llo, What's new with you today? God bless you everyone!! I'd like to express my gratitude to everyone who has assisted me with this task.

I think I was clear about the Task. The task has been re-emphasized.

I'll try my best to explain the task in full below. The following are the instructions for what should be provided, which are explained in the images and should be helpful. Everything on this page will assist you in resuming the procedure. So, deliver the questions according to the instructions on the page below. That's the best I can come up with. I hope that helps; it's quite simple:) so it's all about reading and delivering questions.

the task is written below EVERYTHING IN BOLD IS THAT TASK AND EVERYTHING EXPLAINING ON HOW TO DELIVER THE TASK i hope that helps including the attachments tooo so yaa

Read the following and deliver t he questions.

Again, all directions may be seen in the photographs below.

THE TASK BELOW CONTAINS ALL INSTRUCTIONS!!!!!!!!

ALL INSTRUCTIONS ARE IN THE TASK BELOW ONCE AGAIN.

Below, I'll TRY my best to describe the task in detail. Below are the directions for what should be supplied, which are detailed in the photographs and should be of assistance. Everything on this page will help you complete the process once more. So it's more of a quick reading where you read the questions and then answer them. That's the best I can do. I hope that helps; it's quite straightforward:) So reading and delivering questions?

IMPORTANT bELOW

TOPIC: English

All instructions in photo below

Read the following than deliver

Deliver question how question ask for it to be delivered

Task:

\fQuestions: l. Compare all three cases by examining Charter violations and nal verdict. Do you agree with each verdict? Use a chart format to help you organize your thoughts. 2. Select one case you believe has greatly impacted modern Canadian law. Explain your rationale by nmkjng connect-lone to current day societal beliefs. 3. If you were the judge in the second onto. R. v. Snocomhe, [19.91] 3 SILK. 3-213. explain your rationale for the final verdict Provide three arguments. Comparing Significant Cases Expanding Equality Protections Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 Mark Andrews, a British citizen, challenged the requirement that members of the legal profession in B.C. had to be Canadian citizens, claiming this was a violation of section 15 of the Charter. Mr. Andrews had all of the other qualifications to be a lawyer. In deciding this case, the Supreme Court of Canada developed the first framework to be used to decide if there has been a violation of a person's equality rights. Citizenship status was not one of the protected grounds listed in s. 15. The court found that citizenship status was "analogous" to the other grounds protected by s. 15. This case marked the beginning of a structured approach to equality issues and created the test for analogous characteristics that deserve protection. Right to a Fair Trial R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 William Stinchcombe, a lawyer, was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. At trial, the Crown decided not to call a witness who had made police statements that supported the accused. The Crown refused to give Mr. Stinchcombe a copy of the police statements. Mr. Stinchcombe's counsel asked for disclosure of the statement, but the trial judge refused, saying that there was no obligation on the Crown to disclose the statements. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Crown must disclose all relevant information to the accused prior to the trial. This obligation fulfills the s.7 right of an accused person to be able to make full defence to criminal charges. This case has dramatically changed the criminal trial process, improved trial fairness, and helped to protect against wrongful convictions. No Death Penalty United States v. Burns. [2001] S.C.R. 287 Glen Burns and Atif Rafay. Canadian citizens, were wanted for murder in Washington State. They were arrested in B.C. and U.S. authorities asked the Canadian government to extradite them to Washington for prosecution. Extradition is when one country asks another country to deliver the accused person to face trial. If convicted, both Burns and Rafay could have received either the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole. Canada's Minister of Justice ordered their extradition to the U.S. without getting assurances that the death penalty would not be imposed or carried out. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the Minister's decision and decided that it was a breach of s. 7 of the Charter to send them to the U.S. without this promise. To do so would violate their right to life, liberty and security of the person (s. 7). Some say that this decision guarantees that the death penalty will never be brought back in the Canadian justice system because it violates s.7