A short case summary

Identify the parties involved in the case

Determine the aspect of law illustrated in the case

Outline the arguments on both sides as lawyers would do in a court of law. Raise the points of law and any precedent cases related to the case.

A short presentation of the analysis

CASE 2

Malette v. Shulman (1990), 67 D.L.R. (4th) 321 (Ont. C.A.).

Mrs. Malette was seriously injured in an automobile accident, and at the hospital Dr. Shulman determined she was in need of a blood transfusion to save her life. The nurse, however, discovered a card in the patient's purse indicating she was a Jehovah's Witness. The card gave instruction that under no circumstances should blood or blood products be administered to Mrs. Malette. Dr. Shulman ignored the card and proceeded to administer the transfusion. When the family arrived they repeated the instruction, which Dr. Shulman also overruled. There is no question that the blood transfusion was needed to preserve her life, but upon her recovery Mrs. Malette sued Dr. Shulman for trespass to person (battery). Explain the arguments on both sides and the likely outcome.

Case 3

Lilly v. Phillips, 2006 CanLII 29280 (ON S.C.)

Sandra Phillips won $675 000 in the Cash for Life lottery and her friend Eunice Lilly in this case is claiming half of it. They played together in a bowling league. For years on their weekly bowling night they had jointly shared in the purchase of 50/50 $2.00 lottery tickets and on the few occasions when they had won a small amount they had shared the pro- ceeds, but it was clear that the practice to share was only on nights when they were both present for the league play. At the bowling league's Christmas party in 2003 the league executives decided to use the excess end of year funds (left over from regular registration fees that all members paid) to purchase Scratch to Win Cash for Life lottery tickets and give them out to attendees to encourage attendance. At the Christmas party there was also bowling but it was not league play and was just for fun. When they both attended they both received tickets and at the 2002 party they both won $4.00. Ms. Lilly testified that it was her understanding that if they were to win any large amounts it would be shared. But she couldn't give any indication of what would happen if one was absent from the party. At the 2003 Christmas party only Ms. Phillips attended while Ms. Lilly went to another party. Phillips accepted a ticket for herself and one for the plaintiff even though she was not there. Ms. Phillips ticket won $676 000. Although there was no specific agreement with respect to the sharing of the lottery win, indicate what arguments could

be advanced by both parties and the likely outcome.