Legal Memos Project

Legal Memos Project

The purpose of the legal memorandum is to answer one or more legal questions in the context of a specific set of facts. It should contain a thorough analysis of the relevant law and provide a well-reasoned answer to the questions posed. For this Criminal Law project, you need to choose a hypothetical criminal case from the list I will give you and create a minimum one-page memo/letter. Each case is a scenario and at the end of each is a set of questions you need to answer.

Day 1: May 15 memo 1 (group)

Day 2: May 16 memo 1 (group)

Day 3: May 22 2nd memo 2 (personal)

Day 4: May 23 2nd memo 2 (personal)

Day 5: May 26 DUE

Day 1

Today you will be working together in pairs or 3s to create a memo for the following:

Prepare the Crown arguments regarding whether Hoogans can be proven on these facts to have aided in the trafficking or the possession of narcotics, or both. The Crown has also asked to identify and assess any arguments that you think defense counsel might make. In considering whether it is likely that Hoogans will be convicted, you may assume that the facts set out in the hypothetical case will be proven in court, and that no other relevant facts arise. NOTE: The Crown has a duty to consider whether prosecution is in the public interest (having regard to the harm caused by Hoogans’ actions and her degree of moral blameworthiness) and whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction if the matter proceeds to trial.  

So, you need to explain the reasons why Corley Hoogans could be found guilty of the charge of aiding Morgan Height in drug trafficking (remember aiding is the same as actually doing) based on the facts outlined in the story. You'll need to find out what the charge of drug trafficking in cocaine involves and what the Controlled Drug and Substances Act says possession is. Then, you'll need to determine what aiding means so look at the Parties to an offense at the Canadian Criminal Law notebook & at the Criminal Code (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-21.html). You'll also need to look at the principles of sentencing, the options for sentencing, and then sentencing for Drug Offences at the Canadian Criminal Law Notebook or at Ron Jourard's chart for drug offenses. You were also asked to look at defense council's options so look at possible defenses for Hoogans.
 
So, using the text and the criminal code, explain from the facts given to you if Hoogans can be found guilty. You will also need to explain how you think the defense lawyer would argue that Hoogans should be found not guilty. 

Guilty

Not Guilty

Day 2

How to Write and Format a Legal Memo

The legal memorandum is the most formal, polished, and comprehensive written document for reporting the results of legal research. It summarizes and analyses the relevant law and applies it to a particular fact situation. In practice, the memorandum can be a crucial document to a case or file. It explains a specific area of law, analyzes a given fact pattern in light of the law, and makes a recommendation for a course of action based on the analysis. Writing a legal memorandum requires that you think like a lawyer. Accordingly, given its importance and potential uses, your memorandum should adhere to the hallmarks of excellent legal writing, including organisation. A well-organised memorandum conveys a lucid, methodical way of thinking about the problem. When structuring your memorandum, you should show that your writing is a transparent window into your thoughts. There is no one right way to organize a memorandum; you can appropriately structure your memorandum in many ways. For the purposes of this assignment, however, you can use the following template.
 
Legal Memorandum
TO: Assigning Lawyer
FROM: You
DATE: When Memo is Due
RE: [Case/Matter Number] [Client Name] [Matter Name] – [Subject of Memo]
 
Summary of Assignment: This is a brief summary regarding the memo. Lawyers are often busy, juggling dozens of cases at once. They might not immediately recall why they asked you to investigate the matter at hand. A quick summary will help jog their memory. Describe the context. State briefly what you have been asked to do and why (e.g., upcoming court appearance, client seeking legal opinion, legal question arising from draft agreement, proposed legislation, bench memo for a pending case).
 
Here is an Example: [As per our discussion on (date)]/[In response to your email request on (date)], this is a discussion on the state of the law regarding…
 
Issues Presented:
 1. Whether [issue X applies to this situation]
 2. Whether [issue Y applies to this situation]
 
Short Answers:
1. Yes, [short explanation].
2. No, [short explanation].
 
These are short answers. Often new lawyers want to expand, clarify, and qualify themselves here. This is not the place for that. This is where you take a stand and state your opinion in two or three sentences. There will be time to address all aspects of the issues in the main portion of the memo. 

Facts: Present an overview of the case/matter at hand. State the legal question(s) asked or the issue(s) considered in the memorandum. Then map your approach to the problem. Make sure to include details that are of importance to the specific issues presented. Summarize all legally relevant facts from the cases as you understand them - AND explain how they connect to the potential charges. If appropriate, do so in a chart, table, or diagram. In any case, be concise and precise. Chronological order is often most helpful (unless another order seems more logical and makes the information clearer, such as grouping sets of facts that raise separate issues). Separating and numbering the facts might make them more understandable. If there is some disagreement or uncertainty about the facts, say so and state both sides. Articulate briefly, clearly, simply, concisely, precisely, and accurately. Break down each question into all relevant sub-issues. Present separately issues and sub-issues as questions. Deal with pivotal issues first. List issues and related sub-issues in a logical order. If there is some disagreement or uncertainty about the facts, you need to say so and state both sides. You write the fact section so that someone unfamiliar with the matter will get a concise and complete picture of the facts used in your legal analysis and conclusion. You include enough background facts to present the case coherently. Review your facts to make sure that each one is Legally Relevant (ask yourself: Does this fact prove or disprove an element in the case?) and Gives Background (ask yourself: What's needed to paint the big picture? - These are the facts that tell your story).

Discussion: Describe the relevant law (e.g., legislation, cases) and commentary on the law (e.g., texts, encyclopedias, policy statements), then apply them to the facts of your case. Analyse each issue separately. Show your reasoning, using a step-by-step approach. Address fairly any arguments on both sides of an issue. Identify any pertinent missing information and potentially outstanding issues. Anticipate what positions and counterarguments might be advanced by the opposing side. Make any suitable recommendations about a course of action. Be creative. Think strategically. Focus on getting results. Give an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of your position. Present persuasively the best arguments based on any relevant legislation and common law principles. Show your reasoning. Reach a conclusion. Ensure that it is supported by the law.

Don't forget for your discussion section consider the principles of sentencing (deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, resocialization, and segregation); the options for sentencing; along with considerations in sentencing; and finally sentencing, healing, and releasing circles.  The Criminal Code has purposes and principles that provide judges with guidance in sentencing. However, it does not provide absolutes. The Criminal Code recognizes that each offence has its own specific circumstances and each trial and accused has its own specific considerations. Judges must consider several principles: 

1. Proportionality: The sentence must proportional to the crime, and the offenders’ degree of responsibility – s. 718.1 

2. Totality: A component of proportionality, it ensures the sentence is proportional to the gravity of the offence – s. 718.2(c) 

3. Parity: The sentence should be similar to other sentences that involve similar offences and circumstances – s. 718.2(b) 

4. Restraint: The Judge must exercise restraint to ensure sentences are just and fair, carried out in a manner that is both appropriate and humane – s. 718(d), (e) 

So, try to identify the best choices for your sentencing recommendations from among: absolute discharge, conditional discharge, probation, mitigating circumstances, aggravating circumstances, suspended sentence, concurrent sentence, consecutive sentence, intermittent sentence, indeterminate sentence, parole, day parole, statutory release, pardon, restorative justice, sentencing circle, closed custody, and open custody. Also don't forget Mitigating circumstances are a set of factors that can lessen the severity of a sentence. They do not justify or excuse criminal action, but they can result in lesser sentences or reduced charges (young offender/first-time offender/not a principal actor but a party to the offense/Significant Personal or Financial Stress/Non-Violent Crime). Aggravating circumstances are the reverse of mitigating circumstances. They are a set of factors that increase the severity of a sentence (Previous Criminal Record/Violence or Disregard for the Safety of Others/Planned or Pre-Meditated/Use of a Weapon/Cruelty or Malice). 

[Subheading – first issue] Generally speaking, always lead with the most important issue first. [Subheading – second issue] Address second issue here. 

Conclusion: This part is a terse summary of your answers to the issues you have identified above based on your assessment of the likely application of the law to your case. Answer the question(s). Be direct, clear, and complete. Do not be indecisive, hesitant, or inconclusive. Take a stand. Identify any doubts about the outcome. Any qualifications of your opinion should be based on reason and supported by the law. Do not reiterate your legal analysis. Do not introduce “new” information (i.e., information that does not appear in your discussion). Wrap it up with a statement of what you expect happen. “Given the case law and the facts of this particular matter, issue 1 should…” 

**Sources Consulted**: List the authorities you reviewed, starting on a new page, or add a completed standard checklist of sources consulted. Include full, accurate citations for cases and secondary sources for current and future reference. Identify any helpful Web sites visited. List your sources in a logical order.

PLEASE REMEMBER...we are a high school law class and not in first year law at university. If you would like, you can check out The Canadian Legal Research and Writing Guide which has a section on writing legal memorandums (they even have a sample memorandum of law you could look at for formatting or you could check this sample here too). 

So for case 1 (Corley Hoogans) consider this as a structure/start…

TO: Crown Counsel McDonald
FROM: Your names
DATE: May 15. 2025
RE: R. v. Hoogans (2025) - Preference of Criminal Charges 

Issues Presented: 

1. Whether Corley Hoogans should lawfully be charged with Possession of a Prohibited Substance under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act of Canada. R.S.C. 1996, c. 19 , s. 4 (1)  

2. Whether Corley Hoogans should lawfully be charged with Trafficking in a Prohibited Substance under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act of Canada. R.S.C. 1996, c. 19 , s. 5 (1)  

Short Answers: 

1. Yes or No (think actus reus and mens rea here) 

2. Yes or No (think actus reus and mens rea here) 

Facts:  What is/are the charge(s) and what are the facts that support that/those charge(s). In terms of Hoogans, if yes to trafficking, then what facts support that charge and if yes to possession, then what facts fit that charge?

Discussion:

[Subheading – first issue] Generally speaking, always lead with the most important issue first. [Subheading – second issue] Address second issue here. 

Conclusion: short summary of your answers to the issues

Sources Consulted: list your sources in MLA style

Resources for the Corley Hoogans case...Possession of a narcotic and Drug Possession Charges In Canada: Here Is What You Need To Know and Defending Yourself: Possession of an Illegal Drug and Charged with Possession of a Narcotic in British Columbia, Canada? Understand What It Means and What is the Penalty for the Possession of Cocaine in BC and  

https://youtu.be/2VGTHfGbCUc

https://youtu.be/RTb85GNcAVc

General Resources:

Point First Legal Memos Made Easy 

https://youtu.be/_qmLi-uTmgg

https://youtu.be/lm7ELdQ1_qc

Government of Canada How sentences are imposed 

Sentence Calculation: An Explanation of the Basics of Sentence Calculation with Examples  

Teresa M. Bruce, B.S., J.D. The Complete Guide to Writing a Legal Memorandum 

The Canadian Legal Research and Writing Guide 

Examples:

Memorandum

TO: Jim Trutzmann and Defence Council

FROM: Luster ve Ditré

DATE: November 19, 2015

RE: Charter rights violations regarding the theft charge of Jim Trutzmann

Introduction

On July 1, 2015, Jim Trutzmann (hereby referred to as “Trutz”), was charged with the theft of $50,000 from a bank which he was working at, an indictable offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Due to error on the side of the officer that investigated the scene on the day of the crime, the police station, and the preliminary hearing court, there were multiple charter violations, which are likely to cause the charges to be dropped.

Issues Presented

1. Whether Trutz’s right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was violated.

2. Whether Trutz’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was violated.

3. Whether Trutz’s right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause, under section 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was violated.

Short Answers

1. This was likely violated, seeing as the officer did not allow Trutz to contact his lawyer until reaching the station, which was a 30 minute drive away. That being said, the court may rule that the 30 minute delay wasn’t long enough to raise issues.

2. This may have been violated, as the delayed trial will have been more than 18 months since the charge, which has been interpreted to violate section 11(b), though the delay could be argued to have been caused by the defence, which would make the delayed trial timing reasonable.

3. This was violated, seeing as setting a curfew on a theft offence is an unnecessary restriction based on the severity of the crime.

Facts

On the morning of February 1, 2015, $50,000 was found missing from a bank safe at the same bank which Trutz was then employed at. When a police officer came to investigate, a fellow worker, Dell Bunks, stated that he saw Trutz enter the vault with a shoebox, and walk back to his own office with a shoebox. The police officer then walked into the office which Trutz shared with another investment advisor, where she opened the top drawer of a closed filing cabinet which contained a shoebox. Inside the shoebox was a stack of $1000 bills, and with that evidence and the statement from Bunks, the officer placed Trutz under arrest and informed him of his right to call a lawyer. When Trutz asked to call a lawyer, the officer told him to wait until they got to the station, which was 30 minutes away. During the ride to the station, Trutz began to cry, and when asked what was wrong by the police officer, he replied that “he was feeling terrible about something that happened.” On July 1, 2015, Trutz was charged with the theft of $50,000 from the bank safe, which resulted in his dismissal from the bank at which he worked. He was given bail and a nightly curfew, and his court date was set for December 1, 2015, but 2 weeks before this date, the crown issued a second statement Bunks had given to the police just 1 week after the theft, saying that he wasn’t sure if Trutz was carrying a shoebox when he saw him. Trutz’ defence asked for the trial to be adjourned to investigate this second statement. The judge allowed it, and the next trial is set for February 1, 2017.

Discussion

First Issue. When the officer placed Trutz under arrest, she informed Trutz of his right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, but failed to properly act on this statement; when Trutz asked if he could call a lawyer he knew, the officer told him that he could wait until they reached the police station, which was 30 minutes away. “Without delay” is almost always interpreted to mean “immediately” by the courts, which suggests that the officer’s delaying this is a charter violation. In some occasions, such as a high-pressure situation in which the accused must be immediately detained, the “without delay” part of 10(b) can be suspended, but this was clearly not the case in this situation. The main reason 10(b) exists in the charter is to prevent the accused from giving away self-incriminating evidence before contacting a lawyer. During the ride to the station, when Trutz broke down crying, the officer asked him what was wrong, leading to Trutz stating that “he was feeling terrible about something that happened.” Although this statement will likely be considered as an excited utterance, it was still given before Trutz was allowed to retain counsel and may not have been given had the officer let him contact his lawyer. Regardless of the permissibility of said evidence, there was a potential violation in delaying Trutz’s ability to retain and instruct counsel, which may have an impact on the trial.

Second Issue. To determine whether or not an accused is tried within a reasonable time, courts may use the formula as set out in R v. Jordan (R v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27), which states that the ceiling for a trial date is 18 months since the charge was laid for provincial hearings. Trutz’s first trial date would have fallen comfortably within this window, but the second date following the adjournment of the trial lands at 19 months after the charge. In calculating time since the charge, delay caused by the accused can be subtracted from the total time if the accused has knowingly waived the delay, or if the delay was caused solely by the conduct of the defence. While the defence did request an adjournment to investigate further into Bunks’ second statement, the crown erred massively in failing to disclose this second statement for over 9 months since the police were given the information. If the crown had disclosed this important evidence in a reasonable time, the defence would have had almost 10 months to investigate said statement, and the trial would not have had to be adjourned, meaning the delay wasn’t attributable to the defence, and therefore is unreasonable. According to R v. Jordan, a trial date that exceeds the reasonable ceiling should be stayed (Jordan, supra at paragraph 76).

Third Issue. Section 515 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines “Judicial Interim Release,” or bail, and specifies multiple times that all conditions or stipulations must be justifiable based on the nature of the offence. In the case of Trutz, the monetary component of the bail could be considered justifiable, but the curfew imposed on him is undeniably excessive. 515(1) of the Criminal Code states:   

the justice shall, unless a plea of guilty by the accused is accepted, make a release order in respect of that offence, without conditions, unless the prosecutor, having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so, shows cause, in respect of that offence, why the detention of the accused in custody is justified or why an order under any other provision of this section should be made.

This means that the additional addition of curfew should have been justifiable for it to have been put in place, but this is not the case. Trutz’s offence had no mention of violence or anything else that would merit a curfew, making the bail order a violation of Krutz’s right both to the liberty under section 7, and to not be denied reasonable bail under section 11(e) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Conclusion

While any of these issues alone cause reason to question the legitimacy of this case, all three combined will more than likely be enough to cause the charges to be dropped. In relation to issue 1, Trutz’s right to retain and instruct counsel without delay may have been violated, and likely resulted in Trutz’ conceding the excited utterance, which could be used as leverage in court, though it may be overruled, as ignoring it may not bring disrepute to the justice system. Regarding the second issue, if the court properly administered the Jordan test, as set out in R v. Jordan, they would find the second trial date to be unreasonable, and a stay would be in order. Finally, in the third, the clearly unreasonable bail condition of curfew would be ruled to be a violation of Trutz’s charter rights, as the offence of which Tutz was charged does not merit such a stipulation. Based on the charter violations as previously explained, any reasonable court presiding over this case should drop the charges or at least stay the case.

Sources Consulted

Constitution Act, 1982. (2019, May 1). Justice Laws Website. Retrieved May 1, 2020,

from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

Section 10(b) – Right to counsel. (2019, June 17) Department of Justice. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art10b.html

Section 11(b) – Trial within a reasonable time. (2019, June 17). Department of Justice. Retrieved May 2,

2020, from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII), [2016] 1 SCR 631, <http://canlii.ca/t/gsds3>, retrieved on May 2, 2020

Compelling Appearance of Accused Before a Justice and Interim Release (continued). (2020, May 1).

Justice Laws Website. Retrieved May 4, 2020, from

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-134.html#docCont

3.18 Judicial Interim Release. (2020, January 29). Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Retrieved  may

4, 2020, from https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p3/ch18.html

Section 11(e) – Right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. (2019, June 17). Department of

Justice. Retrieved May 4, 2020, from

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art11e.html

Legal Memos Project Options

Congratulations! You’ve finished the basic classes at the G.P Vanier School of Law. To finally get that prized JD (juris doctor) degree, you need to choose two of these eleven hypothetical cases (no teachers were harmed in the production of these cases) and provide a minimum one-page memo/letter for each. Each memo needs to answer/address issues specific to each case, and these issues will be mentioned at the end of each case. You will need to submit your work digitally to me holly.mcdonald@sd71.bc.ca and you may use any source of information to help. You will need to use chapters 7-9 of the All About Law textbook. I will have videos and links on the blogsite to help as well and of course will answer questions you have.

Criminal Case 1

Corley Hoogans has had just about enough of university. As an 18-year-old, first year undergraduate this year, she was assigned to share a room with Morgan Height. Height embraced the university scene enthusiastically, drinking heavily, locking Hoogans out of the dorm room so she could ‘study’ with her boyfriend, and seemingly losing her acquaintance with the basic principles of personal hygiene. Hoogans, who doesn’t drink and doesn’t have a romantic partner, tried at first to be a good sport about all of this, but as the year went on and Hoogans’ grades suffered, she found it more difficult to laugh it all off. Recently, Hoogans made a discovery that made her even more worried. Picking up the socks, underwear, coffee cups and books strewn about their room, and throwing them onto Morgan’s bed, she pitched a book wide of the mark and knocked over a lamp on Morgan’s bedside. Under the lamp’s base was taped a Ziploc bag, which contained some white powder. Hoogans, who has never seen or had anything to do with illicit drugs, immediately thought that the bag must contain serious drugs — maybe cocaine or even heroin. She set the lamp upright, grabbed her bag, and walked to the library so she could think about what to do next.

After a lot of thought, Hoogans decided not to report Height to the police or university, and not to raise the matter with her. To tell the truth, Hoogans was a bit scared of Height and her increasingly antisocial behaviour, and she promised herself that if she could just get through the last three weeks of term, she could find a better living arrangement for next September. From time to time, Hoogans checked the lamp, to find that the Ziploc bag was still there. She told herself that at least this meant Height wasn’t actually using whatever drugs the bag contained.

About two weeks after discovering the Ziploc bag, Hoogans was trying to study in the library. As she wrestled with a difficult calculus problem, she was approached by Krystle Gaudree. Hoogans had seen Gaudree at some student events, and been in a couple of classes with her, but she didn’t know her well. Gaudree got straight to the point: ‘I’ve heard your roommate’s dealing. What’s your room number? I want her to hook me up with some coke for the end of term.’ Completely astonished, Hoogans blurted out her room number. Gaudree left the library.

Hoogans’ concentration was totally blown for the day, so she went back to her dorm. She found Gaudree walking around the corridor. Very upset, Hoogans said to Gaudree that she didn’t want her to buy drugs, that she seemed like a nice person and drugs are dangerous, and she shouldn’t celebrate in that way. She explained to her that she was very worried about Height, and that she didn’t think she’d be helping Height by buying drugs from her. Gaudree laughed and called Hoogans a square. She continued to Height and Hoogans’ room.

Height was there, and Hoogans walked away because she didn’t want to know what transpired between them. When she returned, a little later, Height was angry. She demanded to know who Hoogans thought she was, moralizing about drugs and giving out their room number to total strangers. Now completely furious, Hoogans shouted that she knew about the drugs, but she hadn’t known that Height was dealing as well. All the frustration that had built up over the course of a bad year came boiling out, and Hoogans shouted and shouted until someone called the police.

When the police arrived, they searched Hoogans and Height’s room and found the Ziploc bag. (Testing subsequently confirmed that it did indeed contain cocaine.) Height denied that the bag was hers and demanded that the police take the lamp for fingerprinting. Of course, they found both sets of fingerprints on the lamp and the bag. After speaking to a legal aid lawyer, Hoogans told the police everything that had happened.

For reasons that will become apparent in question 2, the police also tracked down Gaudree. Gaudree confirmed Hoogans’ story about their encounter and said that Height sold her cocaine on the night of Hoogans’ arrest. On the strength of this statement, Hoogans has been charged as a party to the trafficking of cocaine and as a party to possession of cocaine.

Section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act makes trafficking an offence. Possession is an offence contrary to s. 4(1) of that Act. Cocaine is a Schedule I drug under the Act. (Note that Part 1 of the Criminal Code applies to offences created under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.) Hoogans’ trial is scheduled for June 2025.

You are working in the Crown office this summer. A senior lawyer has asked you to prepare the Crown arguments regarding whether Hoogans can be proven on these facts to have aided in the trafficking or the possession of narcotics, or both. She has also asked also to identify and assess any arguments that you think defence counsel might make. In considering whether it is likely that Hoogans will be convicted, you may assume that the facts set out above will be proven in court, and that no other relevant facts arise.

The Crown has a duty to consider whether prosecution is in the public interest (having regard to the harm caused by Hoogans’ actions and her degree of moral blameworthiness) and whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction if the matter proceeds to trial. Accordingly, you have also been asked to address these factors in your advice

Criminal Case 2

On the night of her final exam, Krystle Gaudree used the cocaine she had purchased from Height. She had never taken cocaine before, but she and her friends had agreed to try it together.

Before the friends took the cocaine, they headed to a pub near campus. Gaudree hadn’t often drunk alcohol, but she had heard that beer was a safe choice because of its low alcohol content. She drank six beers in two hours, and several of her friends drank about the same amount. Gaudree was drunk enough to be slurring her words and her behaviour was veering between sleepy and rowdy.

The friends returned to Gaudree’s dorm room, to try the cocaine. Gaudree walked under her own steam, but she was staggering and at one point, she stepped onto the road without looking for traffic.

The friends took the cocaine as they had been instructed, and most of them found that they had lots of energy. However, Gaudree was behaving increasingly strangely and soon she started swearing and speaking in a language the others didn’t recognize. Without warning, she grabbed her roommate Ember McCrowd’s laptop computer and started jumping on it. Ember tried to grab her in a bear hug. Gaudree pushed Ember hard with both hands. Ember hit her head and fell unconscious.

At this point, the friends called an ambulance. Gaudree and Ember were taken to hospital, and the police were called. Gaudree’s blood alcohol level on admission to hospital was 0.14%. A toxicologist will testify that at this level, an inexperienced drinker is likely to be stumbling and have lowered inhibitions. She may be unaware of her surroundings and perhaps begin to enter a lowered state of consciousness.

Gaudree’s blood tests also revealed the presence of cocaine. The toxicologist will testify that there are very few studies on normal and abnormal reactions to cocaine. However, psychosis has been documented as an adverse reaction in some users. The medical definition of psychosis is that the sufferer’s conscious awareness is disconnected from their physical and social environment and replaced by an alternative perception. The toxicologist will testify that the friends’ account of Gaudree’s behaviour and the hospital notes support the proposition that she entered a psychotic state after taking the cocaine.

According to the toxicologist, two papers published in the medical literature suggest that those who experience psychosis when consuming cocaine carry a gene that has been associated with severe mental illnesses including schizophrenia and psychotic depression. However, a psychiatrist who has examined Gaudree will testify that he did not diagnose her with either of these disorders, or with any mental illness.

Gaudree has no recollection of the events of that night, from the time she arrived at the pub until she woke up in hospital. She has sworn off all intoxicants, and she has suffered no further episodes of psychosis.

After a police investigation, Gaudree has been charged with unlawfully causing bodily harm (in respect of Ember) and mischief (in respect of the destruction of Ember’s computer). The predicate offence for unlawfully causing bodily harm is assault.

Your senior lawyer has asked you to review the evidence against Gaudree, and to identify any arguments or defences she is likely to raise. Identify whether these arguments and defences are likely to succeed. Make sure you address both charged offences in providing your advice. When briefing you, the senior lawyer explained that:

a. Wilfully as used in s. 430 is defined in s. 429 of the Code; and

b. there is no lesser included offence to mischief in Canadian law

Criminal Case 3

Horn Timmer worked as an investment advisor in a bank in Vancouver, B.C. On February 1, 2024 it was discovered that $50 000 in cash had been stolen from the bank safe that morning. A police officer arrived to investigate, and she interviewed Lolly McDonnell who works just outside the room containing the safe. McDonnell said in the morning she saw Horn Timmer go into the room with the safe holding a shoe box. McDonnell said that a few minutes later Timmer exited the room with the shoe box, and then she saw Timmer walk back to the office he shares with another investment adviser.

The police officer went into Timmer’s office and saw a file cabinet in the corner. The police officer opened its top drawer and found a shoe box containing a stack of $1000 bills. The officer told Timmer that he was under arrest for theft, and that he had the right to call a lawyer. Timmer stated that he would like to call a lawyer he knew, and the police officer said that he could do so in the police station which was 30 minutes away. On the ride to the station Timmer started crying and the officer asked why he was upset. Timmer stated that he was feeling terrible about something that happened.

On July 1, 2024 Timmer was charged with theft of the $50 000 from the safe and was fired from his bank job. His trial will be in provincial court. He received bail, but had a nightly curfew of 11:00 p.m. His trial was set for December 1, 2024. Two weeks before the trial, the Crown sent the defence a second statement that McDonnell had come to the police a week after the theft. In this second statement, McDonnell said she was now not sure if Timmer was carrying a shoe box on the morning of the theft. Defence counsel wanted to further investigate this second statement, so it asked for the trial to be adjourned. The trial judge permitted the adjournment, and the next trial date available date is June 1, 2025.

Please describe any reasonable arguments that Timmer could make concerning whether any of his Charter rights were violated, and please provide an opinion about whether these arguments would or would not likely be successful.

Criminal Case 4

Mandy Lunge and Torelle Tunner are students at the Horseshoe Bay School of Law in British Columbia. It is the end of the grueling first year exam period. Mandy and Torelle plan to attend the after exams party at a local pub and then take the ferry to Nanaimo to go camping that same night. Since they can only spend a couple of hours at the party to make the last ferry, Mandy begins binge drinking as soon as she arrives at the pub. She consumes a large quantity of alcohol, hoping to intensify the effect with a couple of pink pills given to her by Torelle. By the time she leaves the pub, classmates notice that she seems out of control, dancing and randomly hugging her classmates. Torelle consumes only pizza.

Dovid Engrim has just started working at the ferry terminal. He is responsible for the safe loading of foot passengers on the ferry. The current MARSEC (Marine Security) Level is Level 2 of 3. This heightened level of security is based on intelligence that terrorists are likely to be active against a type of vessel or Marine Facility. Dovid has no information as to why the security level has been raised but knows that he should be extra vigilant in reporting suspicious activity and may need to question passengers that raise security concerns.

Dovid observes Mandy rushing up the ramp toward the ferry just as loading is about to end. She is sweating profusely and carrying a lumpy bag. Dovid attempts to stop Mandy from boarding and asks her what is in her bag. She drops the bag and answers “it’s a nuclear warhead - on behalf of the Orca Liberation Army!” Dovid has been trained to take all such comments seriously, even though he believes that Mandy is unlikely to be a real threat. He attempts to stop her from boarding. Torelle is following Mandy up the ramp and sees her being restrained in a chokehold by Dovid; Mandy’s face is turning purple. Fearing for her friend’s safety, Torelle picks up and opens the bag, which she and Mandy packed together. The bag contains camping equipment, including a folding Swiss army knife that Torelle intends to use against Dovid. The bag also contains leaky propane canisters for the camp stove, as well as matches. When the bag is opened, the oxygen in the atmosphere triggers a loud explosion that results in flames and thick smoke. All of the other passengers flee the ferry to safety. In the commotion, Torelle finds the knife and lunges at Dovid, but accidentally stabs Mandy in the chest instead. Mandy collapses and is rushed, unconscious, to the hospital, where she later recovers.

Dovid fears he will be arrested for his use of force on Mandy. He grabs the knife and storms the bridge of the ferry, waving it wildly. He tells Jolie Shalds, the captain and Danique Cottontail, the first mate, to pilot the ferry up the coast where he plans to slip off in a lifeboat and disappear into the wilderness. Jolie complies, sailing the ship with Dee assisting him by checking the navigational charts. Thirty minutes later they are intercepted by the Coast Guard and Dovid surrenders.

Assume that all of the above facts are true and provable in court. Based on these facts, answer ALL of the following questions.

A1. Mandy is charged with committing a hoax regarding terrorist activity, contrary to s.83.231(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. You are the Crown prosecuting Mandy. Outline your case and respond to any arguments you anticipate the defence might make. Will she be convicted of this offence? (Assume that, if the bag did contain a nuclear warhead, this would amount to “terrorist activity.”)

A2. Torelle is charged with (i) breach of duty re explosives contrary to s. 80(b) of the Criminal Code; (ii) aggravated assault of Mandy, contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code and (iii) attempting to assault Dovid with a weapon, contrary to s. 24(1) and s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code. Which of these charges is most likely to result in the conviction of Torelle, and why? What is the maximum sentence that Torelle could receive for each offence?

A3. Jolie and Dee are charged with piracy (piratical acts) contrary to s. 75(a) of the Criminal Code. They consult you, a defence lawyer, about whether they will be convicted. What do you tell them? (Assume that taking the ferry on an unauthorized voyage is “stealing.”)

Criminal Case 5

Kruss Lamelimb and Tree are a married couple who live next to Ross Dawson. For reasons that have never been clear to them, Ross dislikes Kruss and Tree and has spent many years harassing them in the hope that they will sell their house and move out of the neighbourhood. Although they have never been able to prove it, Kruss and Tree suspect that Ross has been responsible for slashing their car tires, poisoning plants in their garden, and vandalising their house. Ross is also verbally abusive and has implied on many occasions that if either Kruss or Tree ever set foot on his property, he will harm them.

One day, after deciding that she cannot endure any more of Ross’s abusive behaviour, Tree suggests to Kruss that Kruss should “just kill him.” Kruss immediately protests, but Tree eventually convinces him that it is the only way for them to “end the nightmare.” Kruss and Tree then concoct a plan to lure Dawson onto their property, with the intention of shooting Ross in self-defence when he refuses to leave. Later that day, Tree buys a second-hand shotgun and some ammunition, which she gives to Kruss.

The following morning, Tree goes to Ross’s house. When Ross opens the door, Tree tells him that it is time to “settle this once and for all” and that Kruss is waiting for him on their front lawn. Tree then runs back to her house. Ross picks up a baseball bat and runs after her. As soon as Ross steps foot on Kruss and Tree’s front lawn, Kruss yells out: “What are you doing here? No, don’t attack me!” and fires the shotgun at Ross. The shotgun barrel explodes and causes severe injuries to Kruss’ hands and arms. Ross then attacks Kruss with the baseball bat, hitting him in the head three times. Kruss falls to the ground unconscious. Realising what he has done, Ross drops the bat and calls 911. By the time the police and an ambulance arrive ten minutes later, Kruss has regained consciousness. All three are arrested, and Kruss is taken to hospital. Kruss is then examined by a junior doctor who has only recently graduated from medical school. The doctor does not perform a full examination, and Kruss is discharged into police custody. The next day, while still in police custody, Kruss dies from an epidural hematoma (bleeding on the brain). A subsequent autopsy reveals that had the doctor detected the internal bleeding, his death could possibly have been prevented.

The police are considering charging Kruss, Tree, and Ross with one or more offences under the Criminal Code. What offence(s) do you think each person is most likely to charged with, and are they likely to be convicted? In explaining your answer, please consider possible defences.

Criminal Case 6

Mr. Dovid Danrall has been charged with theft contrary to s. 334(a) of the Criminal Code. You are sitting as trial judge, without a jury, in this case. The Crown has proven the following facts:

On 2 July 2017, Danrall and his partner Mr. Benson David attended a car dealership on Southeast Marine Drive in Vancouver to test drive a 1992 Mitsubishi Lettuce worth $10,500. The dealership photocopied David’s driver’s licence and allowed the pair to take the car for a test drive. Danrall drove the car to a nearby Chinook Tyre Store and had a duplicate ignition key made. They then returned the Mitsubishi Lettuce and original key to the car dealership.

Four nights later, the Mitsubishi Lettuce was stolen from the dealership’s lot. The person who stole the car has never been identified, and nor has the car been found. However, CCTV footage shows a person dressed in jeans, a hoody and a ball cap use a key to enter the driver’s side door before the car drives off the dealer’s lot. The Crown case is that the person who drove the car away from the dealer’s lot is neither Danrall nor David. Danrall and David have testified that they do not recognise the person on the CCTV footage.

These facts are sufficient to prove theft contrary to s. 334(a) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Danrall has testified. He states that he attended Gladstone High School with Mr. Trey Kadiniwich. Kadiniwich’s family own a metal and scrap yard in Delta, BC. David’s daughter, Spruce, worked at the scrap yard for three years. Danrall testifies, and the Crown concedes that police have evidence to support, that Kadiniwich is heavily involved in drug importation and trafficking in the lower mainland.

According to Danrall, in 2015, he and David learned that Spruce had become involved in Kadiniwich’s drug importation business and that Spruce was herself addicted to opioids. Danrall and David staged an intervention with Spruce, confronting her with evidence of her addiction and sending her to a private rehabilitation centre in the Gulf Islands. After Spruce was discharged from rehab, she lived with Danrall and David. Sadly, she rapidly returned to her addiction, and died of a fentanyl overdose in early 2017. When Spruce died, Danrall and David were discussing whether to move with Spruce to another province to remove her from Kadiniwich’s orbit. They could not afford to send Spruce back to rehab.

After Spruce’s death, Kadiniwich began to threaten Danrall and David. Kadiniwich claimed that Spruce owed Kadiniwich $7,000 in unpaid debts. Danrall and David assumed that this debt related to Spruce’s consumption of drugs or her participation in Kadiniwich’s drug business. Danrall testified that they considered going to the police about the threats, but they were scared of taking this step because Kadiniwich’s brother is a senior member of the RCMP and Kadiniwich said that if they reported him to police, he would find out and the consequences would be dire.

The Crown confirms that Kadiniwich’s brother is indeed a senior member of the RCMP and is based in the Surrey BC detachment. However, the brother denies any wrongdoing or any knowledge of such threats on the part of Trey Kadiniwich. He states that he and his brother have been estranged since early adulthood.

Danrall testifies that one night in June 2017 he was alone, drinking a beer at a pub near his home. Kadiniwich approached him with another man, Duguay, whom Danrall also knew from school. Danrall was aware that Duguay has an extensive criminal record for theft and violence. Danrall says that Kadiniwich and Duguay again raised the matter of Spruce’s debt, and Danrall explained – as he had previously – that he and David had no savings after paying for Spruce’s rehab. Duguay and Kadiniwich then suggested that there may be an alternative way for Danrall to ‘work off the debt.’

The two men explained to Danrall that they were involved in stealing rare Japanese cars, refurbishing them and sending them overseas to be sold. However, Vancouver-based car dealers had become suspicious after several thefts of such cars. They explained to Danrall that they wanted him to test drive several such cars and duplicate the ignition keys prior to returning the cars.

Danrall protested, saying that he would be found out immediately because he had no poker face. Kadiniwich and Duguay responded ‘well, you need to find $7,000, or face the consequence. Do you have a better idea about how you’ll raise the money?’ They then proceeded to ask if Danrall and David were planning to visit David’s parents’ cottage, in a remote part of BC, that summer. Kadiniwich reminded Danrall that he knew ‘every washout’ along the dirt road from which this cottage is accessed. Danrall testified that he considered this conversation to be a veiled threat to himself and his family.

Danrall testified that he did not tell David about this conversation but resolved to go along with Kadiniwich and Duguay’s scheme. David’s testimony corroborates much of Danrall’s account, including the earlier demands for payment. David states that Danrall suggested out of the blue that they test drive the Mitsubishi Lettuce, that he has never shown any particular interest in cars, and that he was white and shaking when they took the test drive and when he emerged from Chinook Tyre.

You are the presiding judge. Danrall’s lawyer has urged you to find Danrall not guilty of this crime on the basis that he acted in self-defence or, alternatively, under duress. Crown counsel argues that Danrall should be convicted of theft as charged. Write your verdict in this case – you must include why you made your decision with relevant facts from the case and if you find guilt you must provide a sentence.

Criminal Case 7

Nomique Walferd, Ben Ricco, and Dovid Jonze are long-time friends. Despite their friendship, however, in recent months Nomique has become increasingly unhappy with Dovid, who often visits her unannounced and interrupts Nomique, complaining about computer carts, when she is speaking. One evening after a long day of drinking beer together, Nomique suggests to Ben that they “rough up” Dovid to “teach him to shut up.” Ben reluctantly agrees, and the two make a plan to beat up Dovid the following afternoon at a deserted beach where he regularly surfs at. Unknown to Ben, Nomique actually intends to kill Dovid, using a gun she carries with her at all times.

The next day, Nomique and Ben meet for lunch and drink five cans of beer each before driving to the beach to find Dovid. While hiding behind a sand dune waiting for Dovid to walk down to the beach, Nomique shows Ben her gun. Ben panics and says to Nomique: “That’s not what I signed up for”. Nomique smiles at him and replies: “I’m only going to hit him with it, dude, not kill him.” Before Ben has a chance to say anything else, Dovid walks over the dune and says, “Hello Nomique can you help me out with an idea for a Power Point project?” Nomique immediately rushes at Dovid and hits him on the head with the gun, knocking him to the ground. Ben then comes over and kicks Dovid gently three times, before Nomique yells, “This is for interrupting me all the time and for your Fu&$#ing Power Point” and shoots Dovid in the chest. Ben, shocked by the shooting, starts to run back to the car. Nomique, enraged, then fires the gun three times at Ben. Although the first two shots miss, the third hits Ben in the thigh. Nomique then gets in the car and drives away.

Two hours later, a stranger finds Ben lying unconscious on the beach with the tide coming in. The stranger immediately calls the police, who arrive to find Ben bleeding profusely and Dovid dead at the scene. Ben is taken to hospital and is treated for his injuries. The next day, Ben tells the police what happened at the beach and is arrested. Nomique is also arrested the same day when she tries to visit Ben in hospital with flowers.

The police are considering charging Nomique and Ben with one or more homicide offences under the Criminal Code. What offence(s) do you think they are most likely to charge, and are Nomique or Ben likely to be convicted? In explaining your answer, please consider possible defences.

Criminal Case 8

Andrej Old is out for dinner at the restaurant Brun’s Social Home with his girlfriend Vakkie to celebrate Vakkie’s 32nd birthday. Andrej has suffered from a severe form of schizophrenia for most of his adult life, which when untreated causes him to have psychotic episodes and experience hallucinations. At present, Andrej is receiving regular medical treatment and taking antipsychotic medication. However, because the medication sometimes makes him drowsy, before heading out to dinner Andrej decides not to take his prescribed dosage, as he does not want to be “sleepy” for Vakkie’s birthday celebrations.

While Andrej and Vakkie are eating their main courses, one of the patrons at the table next to them — Ran Olesun — starts swearing loudly and making offensive remarks about women. Andrej is extremely agitated by Ran’s comments and starts to suffer from hallucinations. As the evening continues, Andrej becomes convinced that Ran is possessed by a violent demon that has been plaguing Andrej since childhood, and he becomes worried for Vakkie’s safety. By the time dessert arrives, Andrej is very distressed. To calm Andrej down, Vakkie goes over to the neighbouring table and politely asks Ran to be quiet. Ran refuses and tells her to “get lost.” Before Vakkie has a chance to respond, Ran says “Didn’t you hear what I said?” and pushes her in the chest. Vakkie instinctively retaliates and punches Ran in the face, causing him to fall to the floor and hit his head. Andrej, convinced that Vakkie is in grave danger, rushes over to help and starts kicking Ran while he is still on the floor. After several kicks from Andrej, Ran stops moving.

Henry, a doctor who is also eating at the restaurant, rushes over to examine Ran. Before he’s able to reach Ran, however, Andrej stops him and says, “You don’t have to be afraid, I’ve taken care of him.” After struggling with Andrej for almost a minute, Henry finally manages to get to Ran, who is no longer breathing. Henry administers cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) until an ambulance arrives. Paramedics examine Ran and pronounce him dead. A subsequent medical examination determines that Ran died of a blow to the head. The police arrive and Andrej is arrested. In an interview with the police days later, Andrej tells them that he cannot remember anything about the evening in question.

The police are considering charging Andrej with one or more homicide offences under the Criminal Code. What offence(s) do you think they are most likely to charge, and is Andrej likely to be convicted? In explaining your answer, please consider possible defences

Criminal Case 9

Kristlyn MacNinkon is charged with arson contrary to section 434 of the Criminal Code (Arson – Damage to Property). MacNinkon is very concerned about damage to the environment, and two years ago joined the well-established environmental group in Vancouver, B.C. called “Save The Planet” (STP). STP does research and community outreach on environmental issues and attends rallies and other events to promote environmental awareness. In 2024, a small factory was slated to open in south Vancouver, and the plans indicated that it could cause significant air pollution. STP made it their top priority to get the factory shut down. STP started community awareness programs, brought court actions and lobbied politicians, but these efforts were unsuccessful. When the factory eventually opened, several STP members were arrested when they refused to move from the factory’s front entrance. The factory started emitting some strong chemicals into the surrounding area which caused some people to cough a lot, including MacNinkon who lives near the factory.

After the opening of the factory, STP members held a special meeting to consider further steps to stop the factory. Dove Emrrick, the head of STP, told the members that they had some special plans to stop the factory. Emrrick told some members to buy sleeping bags, food, and wood, and told MacNinkon to buy a can of gas. Emmrick said that the plan involved camping at the entrance to the factory and they would need a fire to keep warm and that the gas would help get the wood burning. MacNinkon bought the gas and gave it to Emrrick the next day.

A week later, 15 STP members, including MacNinkon, were told to come to the factory at midnight. When MacNinkon arrived, she saw that there was a camp set up in a wooded area about 20 meters from the factory. Emrrick told the group that the plan was to burn down the factory, and that they had been watching the factory to figure out when workers went on and off shift. Emrrick stated that the factory seemed to be empty now, so this was a good chance to start the fire. Emrrick told MacNinkon to go and pour gas on a wooden wall of the factory, and then light it. MacNinkon was angry and said she would get caught by surveillance cameras that factories have. Emrrick gave MacNinkon a mask to wear. Emrrick told MacNinkon to get going, and Emrrick opened his backpack and showed MacNinkon that he had a gun. MacNinkon started running toward the factory and went to the wooden wall. MacNinkon poured some gas on the wall and lit it. The wall began to catch on fire, and then an alarm went off and automatic sprinklers started spraying water everywhere. A worker came out of a doorway near the wall, and MacNinkon ran back to the camp.

Do you think MacNinkon will be found guilty of an offence? Please explain why or why not.

Criminal Case 10

“Y” is an online social media platform (similar to “X”) that allows users to communicate in short messages called “yaps”. When a user has a public account on Y, anyone can view their yaps. When a user has a private account on Y, only people who that user approves can view their yaps. By including someone’s Y username in a yap, the person that is named will receive a notification about that yap.

To deal with abuse and harassment on its platform, Y has taken several measures. A Y user can “block” another user, which prevents that user from seeing their yaps. A person who is “blocked” receives a notification to that effect. Y users can “mute” other users so that they will no longer see the latter’s yaps. A person who is “muted” does not receive a notification to that effect. Y has a set of rules for users that includes the following statement:

Y is a place for rambunctious free speech. But we don’t tolerate abuse or harassment of individual users. Keep this place an open community for everyone as you make your opinion known strongly and even forcefully. Anyone can report violations of this policy and we reserve the right to suspend users who seriously or repeatedly violate it, or to remove their problematic yaps.

Crossley Tamwali is a municipal councilor in Vancouver who was elected on a platform of gender equality, social justice, Indigenous reconciliation, and affordable housing. He came to Canada fifteen years ago as a refugee. In his country of origin, Tamwali had been subjected to intimidation and harassment by the authorities and their supporters and was tortured on several occasions for his political beliefs. Tamwali has publicly spoken about this traumatic experience. Erik Kenson is a 38-year old lifetime resident of Vancouver. He earns a modest living as an online video game player and lives in his parents’ basement.

Both Tamwali and Kenson have public Y accounts, with their last names as their usernames (@Tamwali and @Kenson, respectively). Between August 15, 2018 and September 15, 2018, Kenson made a total of 158 yaps that included Tamwali’s Y username. They were all harshly critical of Tamwali and his political positions. 25 of them included ethnic slurs (an ethnic slur is an insinuation or allegation about members of a given ethnicity, or to refer to them in a derogatory, pejorative, or otherwise insulting manner). Tamwali read all the 158 yaps authored by Kenson but did not reply to any of them. Instead, Tamwali reported the 25 spits written by Kenson that included ethnic slurs to Y as contrary to their abuse policy, but Y took no action.

On September 16, 2018, Kenson posted the following spit on Y:

@Kenson Yap – September 16, 2018 – 3:25 pm:

Hey @Tamwali – You’d think someone with your “history” would just quit. It was probably just a cigarette or a car battery that made you quit before. You’re a quitter. Why don’t you just quit city council? Or, better yet, quit

After Tamwali read this yap, he had a major psychological breakdown and was admitted to Vancouver General Hospital for 72 hours of assessment, treatment and observation in the mental health ward. His physicians found that Kenson’s unrelenting yaps and the September 16 yap, in particular, had triggered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder since it reminded Tamwali of the torture he’d endured. As a result, Tamwali took a one-month medical leave from city council until October 16, 2018. The fact that Tamwali was on medical leave was publicly disclosed and reported, but the reasons for it, and all of the other mental information in this paragraph, were kept confidential from the public.

On October 16, 2018, Tamwali logged into Y and “muted” Kenson. Then, he posted the following yap on Y:

@Tamwali Yap – October 16, 2018 – 12:30 pm:

Thanks for all the thoughts and prayers. I’m a survivor. I’m not gonna give up. I’m not gonna stop. I’m gonna work harder.

Minutes later, at 12:35 pm, Kenson posted the following yap on Y:

@Kenson Yap – October 16, 2018 – 12:35 pm: Surprised to see @Tamwali back. I thought for a minute there he might have actually taken my advice to just quit life altogether! He must be on some sweet medication to come back and face the public. Get ready for more from me, buddy. I’m just getting started!

Since Tamwali had “muted” Kenson, Tamwali did not receive a notification about this yap or otherwise read it on Y.

On October 17, 2018, Tamwali’s secretary printed a copy of the October 16, 2018 – 12:35 pm yap that Kenson wrote (see above) and left it on Tamwali’s desk with a note that said “Sorry to see he’s at it again. Have courage.” When Tamwali read the printout of Kenson’s October 16, 2018 yap, he broke down and began crying uncontrollably on the ground, saying he was going to commit suicide. An ambulance attended and he was taken again for 72-hour psychiatric observation in hospital. As soon as he was released from hospital, on October 19, 2018, he announced he was resigning his position as a municipal councilor. In his public statement he said:

I want to thank all my supporters. I tried my best but the unrelenting harassment I’ve endured was too much. It was destroying me, and I have to protect myself. The only way I can do that is by resigning this position. I’m sorry I couldn’t be stronger for you.

Due to his mental health issues, Tamwali was unable to secure employment and has been living on social assistance. He made a formal complaint to police about Kenson’s yaps, as described above. Tamwali has not logged on to Y since he authored his October 16, 2018 – 12:30 pm yap.

After an investigation found admissible evidence to support the facts set out above, the Vancouver Police Department is recommending that Kenson be charged with criminal harassment, contrary to s. 264 of the Criminal Code for the conduct described above.

You are an articling student under the supervision of the Crown prosecutor assigned to this case. She has asked for your written legal opinion about whether Kenson should be charged with criminal harassment, contrary to s. 264 of the Criminal Code. Your response should cite all relevant legal authorities. You do not need to express a view on whether, if a charge should be laid, it should be summary or indictable.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Criminal Harassment

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

Prohibited conduct

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of:

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

Punishment

(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Criminal Case 11

Krista Locksvalue is a university student in Squamish, British Columbia. She gets a part-time job at the Double Meat Palace, a fast-food restaurant. Her boss, Lucie, assigns her to take orders at the drive-through window. Customers drive up to a menu board and speak into the mouth of a plastic cow to convey their orders. The sound is often garbled, and it can be hard for Krista to hear what the customer is saying.

Dori Mozey rolls up to the drive-through in her solar-powered vehicle. It is very high up off the ground and she has to shout her order into the microphone asks for a “black bean burger and a kombucha.” Krista is not sure what the customer is saying, but she knows that Lucie expects her to spend no more than 90 seconds filling each drive-through order, so she doesn’t ask Dori to repeat herself. She guesses that the customer is asking for a “bacon bison burger and a cotton candy milkshake”. She fills the order, but when she sees Dori’s t-shirt, which says “Meat is Murder,” she suspects that she may have made a mistake. True to its name, the Double Meat Palace does not have any plant-based menu items. Not wanting to slow the line down, Krista hands the order to Dori and figures that Dori can complain if she is unhappy.

Dori is distracted by a text message exchange she is having with her friend about their weekend ski plans. Dori pays Krista and takes a bite of the burger, washing it down with a swig of the drink. Only after swallowing does she realize that she has been given a meat burger and a dairy beverage. Dori follows a vegan diet not only for ethical reasons but because she has a severe dairy allergy that quickly causes hives all over her body and blurred vision. Upset and feeling the effects of her allergic reaction, she makes a sharp u-turn to go back through the drive-through line from the wrong direction and complain about the error, while at the same time hurling the bag of food out the vehicle window. The bag hits Nathan, a customer of the restaurant, in the face. Nathan is spattered with the contents of the meal.

A1.Dori is charged with assault causing bodily harm to Nathan contrary to s. 265(1)(a) and 267(b) of the Criminal Code and dangerous operation of a conveyance contrary to s. 320.13(1). As the Crown assigned to the file, you have to be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood of conviction in order to proceed to trial. Which of these charge(s) if any, meet this standard?

A2. Krista is charged with administering a noxious thing to Dori, contrary to s. 245(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. You are Krista’s defence lawyer. She wants to know if she will be convicted. What do you tell her?