Henderson v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2008 ONFST 7 (CanLII)

link: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onfst/doc/2008/2008onfst7/2008onfst7.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAbRklOQU5DSUFMIFNFUlZJQ0VTIFRSSUJVTkFMAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1

A Case Brief (with one-inch margins) that uses the following headings:

1. Parties
2. Background (or facts)
3. Issues
4. Decision (Ratio Decidendi)
5. Reasons for the decision
6. Discussion (your opinion on the case. Do you agree or disagree with the decision?)
7. Connection to the readings and procedures of the tribunal. Try to reference in detail to actual rules or legislation, such as the SPPA. This section must be at least page long. for the Discussion section:

• Would the case had been successful but for _____?
• What evidence, if present, would have likely changed the outcome?
• Did you agree with ABCT member's decision? Why or why not?
• Does it remind you of another case? what the similarities are.
• Did the case follow the principles of natural justice?
• Do you feel the case was decided in the public interest or did the rights of the individual infringe that? Did the adjudicator mention how they weighed this?If so, do you agree with their analysis?

Reference back to the text, especially the textbook and Advocacy Primer for inspiration