How to complete the Respondent's Factum GROUNDS OF APPEAL Issue/Issue One [copy it here] # The Respondent takes the position that s. , Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is infringed by [name the rule/law at issue in your case] and the infringement is not reasonably justified in a free and democratic society by s 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. OR # The Respondent takes the position that s. , Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not infringed by [name the rule/law at issue in your case] and, in the alternative, if the Appellant is mistaken in this view, the infringement is/is not reasonably justified in a free and democratic society by s 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Issue Two [copy it here] # The Respondent takes the position that s. , Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is infringed by [name the rule/law at issue in your case] and the infringement is not reasonably justified in a free and democratic society by s 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. OR # The Respondent takes the position that s. , Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not infringed by [name the rule/law at issue in your case] and, in the alternative, if the Appellant is mistaken in this view, the infringement is/is not reasonably justified in a free and democratic society by s 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Issue Three [copy it here] [copy the text from Issue Two above - and complete. Do the same for EVERY ISSUE YOU WILL ARGUE] How to complete the Respondent's Factum LAW . Issue One: Application of s , Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 4. Section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (\"Charter\") that applies to this case says [quote it here] #. [argue how that should apply to your case] [SAMPLE ARGUMENT: #. The Appellant's case is [similar/different from] [name a case you're comparing yours to] because the facts are similar [tell what the facts in the comparator case are, then explain how these facts are like the facts in your case]. #. In that case, the holding was [tell what it was]. Therefore the holding should be similar in the present case OR Because the facts are dissimilar, the holding in the present case should be different [and indicate what it should be]. . issue Two: Application of s , Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms #. Section , Charter has been interpreted as follows, [quote from precedent case] if. [argue how that should apply to your case] issue Three: Application of s , Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if. Section , Charter has been interpreted as follows, [quote from precedent case]. How to complete the Respondent's Factum # . [argue how that should apply to your case] D (or???). [USE THIS SEGMENT FOR EACH SECTION OF THE CHARTER THAT YOU'RE ARGUING] Application of s 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s.1, Charter does/does NOT save the Respondent's case with respect to s Charter. # . Determining whether an infringement is justified under s.1, Charter, is done by application of the Oakes test. [citation]. # . The infringement is prescribed by law in [tell where/how it is a legal rule/law] # . The purpose of the law/decision is/is not pressing & substantial because... [compare to a precedent if possible] # . The law/decision is/is not rationally connected to its purpose because... [compare to a precedent if possible] # . The law/decision is/is not a minimal impairment of the right of It is appropriate/overreaches because... [explain] [compare to a precedent if possible] # . The law/decision achieves/fails to achieve proportionality between good effects and harm to rights because... [explain & compare to a precedent if possible]How to complete the Respondent's Factum IV. ORDER REQUESTED [back to the OJEN handout] [your name] Counsel for the Respondent V. TABLE OF CASES, STATUTES, AUTHORITIES