3605
MOCK TRIAL ASSIGNMENT
January – April, 2005
York University
Political Science 3605
Public Law II
Winter Term 2005
The writing assignment consists of preparing expert
opinion reports, a factum or a judgment (depending on the chosen role
for the mock trial) from the fact scenario provided below. No
independent topics will be accepted in this course.
The mock trial is worth 35% of the final
grade. The breakdown is as follows: 10% for a skeleton outline,
20% for the final submission (in the case of the expert opinions and
factums) and 20% for the final judicial decision (in the case of the
judgment) and 5% for the oral presentation. The expected length
of the skeleton outline is 3-5 pages, the expected length of the final
written product of the mock trial is 12-15 pages and the expected
length of the oral portion of the mock trial is to be no longer than
2.0 hours.
The due dates for the Skeleton Outlines are as follows:
Expert Reports February 4, 2005
Counsel’s Factums February 11, 2005
Judge’s Decision February 25, 2005
The due dates for the final writing portion of the Mock Trial are as
follow:
Expert Reports
March 4, 2005
Counsel’s Factums March 11, 2005
Judge’s decisions April 1, 2005
Note: A final paper will not be considered handed in until the TA
receives a hard copy and the paper has been posted to WebCT. This
means that if a student hands the hardcopy in on time but posts the
paper to WebCT three days later, it will be considered three days late
(and therefore subject to a 6% late penalty).
No extensions are allowed except under exceptional circumstances.
Late papers will be docked 2% per day of lateness (including
weekends). Emailed assignments will not, barring exceptional
circumstances, be accepted.
Skeleton Outline Assignment:
Again, the skeleton outline assignment for your mock trial is worth 10%
of the final grade. The skeleton outline is also compulsory,
which means that if a skeleton outline is not handed in, the final
writing portion of the mock trial assignment will not be marked and the
student will not receive the credit. The purpose of the skeleton
outline is to give the Course Director and Teaching Assistant an
opportunity to comment on your analysis to date, and to give you
direction as to how you can improve your analysis.
The skeleton outline requirements are as follows (depending on the
chosen role for the mock trial).
Expert Opinion Report: The requirements for the skeleton outline
of the expert opinion report are as follows:
1) Background/Qualifications: Your skeleton
outline must include a brief synopsis of your qualifications (i.e. why
you are an expert). This will, obviously, be fabricated, but it
must also be believable.
2) Thesis: Your skeleton outline must include a
thesis statement about what your expert opinion is going to
encompass. Remember, a thesis statement tells the reader what you
are writing about and why you are writing about that topic.
3) Points of Argument: Your skeleton outline
must include a brief summary of the points of argument you intend to
include to support the position of the lawyer that has hired you.
4) Sources: Your skeleton outline must include
a list of at least 5 sources you intend to use to support your
position. These must be secondary sources (i.e. they cannot be
cases).
Factum: The requirements for the skeleton outline of the factum
are as follows:
1) Summary of Facts: Your skeleton outline must
provide a brief summary of the important facts.
2) Issues: Your skeleton outline must include a
synopsis of the issues that are raised in this appeal.
3) Thesis: Your skeleton outline must include a
thesis statement about what your position is. Remember, a thesis
statement tells the reader what you are writing about and why you are
writing about that topic.
4) Points of Argument: Your skeleton outline
must include a brief statement of the points of argument that you
intend to raise in the final factum.
5) Sources: Your skeleton outline must include
a list of at least 5 sources you intend to use in your factum.
These can be secondary sources and/or cases.
Judgment: The requirements for the skeleton outline of the
judge’s decision are as follows:
1) Summary of Facts: Your skeleton outline must
provide a brief summary of the important facts.
2) Issues: Your skeleton outline must include a
synopsis of the issues that are raised in this appeal.
3) Thesis: Your skeleton outline must include a
thesis statement about what your decision is. Remember, a thesis
statement tells the reader what you are writing about and why you are
writing about that topic.
4) Points of Argument: Your skeleton outline
must include a brief statement of the points of argument that you
intend to raise in your decision.
5) Sources: Your skeleton outline must include
a list of at least 5 sources you intend to use to support your
decision. These can be secondary sources and/or cases.
Mock Trial Assignment For Groups 1-4 – Constitutionality of Requirement
That All Driver’s Licenses Have Photo
Under Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act, 1990 R.S.O.
Chapter H.8, all individuals who apply for a driver’s license are
subject to having their picture taken prior to obtaining a driver’s
license. If an individual refuses to have his/her picture taken,
the Ministry of Transportation can refuse to issue a driver’s license.
The relevant section under the Highway Traffic Act, 1990 R.S.O. Chapter
H.8 is s. 32(13). Section 32(13) reads as follows:
32(13). The Minister may require as a condition for
issuing a driver’s license that the applicant therefore submit to being
photographed by equipment provided by the Ministry.
Under the Highway Traffic Act, 1990 R.S.O. Chapter
H.8, the Minister may also pass regulations pursuant to the legislation
in order to allow for clearer guidelines on how the legislation will be
applied and enforced. Since September 11, 2001, the Ontario
Government passed the following regulations [please note these are
fictitious]:
Driver’s Photo-Identification Requirements And Issuing of Driver’s
Licenses, O. Reg. 007:
PREAMBLE:
1) WHEREAS the Ontario Government recognizes the need
for photo-identification for driver’s licenses to ensure the security
of all Ontarians; and
2) WHEREAS the Ontario Government also recognizes the
need to balance freedom of religion and equality rights, the Ontario
Government passes the following regulations to ensure that both the
security needs of the people of Ontario and the freedom of religion
and/or equality rights of Ontarians are equally met.
1.0 Short Title: These Regulations may be
referred to as Photo-Identification Requirements.
2.0 Purpose of Regulations: The purpose of
these regulations is to: 1) protect the security interests of all
Ontarians; and 2) protect the freedom of religion and equality rights
of
all Ontarians.
3.0 Application: These Regulations apply to
every individual seeking to obtain or renew an Ontario-issued Driver’s
License.
4.0 Requirements: All individuals seeking to
obtain or renew an Ontario-issues Driver’s license shall submit to
being photographed by equipment provided for by the Ministry of
Transportation.
5.0 Exception: The Ministry of Transportation
may exempt certain individuals for religious purposes. To
ascertain whether the religious purposes are valid, the Ministry shall
require the following documentation:
A) A letter from the Leader of the Religious Group
(i.e. Minister, Pastor, Rabbi, etc.) stating the religious belief as to
why the picture cannot be taken.
B) A letter from Revenue Canada stating that the
religious organization is a recognized not-for-profit entity.
C) An affidavit from the Applicant swearing he/she is
a member of the religious group and that he/she sincerely holds those
beliefs.
Mrs. Smith, is a member of a Mennonite community in
Northern Ontario. Part of Mrs. Smith’s beliefs, although they do
not conform with his Mennonite community’s beliefs, is that she is
unable to comply with having his photo taken for the Driver’s license
because it will result in a part of her soul being taken and will
therefore inhibit her ability to enter into Heaven as she will not have
a full soul. Mrs. Smith has applied for and been denied an
exemption under Rule 5.0 of the Regulations since she was unable to
obtain a letter from the leader of his religious group. Moreover,
Mrs. Smith has a history of attempting to obtain a driver’s license
without submitting to the photo requirement and has held press
conferences every time the Ministry of Transportation denied her
request on the grounds that it violated her Freedom of Religion under
s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and her Equality
Rights under s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Since Mrs. Smith’s picture was taken at these press
conferences and published in the local and national newspapers, the
Ministry does not believe Mr. Smith’s affidavit that she sincerely
holds these beliefs.
Wanting to obtain a driver’s license without having
to submit to a photograph, Mrs. Smith applied to the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice for a declaration that the Regulations (i.e.
Photo-Identification Requirements) violate her Freedom of Religion
under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and her
Equality Rights under s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Further, Mrs. Smith applied for an order directing the
Ministry of Transportation to issue her a driver’s license and to
exempt her and her family from the requirements.
Justice Jones dismissed the application. In
dismissing the application, Justice Jones found that the impugned
regulations did not infringe ss. 2(a) or 15(1) of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. Further, and in the event that his
analysis was incorrect, Justice Jones found that should the impugned
regulations infringe ss. 2(a) or 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, that infringement could be justified under s. 1 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mrs. Smith appealed. On appeal, the Ontario
Court of Appeal unanimously reversed Justice Jones’ decision. The
Court found that the impugned regulations infringed both ss. 2(a) and
15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Further,
the Court held that the infringements could not be justified under s. 1
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Crown Attorney for Ontario appealed the decision
to the Supreme Court of Canada. The issues raised on the appeal
are as follows:
1) Do the requirements in the Photo-Identification
Requirements infringe Freedom of Religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2) If an infringement of s. 2(a) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms is found, can the infringement be
justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
3) Do the requirements in the Photo-Identification
Requirements infringe the Equality Rights provision under s. 15(1) of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
4) If an infringement of s. 15(1) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms is found, can the infringement be
justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Your assignment is as follows:
Counsel for Mrs. Smith (Respondent): Write a factum arguing why
the Photo-Identification Requirements infringe Freedom of Religion
under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the
Equality Rights Provisions under s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Further, argue why those infringements
cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Expert Witnesses for Mrs. Smith: Write an expert report
supporting the position of the Counsel for Mr. Smith. It should
be noted that this is a non-legal argument.
Types of Experts: When deciding what type of expert you may want
to be, the following experts could be of assistance:
1) Security Expert: This individual could argue
why the photo-identification is not needed in all circumstances.
2) Religious Leader: This individual could
argue why Mr. Smith’s beliefs, although not necessarily “mainstream”
are valid nonetheless and therefore worthy or recognition.
3) Civil Libertarian: This individual could
argue why the legislation is problematic since it allows for the
testing of a religious belief.
4) “Old” Ministry of Transportation Employee:
This individual could argue that the requirements are not needed since
licenses were issued prior to September 11, 2001 without any incident.
The Crown Attorney (Appellant): Write a factum arguing why the
Photo-Identification Requirements does not infringe Freedom of Religion
under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the
Equality Rights Provisions under s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. Further, argue that even if an infringement
exists, it can be justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
Expert Witness for the Crown Attorney: Write an expert report
supporting the position of the Crown Attorney for Ontario. It
should be noted that this is a non-legal argument.
Types of Experts: When deciding what type of expert you may want
to be, the following experts could be of assistance:
1) Security Expert(s): This individual could
argue why the photo-identification is needed in all circumstances.
2) Concerned Citizen’s Group: This individual
could argue why the legislation is needed in order to protect the
security interests of Ontarians.
3) “Current” Ministry of Transportation
Employee: This individual could argue that the requirements are
needed in order to protect the security interests of Ontarians.
Judges for Supreme Court of Canada: Write a decision stating
whether the Photo-Identification Requirements infringe Freedom of
Religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
or the Equality Rights Provisions under s. 15(1) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and why). Further, write a
decision stating that if an infringement exists, whether the
infringement could be justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms (you must do this even if you do not find an
infringement).
Remember, the final draft of your paper can only be between 12-15 pages
in length (2000-3000 words).
3605 MOCK TRIAL ASSIGNMENT
January – April, 2005
York University
Political Science 3605
Public Law II
Winter Term 2005
The writing assignment consists of preparing expert
opinion reports, a factum or a judgment (depending on the chosen role
for the mock trial) from the fact scenario provided below. No
independent topics will be accepted in this course.
The mock trial is worth 35% of the final
grade. The breakdown is as follows: 10% for a skeleton outline,
20% for the final submission (in the case of the expert opinions and
factums) and 20% for the final judicial decision (in the case of the
judgment) and 5% for the oral presentation. The expected length
of the skeleton outline is 3-5 pages, the expected length of the final
written product of the mock trial is 12-15 pages and the expected
length of the oral portion of the mock trial is to be no longer than
2.0 hours.
The due dates for the Skeleton Outlines are as follows:
Expert Reports February 4, 2005
Counsel’s Factums February 11, 2005
Judge’s Decision February 25, 2005
The due dates for the final writing portion of the Mock Trial are as
follow:
Expert Reports
March 4, 2005
Counsel’s Factums March 11, 2005
Judge’s decisions April 1, 2005
Note: A final paper will not be considered handed in until the TA
receives a hard copy and the paper has been posted to WebCT. This
means that if a student hands the hardcopy in on time but posts the
paper to WebCT three days later, it will be considered three days late
(and therefore subject to a 6% late penalty).
No extensions are allowed except under exceptional circumstances.
Late papers will be docked 2% per day of lateness (including
weekends). Emailed assignments will not, barring exceptional
circumstances, be accepted.
Skeleton Outline Assignment:
Again, the skeleton outline assignment for your mock trial is worth 10%
of the final grade. The skeleton outline is also compulsory,
which means that if a skeleton outline is not handed in, the final
writing portion of the mock trial assignment will not be marked.
The purpose of the skeleton outline is to give the Course Director and
Teaching Assistant an opportunity to comment on your analysis to date,
and to give you direction as to how you can improve your analysis.
The skeleton outline requirements are as follows (depending on the
chosen role for the mock trial).
Expert Opinion Report: The requirements for the skeleton outline
of the expert opinion report are as follows:
1) Background/Qualifications: Your skeleton
outline must include a brief synopsis of your qualifications (i.e. why
you are an expert). This will, obviously, be fabricated, but it
must also be believable.
2) Thesis: Your skeleton outline must include a
thesis statement about what your expert opinion is going to
encompass. Remember, a thesis statement tells the reader what you
are writing about and why you are writing about that topic.
3) Points of Argument: Your skeleton outline
must include a brief summary of the points of argument you intend to
include to support the position of the lawyer that has hired you.
4) Sources: Your skeleton outline must include
a list of at least 5 sources you intend to use to support your
position. These must be secondary sources (i.e. they cannot be
cases).
Factum: The requirements for the skeleton outline of the factum
are as follows:
1) Summary of Facts: Your skeleton outline must
provide a brief summary of the important facts.
2) Issues: Your skeleton outline must include a
synopsis of the issues that are raised in this appeal.
3) Thesis: Your skeleton outline must include a
thesis statement about what your position is. Remember, a thesis
statement tells the reader what you are writing about and why you are
writing about that topic.
4) Points of Argument: Your skeleton outline
must include a brief statement of the points of argument that you
intend to raise in the final factum.
5) Sources: Your skeleton outline must include
a list of at least 5 sources you intend to use in your factum.
These can be secondary sources and/or cases.
Judgment: The requirements for the skeleton outline of the
judge’s decision are as follows:
1) Summary of Facts: Your skeleton outline must
provide a brief summary of the important facts.
2) Issues: Your skeleton outline must include a
synopsis of the issues that are raised in this appeal.
3) Thesis: Your skeleton outline must include a
thesis statement about what your decision is. Remember, a thesis
statement tells the reader what you are writing about and why you are
writing about that topic.
4) Points of Argument: Your skeleton outline
must include a brief statement of the points of argument that you
intend to raise in your decision.
5) Sources: Your skeleton outline must include
a list of at least 5 sources you intend to use to support your
decision. These can be secondary sources and/or cases.
Mock Trial Assignment For Groups 5-8 – Constitutionality of Requirement
That All Individuals Driving Motorcycles Wear Helmets
Under Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act, 1990 R.S.O. Chapter H.8, all
individuals who wish to drive or ride on a motorcycle must wear a
helmet. If an individual refuses to wear a helmet, he/she can be
charged.
The relevant sections under the Highway Traffic Act, 1990 R.S.O.
Chapter H.8 are ss. 104(1) and 104(2). Section 104(1) reads as
follows:
104(1). No person shall ride on or operate a
motorcycle or motor-assisted bicycle on a highway unless the person is
wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap
of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin.
Section 104(2) reads as follows:
104(2). No person shall carry a passenger who is
under sixteen years of age on a motorcycle on a highway unless the
passenger is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations and
the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin.
Please note that there are no exceptions for the
above rules. This means that anyone who operates a motorcycle
must wear a helmet or he/she will be charged and subject to a fine.
Mr. Appoo, a member of the Sikh religion, was
charged with operating a motorcycle without a helmet. Being a
member of the Sikh community, Mr. Appoo cannot wear a motorcycle helmet
as it violates his religious beliefs (those being that his hair can
only be covered by a turban and the turban cannot be covered by any
other entity, thereby making it impossible for Mr. Appoo to wear a
motorcycle helmet). At trial, Mr. Appoo argued that the helmet
requirements contained in ss. 104(1) and 104(2) infringed his Freedom
of Religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and her Equality Rights under s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. As for the remedy, Mr. Appoo asked the
Court to strike down the offending provisions (under s. 52 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Justice Jones found
that the impugned legislation did not infringe ss. 2(a) or 15(1) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Further, and in the
event that her analysis was incorrect, Justice Jones found that should
the impugned regulations infringe ss. 2(a) or 15(1) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that infringement could be justified
under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Therefore, Justice Jones convicted Mr. Appoo of the offence.
Mr. Appoo appealed. On appeal, the Ontario
Court of Appeal unanimously reversed Justice Jones’ decision. The
Court found that the impugned regulations infringed both ss. 2(a) and
15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Further,
the Court held that the infringements could not be justified under s. 1
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Crown Attorney for Ontario appealed the decision
to the Supreme Court of Canada. The issues raised on the appeal
are as follows:
1) Do the mandatory helmet laws under ss. 104(1) and
104(2) of the Highway Traffic Act infringe Freedom of Religion under s.
2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2) If an infringement of s. 2(a) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms is found, can the infringement be
justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
3) Do the mandatory helmet laws under ss. 104(1) and
104(2) of the Highway Traffic Act infringe the Equality Rights
provision under s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
4) If an infringement of s. 15(1) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms is found, can the infringement be
justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Your assignment is as follows:
Counsel for Mr. Appoo (Respondent): Write a factum arguing why
the mandatory helmet laws under ss. 104(1) and 104(2) of the Highway
Traffic Act infringe Freedom of Religion under s. 2(a) of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Equality Rights Provisions under
s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Further,
argue why those infringements cannot be justified under s. 1 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Expert Witnesses for Mr. Appoo: Write an expert report supporting
the position of the Counsel for Mr. Appoo. It should be noted
that this is a non-legal argument.
Types of Experts: When deciding what type of expert you may want
to be, the following experts could be of assistance:
1) Religious Leader: This individual could
argue why Mr. Appoo should be granted an exemption based on his beliefs.
2) Civil Libertarian: This individual could
argue why the legislation is problematic since it denies Mr. Appoo his
right to exercise his religious beliefs.
3) “Old” Ministry of Transportation Employee:
This individual could argue that the requirements are not needed since
the accident rate for this type of situation is extremely low.
This individual could also compare how other jurisdictions handle this
issue (say, British Columbia – Hint, Hint).
4) Medical Doctor: This individual could argue
why motorcycle helmets are not needed (warning, this would be a very
difficult “sell”).
The Crown Attorney (Appellant): Write a factum arguing why the
mandatory helmet laws under ss. 104(1) and 104(2) of the Highway
Traffic does not infringe Freedom of Religion under s. 2(a) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Equality Rights
Provisions under s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Further, argue that even if an infringement exists, it
can be justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Expert Witness for the Crown Attorney: Write an expert report
supporting the position of the Crown Attorney for Ontario. It
should be noted that this is a non-legal argument.
Types of Experts: When deciding what type of expert you may want
to be, the following experts could be of assistance:
1) Medical Doctor: This individual could argue
why helmets are needed in order to avoid the harmful effects of head
injuries.
2) Economist: This individual could argue why
helmets are needed in order to prevent the high costs associated with
treating head injuries.
3) Highway Patrol Officer: This individual, who
must have several years of experience, could argue what happens when a
motorcycle is involved in a crash and the impact it has on both the
driver and other drivers.
4) “Current” Ministry of Transportation
Employee: This individual could argue that a mandatory helmet law
is needed because of an increase in the number of motorcycle accidents
and that Ontario is being an innovator (i.e. the “statistical report”).
Judges for Supreme Court of Canada: Write a decision stating
whether the mandatory helmet laws under ss. 104(1) and 104(2) of the
Highway Traffic Act infringe Freedom of Religion under s. 2(a) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Equality Rights
Provisions under s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms (and why). Further, write a decision stating that if an
infringement exists, whether the infringement could be justified under
s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (you must do this
even if you do not find an infringement).
Remember, the final draft of your paper can only be between 12-15 pages
in length (2000-3000 words).