1a] Stating the facts, ratio, and issues ofChilds v Desormeaux[2006] 1 S.C.R.643, explain if [yes or no] a Court have jurisdiction (the legal or inherent right) to recognize new duties of care (legal obligation of a person to avoid acts or omissions that could likely cause harm on others), and if yes, should that have been done in this case?

1b] What are the arguments against and for the two methods of making law - common law or, legislation and what is the difference between public law and private law?

1c] Although Desormeaux was convicted under theCriminal Code, no Statute Law governed the claim by Childs against the homeowner where the party was held. Common law (judge-made law) fills in those gaps unaddressed by legislation.

What is "stare decisis" and how is that concept relevant in this situation?

1d] What are the public policy reasons for and against expanding the Court's ability to recognize new duties of care, particularly those involving uninsured defendants?