Reading and Understanding

Case Reports: A Guide for

Self-Represented Litigants

Margarita Dvorkina & Julie Macfarlane

The National Self-Represented Litigants Project September 2017

2

TableofContents

BeforeYouGetStarted 3PartI:NavigatingaCaseReport 51. Whatisacasereport? 52. Doallcasereportsdescribeatrial? 53. Howdoyouknowwhichcasereportsaretrialdecisions? 64. Whatinformationcanyouexpecttofindinacasereport? 8

a. Thecaption 9b. Thecasecitation 11c. Theheadnote 11d. Theauthoringjudge 12e. Thefactsofthecase 13f. Proceduralhistoryandappeals 14g. Referencestoothercases 15h. Legalprinciplesandotherauthoritativesources 16i. Theoutcome 18

PartII:UsingaCaseReporttoMakeYourOwnCase 19

a. Understandingprecedent 19b. Checkingthatacaseis“goodlaw” 20c. Understandingthefacts 22d. Understandingtheargumentsmadebyeachparty 22e. Findingthegemofthecase(ratiodecidendi) 23f. Whatistheimportanceoftheobiterdictumcommentsinacasereport? 25

g. Howdoyouknowwhatispartoftheratioandwhatisobiterdictum? 26

AppendixA:GlossaryofTerms 28AppendixB:CanadianCourtAbbreviations 32OurappreciativethankstoCynthiaEagan,DaynaCornwall,HopeMoonandCindyFreitagfortheireditorialandsubstantivecommentsonearlierdrafts.

3

BeforeYouGetStartedThegoalofReadingandUnderstandingCaseReportsistoequipself-representedlitigants(SRLs)withthenecessaryunderstandingtoreadareportedcourtdecision–a“casereport”–whenconductinglegalresearchandpreparingtopresenttheirowncasetoacourt.Weshallusetheterm“casereport”throughout,butyoumayalsoseeacourtdecisionreferredtoasa“judicialopinion”ora“judicialdecision”,sincewhenyouarereadingacasereport,youarereadingajudge’srulingonalegaldispute.ThisPrimerisdividedintotwoparts,andincludestwoappendices.

PartIexplainsthestructureofacasereport.Thiswillteachyouwhatyoushouldlookforwhenreadingacaseinordertoassessitsrelevancetoyourownmatter.PartIIoffersguidanceonunderstandingwhatyoureadinacasereport,themostimportantsections,andtherelevanceofthedifferentpartsofacasereport.AppendixAprovidesyouwithaGlossaryofimportanttermsthatwillbeusefulwhenyouarereadingacase,andpreparingmaterialsforpresentingyourmatter.Whenyouseeaterminboldred,youcanfindanexplanationofthattermintheGlossary.AppendixBprovidesyouwithalistofsomeofthecourtabbreviationsthatyoumaycomeacrosswhilereadingcasereports.

OnlinelegalservicessuchasCanLIIpublishcasereportsfromalloverCanadaandareanexcellentresourceforpreparingtopresentyourownarguments.UsingCanLll,youcanresearchandreadpreviouscasereportsoncasessimilartoyourown,andinthesamejurisdiction.Somelegaldatabasesareonlyavailabletolawyersandlawstudents,andatafee,butCanLllisfreeandpubliclyavailable.CanLllcanbechallengingtouse,becausetodosoeffectivelyyouneedtounderstandwhichcasesaremostrelevantandimportanttoyou.InordertomakethebestuseofReadingandUnderstandingCaseReports,werecommend

4

thatyouuseitincombinationwithNSRLP’sCanLIIPrimer(alsoavailableinFrench).BotharefreeonlineNSRLPPrimerswrittenspecificallyforSRLs.Inordertoconductyourownlegalresearchusingcasereports,youneedtobeabletodotwothings:1. Identifywhichearliercourtdecisions(foundviaCanLIIorotherlegaldatabases)willcarrythegreatestweightinrelationtoyourownlegalmatter.Thismeansunderstandingthesystemofprecedentandthestructureofthecourts,bothofwhichareexplainedintheCanLIIPrimer.Thisknowledgewillenableyoutonarrowdownwhichcasereportsmaybeusefultoyouinyourowncasepreparation.Werecommendthatyoureviewthisframeworkbeforegettingstartedwithyourlegalresearch1.WealsorecommendthatyoureadCindyFreitag’sblog,“CaselawResearchisLikeCheesecake.”

2. Analyzeandunderstandanindividualcasereport.Thisincludesunderstandinghowacasereportisstructured,whattolookforwhenreadingacaseinordertodetermineitsusefulness,andwhichpartsarethemostimportantandrelevanttoyourownmatter.

TheCanLllPrimerfocusesonthefirstofthesetasks–howtofindcasesthatmaybehelpfultoyourmatter.ThisPrimerwillhelpyouaccomplishthesecond–howtoread,understandandthenevaluatethosecases.WehavewrittenthisPrimerbecausereadingandanalyzingcasereportsisverychallengingandourgoalistohelpyoutoovercomeobstacles.Trynottogetdiscouragedifthecasereportyouarereadingseemsunclearorconfusing.Somejudicialwritingisvagueandambiguous.Someofthe“elements”describedinPartImightnotbepresentinthecasereport,ortheymaybeorganizedinadifferentsequence.Sometimesimportantfactswillbeomitted,makingthereasoninghardtofollow.Themorecasereportsyoulookat,theeasieritwillbecometonavigateandanalyzewhatyouarereading.Youwillbegintorecognizethebasicstructureandbecomefamiliarwiththetermsandlanguageused.Thismeansthatyouareonyourwaytoidentifyingthebestcasestouseaspartofyourownargumentstothecourt.

1Pages11-13inboththeEnglishandFrenchversionsoftheCanLIIPrimer.

5

PartI:NavigatingaCaseReport1. Whatisacasereport?

Whenalegaldisputeisfiledinacourt,thejudgesinthatcourtwillmakeadecision(sometimesaseriesofdeterminationsanddecisions)aboutthatdispute.Manyofthesedecisionsarepublishedascasereports.Acasereportisthewrittendecisionofajudgethatexplainshisorherreasoningforresolvingadisputeinaparticularway.Itdiscussestherelevantlegalprinciplesthatwillgenerallyapplyinsimilarsituations.Thisiswhyreadingearliercasereportscanbeusefultoyouasyoupreparetopresentyourownargumenttothecourt.

2. Doallcasereportsdescribeatrial?

No.Oftenthe“parties”(asthesidesinalegalcasearecalled)willnegotiateandsettletheirdisputebeforeafulltrial.But,inthemeantime,theremaybecasereportsonpreliminarymatters,suchaswhatevidencecanbebroughtforwardinthecase,whatpartiesareinvolved,orinwhichcourtitshouldbeheard.Thismeansthatsomecasereportsyouwillseewillnotprovideafinaldecisiononthemeritsofthatcase,butinsteadareinterimdecisionsdealingwithproceduralissues.Inotherwords,theyareaproceduralruling,notafinaldecisiononthemeritsofthecase(“trial”).Theymayprovideimportantbackgroundinformation,buttheyarenotgoingtohelpyouarguethelegalmeritsofyourowncase.Forthat,youwillneedtofindthefulltrialdecision(describedbelowat(3)).Theseproceduralhearingsthattakeplacebeforeatrialarecalled“motions”.Amotionisawrittenrequestthatapartycansubmittothecourtaskingthecourttomakeacertaindecision.Commonexamplesincludearequesttochangeachildsupportorder,arequestforanorderoncosts,arequestforanadjournment(toresumetrialatalaterdate),arequestfordocumentsfromtheotherside,arequesttoaddorremoveapartytothelawsuit,orevenarequesttostrikeouttheotherside’scase(“summaryjudgment”;seeNSRLP’s

Don’tfixateonaparticularwordthatisunfamiliarorhardtounderstand–insteadworkonunderstandingtheoverallcontextandthenreturntothatwordwhenyouhavefinishedreadingthecasereport.

6

ResearchReportonsummaryjudgments).Thesemotionscanbebroughtatanypointbeforethecaseissettledorgoestoafulltrial.Acasereportmaydescribeaproceduralrulingorafinaldecisiononthemeritsofthecase.Thehistoryofanymotionsmayalsoshowupinthecasereportofatrial.

3. Howdoyouknowwhichcasereportsaretrialdecisions?

Generally,yourresearchisgoingtofocusoncasereportsoftrialdecisionswhichsupportyourargument,notproceduralrulings.Atrialdecisionisthecourt’s“final”wordonresolvingalegaldisputeonitsmerits(unlessitisappealed;see(4.f.)below).Unlikeproceduralrulings,whicharelimitedtothesingleissuerequestedinthemotion,trialdecisionsofferexplanationsoflawandlegalprinciples,andsuggesthowacourtwoulddecideasimilarlegalmatter.Youwillgenerallybeabletospotaproceduralrulingbyreferencesinthebeginningofthereportthatmightsay“MOTION”,etc.Belowaresomeexamples.InFigure1below,thescreenshotshowsthebeginningofacasereportinCanLII.Youcanseethattheveryfirstheadingstatesthatthiswillbeamotionfordirections,whichmeansthatapartyfiledarequestforthecourt’sfurtherdirectionsfollowingthecourt’sorder.Figure1:Motionsexample1

7

Thesamecasereportstatesthattheonlyissuebeforethejudge“atthistime”willbetogivefurtherdirectionsonsecurityforcosts,andtoexplaintheeffectofthatorder.Thistypeoflanguageisanadditionalcluethatthisisaproceduralrulingratherthanadecisionfollowingafulltrial:Figure2:Motionsexample2

InFigure2above,youcanseethatthisisaproceduralreportratherthanatrialdecisionbecauseofthereferenceto“motion”andthenatureofthatmotion(“amotionforsummaryjudgmentrequestingthedismissalofthisaction”).Figure3showsaresponsetoonepartybringingamotionrequestingasummaryjudgment,whichisarequestaskingthecourttorulethattheotherpartyhasnomerittotheircase.Thelanguageofthisparagraphhelpsyoutofurtheridentifythatthisisaproceduralrulingbecauseitsaysspecificallythatthisdecisionwill“notaddresstheinformationinrelationtothespecificallegationsofdiscrimination”andthatthoseallegations“willbeaddressedinthefinaldecision”.Figure3:Motionsexample3

8

CompareFigure4belowwiththeexamplesofproceduralrulingsinFigures1-3,above.Figure4isacasereportfollowingatrial.Unlikeaproceduralrulingononecomponentofacaseinresponsetoamotion,acasereportthatisatrialdecisionaddressestheentirelawsuit,includingthefactsandargumentsmade.Figure4isanexampleofatrialdecision.Thisparticularcasereportisthedecisionofacourtofappeal;thiscasewasinitiallyheardbyalowercourt,andthe“losing”partyrequestedtheoutcomebereviewedbyahighercourt.(appealsarediscussedingreaterdetailbelowunderProceduralHistory(4.f.).Figure4:Atrialdecision

4. Whatinformationcanyouexpecttofindinacasereport?Usually,casereportsfollowatypicalstructure.Thissectionaimstohelpyouidentifythevariouspartsofthecasereportandtounderstandtheirsignificance.

9

a. ThecaptionThecaptionisthetitleornameofthecase–forexample,Moorev.ApolloHealth&BeautyCare(captionsareusuallyitalicizedwhenwritingalegalbrief).Itconsistsofthenamesofthepeopleororganizationsinvolvedinthedispute,whoarereferredtoasthepartiesorthelitigants.AsseeninFigure5,Ms.Moore(theplaintiff)issuingApolloHealth&BeautyCare(herformeremployer,thedefendant)Figure5:Two-partycivilcasecaption

HereishowthiscasecaptionlooksinCanLII:

Sometimestherearemorethantwopartiestothedispute.Whenyousee“etal.”,aLatinabbreviationfor“andother”,afterthenameofoneofthepartiesinthecaption,itmeansthatadditionalpersonsororganizationsarepartiestothedispute.Inthenextexample(Figure6below)fromCanLll,apartynamedAl-MandlawiissuingapartynamedGaraandotherparties,whoareindicatedbytheuseofetal.inthecaption.

MoorevsApolloHealth&BeautyCare

Caption

Parties/Litigants

10

Figure6:Multi-partycivilcasecaption

Itisimportanttonotethatthecaptionwillappeardifferentlyincriminalcases.Whenapersonischargedwithacriminaloffence,casesarealmostalwaysbroughtbytheState,notbyprivateparties.Thegovernmentbecomesapartytothecase,andisthefirstpartyinthecaption.CanadiancriminalcasesidentifythegovernmentasthepartythatisbringingalawsuitusingtheLatinwords“Rex”or“Regina”(“king”or“queen”,currently“Regina”).Inthecaption,Reginaisabbreviatedtojustoneletter–“R”.SothecasecaptionR.v.Smith(asseeninFigure7)meansthatthegovernmentisbringingthecase(aprosecution)againstMr.Smith(theaccused).Figure7:Criminalcasecaption

11

b. ThecasecitationUsually,thecasecitationwillfollowdirectlyunderneaththecaption,ortotherightofit.AsyoucanseeinFigure8,thecaptionofthecaseisfollowedbysomelettersandnumberswhichtellyou:

● theyearofthedecision● thenameofthecourtinwhichthecasewasdecided● the“reporter”inwhichyouwillalsofindthecasereport.The“reporter”isacollectionofcasereportsforthatcourtandthatyear.Thisusuallyincludesthevolumenumber(thereareoftenmultiplevolumesforanygivenyear).Inmanycases,the“reporter”willbeCanLll.

Figure8:Casecitation

InthecaseofMoorev.ApolloHealth&BeautyCare,thecasecitationincludesthenamesoftheparties,followedby2017(theyearthatthecasewasdecided),andthen“ONCA”(anacronymfortheOntarioCourtofAppeal).DifferentcourtsacrosstheprovincesandterritoriesofCanadaarereferredtobyvariousacronyms–foralistofsomeofthemostcommon,pleaserefertoAppendixB.Thenumber“383”isthepagenumberwherethedecisioncanbefoundinthereporter,whichhereisCanLII.

c. TheheadnoteManycasereportsalsoincludeaheadnote,typicallylocatedunderthecitationandbeforethemainbodyofthecasereport.Aheadnoteisusuallyabriefsummaryofalegalprincipleorrulediscussedinthecasereport,andabriefsummaryofthelegalissuethatthejudgmentunderneathwillfocuson.Aheadnotecanalsoincludeinformationonlegislationorothercasereportsthatarerelevanttothiscase,andwhetherthiscaseisonappeal.

12

Forresearchpurposes,theheadnotecanbeausefulquicksummary,butpleasekeepinmindthattheheadnoteisnotadirectquotefromthecasereportitselfandisnotwrittenbythejudge.Don’tquoteitwhenpresentingyourowncase.

Figure9:Theheadnote

TheheadnoteinFigure9tellsyouthatthiscasereportfocusesonanoralinsurancecontractandbrieflystatesthemainlegalprinciplesinvolved.Asintheaboveexample,theheadnoteissometimesitalicized.Theheadnoteisausefulplacetobegin,butifyouspotanissuetherethatrelatestoyourcase,youshouldreadthewholecasereport,ifpossible,inordertounderstandhowthecourtappliedthelawinthisearliercase.

d. TheauthoringjudgeUnderthecitation,youwillalsofindthenameofthejudgewhowrotetheopinion.Mostoften,itwillbealastnamefollowedbytheletter“J”whichstandsforJudgeorJustice.Figure10:Authoringjudge

13

InMoorev.Apollo(seeFigure10above),thedecisionwaswrittenbyBrown,J.A.orJusticeBrown,anAppealCourtjudge.Ifhewereajudgeofthetrialcourt,hewouldbedescribedsimplyas“BrownJ.”orJusticeBrown.Insomecasereportsyoumayalsoseetheabbreviationof“C.J.”whichstandsforChiefJustice.Notethatsomeopinionsareauthoredbymultiplejudges.

e. ThefactsofthecaseYouarenowatthemainbodyofthecasereport.Thisparttypicallyconsistsofthefactsofthecase,answeringthequestion“whathappened?”inthedisputenowbeforethecourt.

Youhavetokeepinmindthatnotallthefactsofagivencasearenecessarilydescribedinthe“facts”section:asajudgeauthorsanopinion,heorshedescribesthemostimportantfactsasheorsheunderstandsthem,andthoseconsideredtobemostrelevanttothedecisionthatfollows.

Often,thebeginningofthe“Facts”sectionisclearlyidentifiedbyaheading,asseeninFigure11.Figure11:Thefacts

Becausethesystemofprecedentrequiresthatcourtsinthesamejurisdictionfollowearlierdecisions,youwillbelookingatthefactstoseehowcloselyyoucanrelateyourownmattertothisone(seealsoPartII(b)below).

Don’tgetboggeddowninthedetailsofacase–youarelookingfor

differencesand/orsimilaritiestoyour

owncase.

14

f. ProceduralhistoryandappealsTrialdecisionsoftenincludeaproceduralhistory.Whereasthefactsofacase(above)describetheeventsthatoccurredbeforethedisputeenteredthecourtsystem,theproceduralhistorydescribeswhathappenedinthecaseafteritwasfiledincourt.Theproceduralhistoryofacasemayincludeanymotionsthathavebeenbrought(seethediscussionofmotionsabove),earlierpreliminaryhearingssuchascasemanagementconferencesorsettlementconferences,andinthecaseofanappeal,theearlier,lowercourttrialdecisionthatisnowbeingreviewed.Acasemaybeappealedwhenoneofthepartiesfilesarequesttoahighercourttoreviewtheoutcomeofthatcase.Whenacaseisappealed,itisreviewedbyahighercourt,whichcanoverruleandreplacethepreviousdecision,oragreewiththatdecisionandthusconfirmit.Theproceduralhistoryofacasewilltellyouwhetherthecasereportyouarereadinghassincebeenoverruledonappealbyahighercourt.Thisisimportantbecauseyouwanttoestablishthatthiscaseisstill“goodlaw”–meaning,ithasnotbeenoverruledandreplaced.Let’sreturntothecaseofMoorev.Apollo,andthecasereportofthetrialdecisionintheOntarioCourtofAppeal.Theproceduralhistoryis(typically)givenatthebeginningofthecasereport.Hereitisdescribedundertheheading“Overview”,asseeninFigure12.TheproceduralhistorytellsusthatthiscasebeganintheSmallClaimsCourt,whereMs.Moore,aself-representedlitigant,suedherformeremployer,ApolloHealth&BeautyCare.Shelost,andisnowappealingtotheOntarioCourtofAppeal.Figure12:Proceduralhistory

15

Paragraphs12and13describetheearlierSmallClaimsCourttrial.Itisimportanttocheckwhetherthecasereportyouarereadingisthe“finalword”or“goodlaw”onthecase,orwhetherithassincebeenappealedtoahighercourtandperhapschanged.PartIIreturnstothistopicandgivesyousometipsonhowtocheckthatthecasereportyouarerelyingoninyourownargumentisstill“goodlaw”.

g. Referencestoothercases

Acasereportwillofteninclude(sometimesintheproceduralhistory)areferencetoearlierdecisionsthatthecourtconsidersrelevanttotheirjudgment.Sometimesthecourtwill“citeto”suchdecisionswithapproval–andsometimestheywill“distinguish”them.Thismeansthatthecourtdiscussesanearliercasebutdecidesthatitisnotrelevanthere.Itmaybeusefulforyoutoreadthecases“citedto”withapproval,butlessusefultoreadthosethatare“distinguished”.Thesubsequentproceduralhistoryofacasecanalsotellyouwhenandhowthisdecisionhasbeenreferredto(“citedby”)bylatercases.Thiswillgiveyouanideaofhowwidelyappliedandknownthecaseis,andisusefulfor“tracking”howthecasehasbeensubsequentlyinterpretedbyothercourts.YoucangetthisinformationinCanLllbyclickingonthe“citedby”linkonthemainpageofyourcasereport.ThisprocessisexplainedintheCanLIIPrimer,onpages20–21(bothEnglishandFrenchversions).

Makesurethatthedecisionyouarereadingisthefinalwordinthatcase–thatithasnotbeenoverruledandreplacedlaterbyahighercourt’sdecision.

16

h. Legalprinciplesandotherauthoritativesources

Youarefinallyreachingthepointinthecasereportwherethelegalprinciplesbehindthedecisionarediscussed!Typically,youwillfirstseeadiscussionofthegenerallegalprinciplesrelevanttothefactsofthecase.Next,thecasewilldiscusshowtheselegalprinciplesmaybedirectlyappliedtothefactsofthecaseyouarereading.Itistheapplicationoftheserelevantlawstothefactsofthecasethatwilldetermineandexplainthecaseoutcome.Thelegalprinciplesthatarerelevanttothecasemaycomefromseveraldifferentsources.Ajudgemayuseprinciplesthatarewritteninlegislationorstatutes–lawspassedbytheCanadianParliament.Ajudgemayalsodiscusslegalprinciplesandrulesthatcomefromcommonlaw.Usually,thetermcommonlawreferstothebodyofpreviouscasereports,alsoknownasprecedents,thatarerelevanttothiscase2.Finally,anargumentmaydrawonanother“authoritative”source;forexample,astatementofprinciplesfromaprofessionalorganization,orfromthepublishedwritingofarespectedjurist.Sometimesthecasereportwillincludealengthydiscussionofhowaparticularlegalprincipleiscentraltothejudge’sreasoning.Let’sreturntothecaseofMoorev.Apolloforanexample.

Undertheheading“Misapprehensionoftheevidence”(Figure13,below),thecasereportaddressesoneoftheissuesraisedonappealbyMs.Moore.Thiswasthatthejudgeather(SmallClaimsCourt)trial“misapprehended”(failedtoconsider)herevidence.InParagraph37(circled),thejudgesetsouttherelevantlaw.Inthenextparagraph(Para38),hediscusseshowthislegalprincipleisrelevanthere,applyingthelawtoMs.Moore’scase.

2Forareviewofprecedentincommonlaw,seetheNSRLPCanLIIPrimeratpage11,1.2“SystemofPrecedent”

17

Figure13:Legalprinciples

YoucanalsoseethatinParagraph37thejudge“citesto”tothecaseofRv.Morrissey,anearliercasethatdiscussesthegenerallegalprinciplesgoverningthemisapprehensionofevidence.

Anotherheadinginthecasereportreads“Ascertainingwhetheraself-representedpersonhasabandonedpartofherclaim”(Figure14).Thisprovidesanexcellentexampleofreferencetoan“authoritativesource”thatisneithercaselawnorstatute.Figure14:Anauthoritativesource

Theprinciplesthejudgereferstoherearenotfoundincourtdecisions.TheyaretheStatementofPrinciplesofSelf-representedLitigantsandAccusedPersonswrittenbytheCanadianJudicialCouncil.ThejudgeexplainsthatthisStatement

18

hasbeenapprovedbytheSupremeCourtinthecaseofPinteav.Johns3in2017(anotherexampleof”citingto”).Aftersettingouttherelevantlawandotherauthoritativesources(andlegislation,ifapplicable),mostjudgesgoontofurtherexplainandjustifytheirreasoning.Sometimesjudgeswillemphasizetheimportanceofpublicpolicy–thatis,makingsuretheoutcomeofthiscaseisconsistentwithestablishedpublicpolicyprinciples(forexample,notupholdingan“unconscionable”or“immoral”contract).Similarly,thejudge’sreasoningmayrefertoprinciplesofproceduralfairnessandjusticethatareseenasfoundationaltothelegalsystem(forexampletheprincipleof“opencourt”).InPartIIweshallexplainhowyoucanencapsulatethejudge’sreasoningasthe“ratiodecidendi”orthe“gem”attheheartofthecase.

i. Theoutcome

Attheendofthejudge’sopinion,youwillseea“holding”ordisposition,whichsetsoutwhatactionthecourtordersinthiscase.IfthecaseisbeingheardbyanAppealCourt,andmorethanonejudgeissitting,thejudgmentyoureadinacasereportisthedecisionofallorthemajorityofthejudgeshearingthecase(butitiswrittenbyjustoneofthem,the“authoringjudge”).Sometimesjudgeswhoagreewiththemajoritywillissueaseparate,additional(usuallyshort)decisionstatingthatthey“concur”butemphasizingaparticularpointorlineofreasoningthatdiffersslightlyfromthemajoritydecision.Ifajudgewritesaconcurringdecision,theyhavestillreachedthesameresultastherestofthecourt,butdidsobyusingadifferentlegalprincipleorforadifferentreason.

Whenoneormorejudgeshaveadifferentopinionthanthemajorityandhavereachedadifferentresult,theyprovidea“dissent”.Adissentingopinionnotonlyidentifiesadifferentlegalprinciple,butalsoarguesthattheresult(themajoritydecision)shouldhavebeendifferent.

3Pinteav.Johns,2017SCC23(CanLII)

19

Also,inacasereportofanappealdecision,youwillseethefollowinglanguagethattellsyouwhatthe(new)outcomeis:

➢ TheAppealCourtmayaffirmthedecisionthatwasmadeearlierbythelowercourt.Ifadecisionisaffirmeditmeansthatthecourtfindsnoerrorinthedecisionofalowercourt,andagreeswithit,comingtothesameresult.

➢ TheAppealCourtmayreversethelowercourt’sdecision.Thismeansthatthedecisionofalowercourtisoverturned.

➢ Occasionally,thecourtmayremandalowercourt’sdecision,whichmeansthatthecasewillbesentbacktothatlowercourttobeheardagain.

PartII:UsingaCaseReporttoMakeYourOwnCaseNoteverycasereportyoureadwillhelpyoutomakeyourownargument.Onceyouarefamiliarwithwhatinformationisavailableinacasereport,youarereadytostartevaluatingwhichcaseswillhelpyoutomakeapersuasiveargumenttothecourt.

a. UnderstandingprecedentThefirstthingyouneedtodoisreviewhowthesystemofprecedentworksinCanadianlaw.Thisisacommonsensesystem,withthedecisionsofhighercourtsalways“trumping”(iftheycometoadifferentdecision,overruling)thoseoflowercourts.Thereisalsovalueinfindingacaseinthesamejurisdiction(province,court)astheoneyouareapplyingto.ThesystemofprecedentwerefertothroughoutthisPrimerisreviewedbytheEnglishandFrenchCanLIIPrimersandyoushouldlookatthesedocumentsifyouneeda“refresher”.

Don’tgetoverwhelmedbyreadingtoomany

cases.Don’tgodowneveryrabbithole.Youdon’thavetohaveeverypossible

precedent–yourgoalistofindtwoorthree(orevenjustone)reallyclear,strongprecedentsforyourownargument.

20

b. Checkingthatacaseis“goodlaw”Ifyouhavefoundacaseinyourjurisdictionwhichyouthinkissimilartoyourownandwillsupportyourargument,younextwanttobesurethatthecasereportyouarereadingisstill“goodlaw”andhasnotbeenappealedandoverruled(seeabovePartI(f)).Ifthiscasewasappealedandtheoriginaldecisionoverruled(reviewedandchanged),itwillnothelpyourownargument.Herearesometipsforcheckingwhetheracaseis“goodlaw”inCanLll:(a) DecisionsoftheSupremeCourtofCanadaarealwaysthefinalword

onacase–thisisthehighestcourtofthecountry.IfthecasereportyouarereadingisfromtheSupremeCourtofCanada,restassuredthatitisthefinalword.

(b) IfthecaseyouarereadingisadecisionofaprovincialCourtofAppeal(anappealcourtthatreviewstheoriginaldecisionbyalowerprovincialcourt,forexample:theOntarioCourtofAppealintheexampleaboveatFigure12),unlessthereisafurtherappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanada,whatyouhaveisthefinaloutcomeofthatcase.SinceJanuary2006,CanLlllinksalldecisionsissuedbyCourtsofAppealtotheappealedlowercourtdecision.Asthehighercourt,theCourtofAppealdecisionis“goodlaw”,whetherornottheappealjudgesagreedwiththelowercourt’sdecision.

(c) Ifyouarestillunsure,onewaytofindoutwhethertherewereanyfurtherappealsinthecasereportyouarereadingistorunasearchinCanLllusingthenameofthecase(itscaption,explainedaboveinPartI,section4.a.).Let’sworkthroughanexampleusingthecaseofMoorev.Apollo.

Step1:CutandpastethecaptionintothemainCanLllsearchpage.Toreturntothemainsearchpage,clickonthelarge“CanLII”symbolinthetopleftcorner.Figure15illustrateswhatyouwillsee.

21

Figure15:MainCanLllsearchpage

StepTwo: Youcannowpastethecaptionintooneofthreeplaces.The“Documenttext”or“Casename,legislationtitle,citationordocket”fieldsallowforabroadersearch(youcanlearnmoreaboutthespecificsofthesearchofeachfieldbyclickingthequestionmarksonthefarright).Thelowerfield(“Noteup”)isdesignedforalimited,morespecificsearch.PuttingthecaptionforMoorevApolloin“Documenttext”takesustothefollowingresult(Figure16):

Figure16:Isthiscasereportthefinalword,orhasitbeenappealed?

22

StepThree:Interpretingyourresults.YoucanseefromthesearchresultsinFigure16thatthe2016casereportofMoorevApolloisnotthefinalword–in2017therewasanappealtotheOntarioCourtofAppeal(ONCA).YoucannowclickonthesecondresultandreadthefinalappealandholdingofMoorev.Apollo.

c. Understandingthefacts

Ifyouwishtouseacasereporttosupportyourownargumenttothecourt,youmustbeabletoshowthatitisfactuallysimilar.Makenoteofthefactorsthatshapethecasereportandthedisputeitisdescribing(seeabove,PartIsection4.e.).Canyouaddressanyfactualdifferencesthatmightpreventthesetwosituationsfrombeingresolvedinthesameway?Alternatively,youmayreadacasereportthatreachesadifferentoutcometotheoneyouwanttoargueforinyourowncase–andalthoughthefactslooksimilar,youthinktherearesomeimportantdifferences.Inthiscase,youcanusethiscasereporttoshowhowyourowncaseisfactuallydifferentandthereforeshouldbedecideddifferently–inotherwords,youwouldliketodistinguishthiscaseinyourownargument.Ifthisisyourgoal,makenoteofthefactorsthatsetthetwocasesapart.

d. Understandingtheargumentsmadebyeachparty

Trytolocatetheargumentsmadebyeachpartyinthecasereport.Ifyouunderstandtheclaimsmadebyeachside,itwillbeeasiertounderstandthecaseoutcome.Moreover,asyoureadthroughthecasereportyouwillseehowthecourtreactedtoeachargument.Thisallowsyoutoseewherethepartiessucceeded,andwheretheirclaimswererejected.Itcanbehelpfultomakebriefnotesoneachparty’sclaimandargument.Whatistheoutcometheyareaskingfor?Whatargumentsdotheyuse?(Andperhaps,whatothercasesdotheyreferto?)Whatdoesthecourtsayaboutit?Whydoesthecourtgrantthemtheoutcometheyaskedfor,orrefuseit?Whatcasesdoesthecourtcitetowithapprovalinreachingitsdecision?

23

Understandingtheargumentmadebyapartyinasimilar-factcasewhotakesapositiondifferenttoyourownisveryimportant.Thiswillallowyoutobetteranticipatethequestionsthatthecourtmightaskyouinordertojustifyyourownargument.

e. Findingthegemofthecase(ratiodecidendi)

PartIexplainedhowthecasereportwilldescribetheoutcomeofthecase,andtheresultingactionsofthecourt.Nowyouneedtogoastepfurtherinanalyzingthatoutcome.Asyoureadthroughthejudge’sreasoning,youwilleventuallyreachthemostimportantelementofeverycasereport–theratiodecidendiorratioforshort.ThisLatinphrasemeans“thereasonforthedecision”.Theratio–ortheruleofthecase–explainsandjustifiesthecourt’ssolutiontothelegalissueathand.Ifyouarereadinganappealcourtjudgment,youwanttolookfortheratiointhemajoritydecision.Itwillnotbefoundinaconcurringdecision,althoughthisanalysisisconsidered“persuasive”infuturecases.Anditwillnotbefoundinany“dissent”(seeabovePartIsection4.i.).Adissentissometimesdescribedas“strong”whereitpointsoutaseriousflawinthereasoningofthemajoritydecision.However,adissentisnotadecisionthatyoucanrelyontomakeyourownargument–rememberthatthemajoritydisagreedwiththisposition.Atbest,youcanuseittoraisesomedoubtsandnewideas.

Theratiodecidendiisthe“gem”thatyouaresearchingforinyouranalysis.Theratioiscrucialforfutureinterpretationofsimilarlegalissues.Anythingthatthejudgesaystojustifythedecision,andanycaseorstatuteorotherauthoritativesourcethatisreliedoninthatreasoning,formspartoftheratio.Theratioisyourmostimportant“take-away”.Not

onlydoesitdescribethecourt’sresolvedoutcometothedisputeathand,butitalsorepresentsthelegalprinciple(s)inthiscase.Andbecauseoftheprincipleofprecedent,theratioisbindingonlowercourtsconsideringsimilarfactcases–perhapsincludingyours.

Yourultimategoalistofindthegemofthecase–ratiodecidendi,thefinalwordofthecourtinthatcaseandthemainoutcomeofthe

decision.

24

Noteverythinginthedecision(ormajoritydecision)istheratio,andyouneedtodistillwhatisessentialtothereasoning.Let’slookatthisexamplefromthecaseofMs.Moore(Figure17).Figure17:Ratiodecidendi

Here,thejudgenolongerdiscusseslegalprinciplesintheabstract.Hehasalreadyreferredtotheauthorities(above,Figures13&14)thathebelievesapplytothiscaseandhasappliedthemtothefactshere.Nowhestatesalegalprinciplewhichwillbecomeapartoftheratio.Itcanbesummarizedasfollows:

“Judgesmustmakespecificinquirieswhenthereisaquestionraisedaboutevidenceoftheself-representedlitigant.”

Thisrationotonlystatesalegalprinciple,butgivespracticalinstructionsonhowtoensurethatitisfollowedinfuturecases.Findingtheratioisthesinglemostchallenging,andthemostimportant,partofreadingandanalyzingacase.Ifyoucandothiseffectively,youwillbeabletousethecasesthatyouhaveidentifiedasrelevanttoyourowncaseinapowerfulway.Thisisnoteasy–ittakeslawyersyearsofpracticeandisanacquiredskill.Thesetipsmayhelp:

● Theratioisoftenprecededbywordslike“wefindthat…”“ourrulingisthat…”etc.

25

● Theratioiscentraltothejudge’sreasoningonwhoisgoingtowin–sowhenyoustarttogetasenseofwhosesidethejudgeisgoingtotake,youareinratioterritory!4

● Theratioisnotjustanabstractdescriptionofthelaw,butapragmaticapplicationtothefactsofthiscase.

● Theratiomaybestatedbroadly(whichwillhelpyoumakeit“fit”yourowncase)oritmaybeverynarrowandfact-specific.Ifitisstatednarrowly,becarefulabout“stretching”ittoyourowncaseunlessthefactsareverysimilar.

Remember:thisisanartnotascience.Thereisnodefinitiveratioforeachcase–lawyersargueoverthisendlessly–justuseyourbestguessaboutwhatisatthecoreofthedecision.Youwillgetbetteratthisthemorecasereportsyouread.

f. Whatistheimportanceoftheobiterdictumcommentsinacasereport?

Whiletheratioisthemostimportantpartofthecasereport,youwillalsowanttonotethecourt’scommentsthat,whilenotpartofthesolutiontothelegalissueathand,areofferedasobservationsbythejudge.Thesestatementsarecalledobiterdictum(singular)ordicta(plural),aLatinexpressionthatmeans“thingssaidbytheway”.Commentsmadeobiterdictumarenotasimportantorasusefultoyouastheratio,whichistheultimatelegalprinciple.Nonetheless,obitercommentscanbeimportant.Althoughitwillnotformpartoftheprecedent(thisislimitedtotheratio),obiterdictacanbe“persuasive”–meaningthattheymayinfluence,althoughnotdetermine,futuredecisions.Sometimesnewcaseswillincorporateearlierobitercommentsintoanewdecisionorratio.ObiterdictafromaSupremeCourtofCanadadecisionareespeciallyinfluentialinlowercourts.

4Describedasthe“aha”momentbySurviveLaw,July18th2017

26

g. Howdoyouknowwhatispartoftheratioandwhatisobiterdictum?

Thisisatoughcall.Generally,obiterdictaarecommentsofferedbyajudgewhicharenotdirectlyneededtosolvethelegaldispute.Thesecommentssometimestaketheformofahypotheticalexample,usingdifferentfactsfromthecaseathand,inordertoillustrateaprincipleoflaw.Hereisanexamplefromaveryoldandwell-knowncase,Carlillv.CarbolicSmokeBallCompany5:“IfIadvertisetotheworldthatmydogislost,andthatanybodywhobringsthedogtoaparticularplacewillbepaidsomemoney,areallthepoliceorotherpersonswhosebusinessitistofindlostdogstobeexpectedtositdownandwritemeanotesayingthattheyhaveacceptedmyproposal?Why,ofcoursenot!”ThefactsofthecaseofCarlillv.CarbolicSmokeBallCompanydidnotinvolveanylostdogs,butthejudge’shypotheticalexampleisanillustrationofthecontractualprinciplethatislatersetoutintheratioofthecase.Thisexample,however,isobiter.Obitercommentsmayalsorefertoorsetthecontextforthedecision.Forexample,inthecaseofMoorev.Apollo,thejudgeisaskedtoruleonwhetherinthiscaseMs.Moorewasgivensufficientjudicialassistance(hesaidno).Hewasnotaskedtomakeanydeterminationabouttheincreasednumberofself-representedlitigantsinthecourts;nevertheless,hechosetohighlightthisas“thenewreality”Para41,seeFigure18below).Thesecomments,sincetheyarenotdirectlyrelatedtotheoutcomeinthiscase,areobiter:Figure18:Obiterdictum

5Carlillv.CarbolicSmokeBallCo.,[1893]1QB256

27

Itispossibletoimaginequotingthephrase“newreality”inanargumentinanothercaseaboutjudicialassistanceforSRLs–notasalegallybindingprinciplelikearatio,butasimportantcontext.

28

AppendixAGlossaryofTerms

Accused: apersonwhoischargedwithacrime.Action: acivillawsuit.Act: astatute(oralaw)passedbylegislature.Affirm: anAppealCourtmayaffirmadecisionmadeearlierby

Ifadecisionisaffirmeditmeansthatthecourtfindsnoerrorinthedecisionofalowercourt,andagreeswithit,comingtothesameresult.

Appeal: whenapartyasksahighercourttoreviewthedecision

ofalowercourt.Appellant: apersonwhoisappealingadecisionofacourtby

askingforreviewbyahighercourt.Appellatecourt: acourtthathearsappealsofcasedecisionsfromlower

courts.Caption: thetitleornameofacasereport.Citation: thepartofacasereportthatusuallyfollowsthe

captionorisdirectlyunderneaththecaption;thecitationstatesthenameofthecourtwherethecasewasdecided,the“reporter”(collectionofcasereports)wherethetextwillbefound,thereporter’svolumenumber,andtheyearthecasewasdecided.

Citesto: whenacourt“citesto”itmentionsorreferstoan

earlierdecision.Citedby: whenandhowoftenthisparticularcasehasbeen

referredto(“citedby”)byothercases.

29

CommonLaw: agenerictermforthejusticesystemwhichoperatesincountriessuchasCanada,theUnitedKingdom,andtheUnitedStates,wherebylawiscreatedviapreviousjudicialdecisions(precedent).

Counsel: anothertermforlawyerorlegalrepresentative.Concurringdecision: anopinionwrittenbyajudge(orjudges)thatagrees

withthemajoritydecisionbutdescribesadifferentreason(oradditionalreasonorlegalprinciple)forreachingthesameoutcome.

Damages: theremedy,usuallymonetarycompensation,awarded

tothewinningpartyinalawsuit.Decisiononmerits: thefinaldecisioninalawsuit,basedonweighingthe

evidenceandthearguments.Defendant: apartyagainstwhomacivillawsuitisbrought,ora

personwhoischargedwithacriminaloffence.Disposition: outcomeofthecase.Dissentingopinion: adecisionwrittenbyajudge(orjudges)thatdisagrees

withthemajoritydecisionintheoutcome.Thedissentisnotthefinaloutcomeortheruleofacase.

Distinguish: wherethecourtdiscussesanearliercasebutdecides

thatitisnotrelevanttothecurrentcaseHearing: anyproceedingbeforeacourt.Headnote: apartofacasereport,typicallylocatedunderthe

citationandbeforethemainbodyofthecasereport.Aheadnoteisusuallyabriefsummaryofalegalprincipleorrulediscussedinthecasereport.Theheadnoteisnotapartofthecasejudgmentandisnotwrittenbytheauthoringjudge.

30

Holding: thedecisionreachedbythecourt.Legalbrief: alegaldocumentwrittenbyonepartyandsubmitted

tocourtthatcontainsthisparty’sargument.Legaldatabases: collectionsofcasereportsthatareusuallyaccessed

onlineLegislation: alaworabodyoflawthatiscreated(“passed”)bythe

legislature.Legislature: thegovernmentalbodythathastheauthoritytomake

laws.Motion: arequesttoacourtfiledbyonepartyaskingfora

proceduraldecisionthatwillaffecttheprogressofthecase.

Obiterdictum (pluralObiterDicta)a“passingremark”,commentary

madebyajudgeinadecisionwhichisnotpartofthelegalreasoning(“ratio”)andwhichisnotbindingonfuturedecision-makers.

Plaintiff: apersonwhobringsalawsuitoraction.Party: oneoftheparticipantsorsidesinalawsuit.Petition: awrittenapplicationfromapartytoacourtaskingfor

“relief”.“Relief”maybeanorderforcompensation,variationofanexistingorder,adivorce,orotherrequest.

Precedent: onecase–sometimesagroupofcases-thatestablisha

patternthatisbindingandwhichmustbefollowedbylowercourts(orthesamecourt)inthatjurisdictionunless“distinguished”onthefacts.

31

Proceduralhistory: informationonhowthecasehasprogressedsinceitbegan(includeslowercourtdecisions,motionshearings).

Proceduralruling: acourtorderregardingaspecificrequestmadebyone

ofthepartiestoalawsuitaboutaproceduralmattersuchasaddingorremovingapartytothelawsuit,arequestfordocumentsorotherinformationfromtheotherside,orarequestforsummaryjudgment.

Prosecution: acriminaltrialinwhichachargeisbroughtbythe

StateagainstanaccusedRatiodecidendi: thepartofthecasereportthatisiscrucialforfuture

interpretationofsimilarlegalissues.Anythingthatthejudgesaystojustifythedecision,andanycaseorstatuteorotherauthoritativesourcethatisreliedoninthatreasoning,formspartoftheratio.

Reverse: anAppealCourtmayreversethelowercourt’sdecision.Thismeansthatthedecisionofalowercourtisoverturned.

Remand: occasionally,anAppealCourtmayremandalower

court’sdecision,whichmeansthatthecasewillbesentbacktoalowercourttobeheardagain.

Respondent: apartyagainstwhomapetitionisfiled.Forexample,

theotherspousewhenonespousefilesfordivorce,ortheotherpartywhenoneside(the“appellant”)filesanappeal.

Statute: alawpassedbythelegislature.Summaryjudgment: arequesttothecourtbymotiontodismissthecaseof

theotherpartywithoutafulltrial.Trialcourt alsosometimesreferredtoasthe“originalcourt”ina

proceduralhistory,thetrialcourtiswherethecasewasfirstpresented.

32

AppendixB

CanadianCourtAbbreviationsAlbertaCourtofAppeal: ABCAAlbertaCourtofQueen’sBench: ABQBBritishColumbiaCourtofAppeal: BCCABritishColumbiaSupremeCourt: BCSCManitobaCourtofAppeal: MBCAManitobaCourtofQueen’sBench: MBQBNewBrunswickCourtofQueen’sBench: NBQBNewBrunswickCourtofAppeal: NBCANewfoundlandandLabradorCourtofAppeal: NLCANewfoundlandandLabradorSupremeCourt: NLTD(G)(TrialDivision)NovaScotiaCourtofAppeal: NSCANovaScotiaSupremeCourt: NSSCNunavutCourtofAppeal: NUCANunavutCourtofJustice: NUCJOntarioCourtofAppeal: ONCAOntarioSuperiorCourtofJustice: ONSCOntarioCourtofJustice: ONCJPrinceEdwardIslandCourtofAppeal: PECAPrinceEdwardIslandSupremeCourt: PEICourSupérieureduQuébec: QCCSCourduQuébec: QCCQSaskatchewanCourtofQueen’sBench: SKCASaskatchewanSuperiorCourt: SKSC

33

YukonTerritoryCourtofAppeal: YTCAYukonTerritorySupremeCourt: YTSCNorthwestTerritoriesCourtofAppeal: NWTCANorthwestTerritoriesSupremeCourt: NWTSCSupremeCourtofCanada: SCC