognize what case(s) are relevant to the legal problem you are considering, and that you understand basically what happened in the case, and how it helps answer the problem you are given.
Hopes that helps. David