looking for someone with a bakground in law (9 Viewers)

OP
Lawnchair Bes
Jan 7, 2004
29,704
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #3
    fli really? cool

    pado would be too advanced for what i need. and no i dont mean fli is not advanced, just that its the first time im hearing this
     
    OP
    Lawnchair Bes
    Jan 7, 2004
    29,704
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #5
    i am sure this would not reqire much of your time and by all means i do understand if you do not have time.

    i have this case
    http://canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2006/2006scc41.html

    and these questions to answer

    [FONT=&quot](c) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Which courts heard this case before it went to the Supreme Court? [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot](d) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]What was the jurisdiction issue before the Supreme Court?[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] How did the court decide this issue? What were its reasons? [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot](e) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]What was theratio decidendi in this case?[/FONT]


    the marking scheme seems to suggest that they do not require very thorough answers


    thank you in advance
     

    Geof

    Senior Member
    May 14, 2004
    6,740
    #6
    I'm not familiar with Canadian Law, but this doesn't seem very though. A good reading would do the trick Besmir.


    EDIT. Oh wait. Look at IV. it lists the Courts below:
    Federal Court
    Federal Court of Appeal.

    ......

    A very quick read tells me that: The issue was the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The question is if this case is one of maritime law (as it involves a boat) or provincial law.
    Maritime law is a competence of the federal court, where Provincial Law is not.

    Basically the court said it is provincial law, and thus declares that the Federal court hadn't jurisdiction to rule the case. So, the appeal is allowed.

    I'm in a rush now, if you want I could take a look at it later.
    Good luck.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,749
    #8
    Well, DB, I'm glad to hear that you didn't get busted for public urination. However, I'm worried that you may have spent too much time near bungee cords while lounging on the deck of a boat in your lawnchair.
     
    OP
    Lawnchair Bes
    Jan 7, 2004
    29,704
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #11
    Geof said:
    I'm not familiar with Canadian Law, but this doesn't seem very though. A good reading would do the trick Besmir.


    EDIT. Oh wait. Look at IV. it lists the Courts below:
    Federal Court
    Federal Court of Appeal.

    ......

    A very quick read tells me that: The issue was the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The question is if this case is one of maritime law (as it involves a boat) or provincial law.
    Maritime law is a competence of the federal court, where Provincial Law is not.

    Basically the court said it is provincial law, and thus declares that the Federal court hadn't jurisdiction to rule the case. So, the appeal is allowed.

    I'm in a rush now, if you want I could take a look at it later.
    Good luck.

    i just saw this :faq1: i came to those conclusions myself but thanks for confrming it. however i did put the ontario court.
     
    OP
    Lawnchair Bes
    Jan 7, 2004
    29,704
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #12
    Erik-with-a-k said:
    I only studied International Law, Human Rights, that sort of thing. If you could use my help you'd be in serious trouble. :D
    so if i get tried in geneva will you give me a discount?
     

    Vinman

    2013 Prediction Cup Champ
    Jul 16, 2002
    11,482
    #20
    Don Bes said:
    i am sure this would not reqire much of your time and by all means i do understand if you do not have time.

    i have this case
    http://canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2006/2006scc41.html

    and these questions to answer

    [FONT=&quot](c) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Which courts heard this case before it went to the Supreme Court? [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot](d) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]What was the jurisdiction issue before the Supreme Court?[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot] How did the court decide this issue? What were its reasons? [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot](e) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]What was theratio decidendi in this case?[/FONT]


    the marking scheme seems to suggest that they do not require very thorough answers


    thank you in advance
    nice to see that your making others do your simple homework :D
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 9)