ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION AND GUIDANCE

Materials and Resources

Textbook:

Provincial Offences for Paralegals, 2ed

Zubick

Software:

Microsoft Office

Websites:

https://www.ontario.ca/laws (https://www.ontario.ca/laws)

Student discretion

Other:

Student discretion

Assignment Description

This assignment engages students in a comprehensive analysis of the law relating to provincial offences. Students will be required to demonstrate their understanding of the classification of offences, defenses and penalty provisions under different statutes governed by the

Provincial Offences Act

.

Students will then have an ability to practice their advocacy skills in mock sentencing proceedings.

Assignment Steps

1.

Familiarize yourself with the details of the fact patterns provided. Facts will not be provided to you in perfect order and some facts may not be relevant.

2.

Review, analyze and interpret the governing legislation.

3.

Part A-Provide your written response to memo format-typed, double-spaced, 12pt font and using Times New Roman font. Your written response must not exceed 2 pages.

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS - MAJOR ASSIGNMENT 2

7/30/2021 Two Columns - Image Right

https://trioscollege.brightspace.com/d2l/le/content/21209/viewContent/811906/View 2/3

Remember to proofread for spelling, grammar and punctuation.

4.

Part B- Your instructor will assign you the role of prosecutor or defenses paralegal. Prepare your sentencing submissions which will be delivered orally in the mock sentencing proceeding.

Note: You do not need to submit written materials.

Fact Pattern - Part A: Understanding the Legislation

Stan was on his way to work early on a Monday morning. As he approached an intersection, the vehicle in front of him came to a sudden stop. Stan quickly glanced into his rear-view mirror and noticed that he had enough space to swerve into the next lane in order to avoid a collision. In doing so, he did cut off another vehicle, but at least he didn't cause an accident. Unfortunately, the other vehicle contained a police officer who had spilled his coffee all over himself when he was forced to brake so quickly in response to Stan's lane change. The officer was quite angry when he questioned Stan about his actions. He took down all of Stan's information and left the scene. Two months later, when Stan got home from work, his 15-year-old son told him that a police officer had come to the door and left a Form 106 Summons for Stan to appear in court. The officer had laid a charge of careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Answer the following questions:

1. Stan doesn't think that it was fair for the officer to wait so long to inform him of the charges. How long did the officer have to commence proceedings in this situation?

2. Which procedural stream does this offence fall under? List three reasons how you know that it falls under that stream.

3. Can Stan pay the set fine in order to resolve this matter outside of the courtroom? Explain.

Fact Pattern - Part B: Sentencing Submissions

Case:

R v Conner Barr and Quo Restaurant

Charges:

Charges under the

Liquor License Act of Ontario

RSO 1990 c.L.19:

Unlawful purchase of liquor, contrary to s.27

Sell liquor to intoxicated person, contrary to s.29

Sell liquor to person under 19 years old, contrary to ss.30(1) (2)

Synopsis for Sentencing Submissions on Guilty Plea:

Conner Barr is the owner of Quo Restaurant located in Mississauga. He is 37 years old and is the married father of the two young children. He has been married for 9 years and supports one dependent from a previous relationship. He has no criminal record. Quo Restaurant has been open since 2002. Mr. Barr became the owner in 2005. Previously he worked as a bartender and server and part time disc-jockey.

Quo Restaurant has been cited numerous times for breaches of municipal by-laws. These convictions include excessive noise complaints, staying open after closing hours, serving under-age and intoxicated patrons on premises. In total, there have been 20 violations of municipal by-laws and Liquor License Act infractions over the period of 2012-2018.

7/30/2021 Two Columns - Image Right

https://trioscollege.brightspace.com/d2l/le/content/21209/viewContent/811906/View 3/3

The bottles of alcohol seized by the police in this case are estimated to be worth in excess of $50,000. It is estimated that through the illegal purchase of these products the cost to the province and municipality due to lost revenues if between $15,000-$25,000.

There have also been a lot of concerns that unadulterated alcohol has been found to contain excessive traces of chemicals that preserve their longevity beyond the normal period of time that these products are considered fit for consumption.

At the time of his arrest, there were about 25 persons on the premises. A number of them appears to be obviously intoxicated and impaired. At least one patron appeared to be well under 19 years old. Mr. Barr was present as well. He spoke to the police while the search warrant was being executed. He was generally uncooperative and did not seem overly concerned for the wellbeing of his patrons.

As a result of these charges, Quo Restaurant has had its liquor license suspended by the municipality and is no longer carrying on business. Mr. Barr has been unable to find other employment and is currently in the process of applying for social assistance. His wife is on medical leave from her employment as a law clerk due to an injury to her hand. Since the charges were laid, Mr. Barr has experienced depression and has been referred to a therapist. He has acknowledged a long-standing alcohol and substance addiction and expressed a willingness to attend for counselling. It appears that his parents also had alcohol ad substance abuse issues, but Mr. Barr lost contact with them when he left their house and moved to Mississauga while still a teenager.

As a result of resolution discussions, it is anticipated that the individual defendant, Conner Barr will enter a guilty plea to one count of unlawful purchase of liquor and one count of knowingly selling liquor to a person under the age of 19 years old, contrary to the Liquor License Act. The penalty for the unlawful purchase offence is a maximum of $100,000 and/or imprisonment for one year; the penalty for the knowingly selling liquor to a minor is a maximum fine of $200,000 and/or imprisonment for one year. The charge of selling liquor to an intoxicated person against Mr. Barr will be withdrawn at the conclusion of sentencing, and all three charges against the corporate accused, Quo Restaurant, will also be withdrawn.

Prepare to make oral sentencing submissions on behalf of the role assigned to you by your instructor.

Tip!

Review the sentencing principles and be able to anticipate and respond to the opposing party's submissions. Be sure to address factors to support your sentencing recommendation.