Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Essay Available:
Pages:
20 pages/≈5500 words
Sources:
6 Sources
Level:
APA
Subject:
Law
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 86.4
Topic:

Standard of Review Analysis: Adaikin v. Calgary Police Service (Essay Sample)

Instructions:

CML2312B Assignment: Short Essay focused on Standards of Review. You will select a case, since January 2011, decided by any Appellate Court (federal, provincial or military) including the Supreme Court of Canada. With the latter you can treat the paper as if the case was going on a further level of review. You can treat it as a research project but you must make sure to use the following cases: Baker v. Canada (Minister for Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 847; Dore v. Barreau du Quebec (2012) SCC 12; Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick [2008] 1 S.C.R; Newfoundland & Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; Celgene Corp v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 2 S.R.R. 227. You will use your discretion in determining their relevance to the cases you have selected. Due Date: December 11, 2013 Constraint: You cannot select a case that has already been the subject of an extensive case comment (the primary subject of an article) in either a law firm newsletter or law journal article as found on a basic Quicklaw/LexisNexis search. You are required conduct this due diligence search. If you select such an article you are increasing the chances of committing academic fraud. You are also diminishing your chances of getting an exceptional mark even when properly cited. Length: The paper shall be no more than 15 pages excluding endnotes. Those of you opting to do this for your major paper must meet the requirements of Rule 10 – Major Paper Requirements. The extended case comment would fall under Rule 10.2.a.2 Note that you will have to complete a minimum of 20 pages excluding endnotes per Rule 10.1.c Also note Rule 10.2 requires that you pass the paper itself and not simply the course as a whole. Any further questions you have about the Major Paper requirement should be directed to the Academic Affairs Office. See: http://www(dot)commonlaw(dot)uottawa(dot)ca/en/academics-affairs/policies-and-procedures/academic-regulations.html#rule10   Submission Guidelines: You will be bound by the guidelines outlined below. Failure to meet these requirements in whole or part will have an impact on your final grade. For example, I truly prefer endnotes to footnotes and want you to convert to that format. 1. I do not return copies of your paper but am very willing to meet and discuss your papers after grading. 2. Please make yourself familiar with the University and Common Law Section’s policies on academic fraud. 3. You may submit your paper in either French or English, in whole or in part, subject to any requirement of your program. It is your responsibility to verify and adhere to pre-existing language requirements. 4. Your paper length is measured by the document proper. Do not include your cover page (or table of contents) in your numbering. Include a header in the upper right hand corner in the format of <# of #>. 5. You must include a properly sectioned Bibliography indicating caselaw, legislation, Secondary Sources, etc. 6. You must adhere to the McGill Guide Citation format. You can cite interviews with experts and other non-traditional sources. Ensure that I have a name, date of interview/source, location/contact information/other information to enable verification if required. Online sources can be cited by use of the url. Course materials (other than cases and legislation) can be cited directly but indicating from TWEN or Blackboard, course code, with author and title. Lectures with guests can be cited indicating course, lecture date, guest name and title. 7. Your paper shall be in Times New Roman 12pt font (or equivalent). This applies to all headings and subheadings within the paper. Do not shift font. 1” margins on the top and sides excepting headers and footers. 8. Your paper will be double-spaced for all text with the exception of long quotes which can be in the form of single spaced double indent. 9. You will use endnotes not footnotes! Numbering should be 1, 2, 3 Submission of your Work: The official documents which must be submitted to the Secretariat. There are no circumstances under which I will accept materials electronically. Those arrangements must be made through either the Equity Manager or Academic Affairs. Common Law Section Procedures require that assignments be submitted by 16h00 on the due date. Any assignments submitted after 16h00 will be considered LATE. The drop box is located on the first floor (FTX105). Given the nature of this assignment you need only submit the graded portion of your 5 page commentary plus final redraft. You need not send your Appendices to the commonlawassignments/electronic drop box. In the subject line, the student number, course code and professor’s name must be clearly indicated. The official submission is the hard copy to the Secretariat. Papers/Assignments which are submitted to the Secretariat after the calendar due date without appropriate permission will be subject to a penalty of 10% per calendar day or part thereof, including weekends. The Secretariat cannot be asked to print out the electronic copy on your behalf. It is your responsibility to make arrangements to get the hard copy to the drop box. Extensions: All requests for extensions are subject to Rule 13 of the Common Law Section Regulations. Any other submission arrangements or extensions for undergraduate/national program students are acceptable only with advance permission of the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs/Academic Affairs office or through the Manager, Equity and Academic Success. I will not address your requests personally. This is the case: Adaikin v. CalgaryPoliceService I just want to clarify the assignment. we should be able to discuss the standard-of-review analysis based on the five cases, make comparisons/contrasts; agree/disagree with parts of analysis; and make critical comments).


 


CML2312B


Assignment:


Short Essay focused on Standards of Review. You will select a case, since January 2011, decided by any Appellate Court (federal, provincial or military) including the Supreme Court of Canada. With the latter you can treat the paper as if the case was going on a further level of review.


You can treat it as a research project but you must make sure to use the following cases: Baker v. Canada (Minister for Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 847; Dore v. Barreau du Quebec (2012) SCC 12; Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick [2008] 1 S.C.R; Newfoundland & Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; Celgene Corp v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 2 S.R.R. 227. You will use your discretion in determining their relevance to the cases you have selected.


Due Date: December 11, 2013


Constraint:


You cannot select a case that has already been the subject of an extensive case comment (the primary subject of an article) in either a law firm newsletter or law journal article as found on a basic Quicklaw/LexisNexis search. You are required conduct this due diligence search. If you select such an article you are increasing the chances of committing academic fraud. You are also diminishing your chances of getting an exceptional mark even when properly cited.


Length:


The paper shall be no more than 15 pages excluding endnotes. Those of you opting to do this for your major paper must meet the requirements of Rule 10 – Major Paper Requirements. The extended case comment would fall under Rule 10.2.a.2 Note that you will have to complete a minimum of 20 pages excluding endnotes per Rule 10.1.c Also note Rule 10.2 requires that you pass the paper itself and not simply the course as a whole. Any further questions you have about the Major Paper requirement should be directed to the Academic Affairs Office. See: http://www(dot)commonlaw(dot)uottawa(dot)ca/en/academics-affairs/policies-and-procedures/academic-regulations.html#rule10




 


Submission Guidelines:


You will be bound by the guidelines outlined below. Failure to meet these requirements in whole or part will have an impact on your final grade. For example, I truly prefer endnotes to footnotes and want you to convert to that format.



  1. I do not return copies of your paper but am very willing to meet and discuss your papers after grading.

  2. Please make yourself familiar with the University and Common Law Section’s policies on academic fraud.

  3. You may submit your paper in either French or English, in whole or in part, subject to any requirement of your program. It is your responsibility to verify and adhere to pre-existing language requirements.

  4. Your paper length is measured by the document proper. Do not include your cover page (or table of contents) in your numbering. Include a header in the upper right hand corner in the format of <# of #>.

  5. You must include a properly sectioned Bibliography indicating caselaw, legislation, Secondary Sources, etc.

  6. You must adhere to the McGill Guide Citation format. You can cite interviews with experts and other non-traditional sources. Ensure that I have a name, date of interview/source, location/contact information/other information to enable verification if required. Online sources can be cited by use of the url. Course materials (other than cases and legislation) can be cited directly but indicating from TWEN or Blackboard, course code, with author and title. Lectures with guests can be cited indicating course, lecture date, guest name and title.

  7. Your paper shall be in Times New Roman 12pt font (or equivalent). This applies to all headings and subheadings within the paper. Do not shift font. 1” margins on the top and sides excepting headers and footers.

  8. Your paper will be double-spaced for all text with the exception of long quotes which can be in the form of single spaced double indent.

  9. You will use endnotes not footnotes! Numbering should be 1, 2, 3


Submission of your Work:


 


The official documents which must be submitted to the Secretariat. There are no circumstances under which I will accept materials electronically. Those arrangements must be made through either the Equity Manager or Academic Affairs. Common Law Section Procedures require that assignments be submitted by 16h00 on the due date. Any assignments submitted after 16h00 will be considered LATE. The drop box is located on the first floor (FTX105).  In addition, all students must submit an electronic copy of their assignment. Given the nature of this assignment you need only submit the graded portion of your 5 page commentary plus final redraft. You need not send your Appendices to the commonlawassignments/electronic drop box. In the subject line, the student number, course code and professor’s name must be clearly indicated.  The official submission is the hard copy to the Secretariat.


 


Papers/Assignments which are submitted to the Secretariat after the calendar due date without appropriate permission will be subject to a penalty of 10% per calendar day or part thereof, including weekends.


 


The Secretariat cannot be asked to print out the electronic copy on your behalf. It is your responsibility to make arrangements to get the hard copy to the drop box.


 


Extensions:


 


All requests for extensions are subject to Rule 13 of the Common Law Section Regulations. Any other submission arrangements or extensions for undergraduate/national program students are acceptable only with advance permission of the Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs/Academic Affairs office or through the Manager, Equity and Academic Success. I will not address your requests personally.


 


 


This is the case


Adaikin v. CalgaryPoliceService

source..
Content:


Standard of Review Analysis: Adaikin v. Calgary Police Service
Name
University
Introduction
This case comment focuses on the standards of judicial review applied in Canadian courts, with regards to the duties, rights and liabilities of police officers during a traffic stop. It analyzes legal provisions and circumstances under which traffic police officers are justified or otherwise, to direct a driver’s movements or threaten an arrest during the course of a traffic stop.
In brief, the narrative of the case under examination is as follows. On May 3, 2009, shortly after midnight, Constable Adaikin, the appellant, flagged down a speeding motorist at a traffic stop. After obtaining the driver’s information, he went back into his cruiser to write a speeding ticket. However, the motorist did not think he was speeding, and consequently became irate, left his car, and advanced towards the cruiser. The police officer got out of his car and, with his hand near his gun should the need to use it arise, ordered the motorist to get back into his car and wait for the speeding ticket. This order was ignored by the motorist, and the police officer repeated it with the warning that the motorist could be arrested if he refused to return to his car or move to the sidewalk. The motorist obeyed this second instruction and the police officer proceeded to serve him with a speeding ticket.
Subsequently, the Constable was sued by the motorist before the Calgary Police service for allegedly surpassing his authority in threatening the motorist with an arrest. After investigating the matter, the Calgary Chief Police determined that the police officer exceeded his powers in advising the motorist that he risked getting arrested if he did not get back to his car. The officer appealed before the Law Enforcement Review Board, contending that he acted appropriately under the circumstances. However, the Review Board held the Chief of Police’s position by pointing out that the motorist had stopped as instructed, did not confront the officer physically, maintained reasonable distance and was not abusive towards the officer. Consequently, the Board determined that the motorist had not committed any offense in this regard as to warrant the threat of arrest from the police officer; hence the appellant was ruled to be at fault for exceeding his authority.
The police officer appealed again, before the Court of Appeal for Alberta, arguing that the Law Review Board was in error in concluding that his ordering the motorist to get back to his car and threatening an arrest if he disobeyed was unlawful. The Court of Appeal returned the matter to the Chief of Police for reconsideration, with the following observations. The Appeal Court cited legal provisions which allow a police officer to arrest or threaten to do so only if he is given such powers under statutory or common law. Although the law gives police officers the authority ...

Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Other Topics:

  • Law
    Description: Law. There has been controversy surrounding the incapacitation effect of prisons Essay...
    1 page/≈275 words | 6 Sources | APA | Law | Essay |
  • Understanding Terrorism
    Description: Understanding Terrorism Law Essay (Undergraduate level)...
    8 pages/≈2200 words | 5 Sources | APA | Law | Essay |
  • Evidence presentation: Unconventional methods of acquiring information:
    Description: Unconventional methods of acquiring information: Evidence presentation Law Essay...
    5 pages/≈1375 words | 4 Sources | APA | Law | Essay |
Need a Plagiarism Free Essay?
Submit your instructions!