Partl In Child's v Desormeaux [2006] 1 S.C.R. 64-3 [Introduction to Legal Studies Chapter 4-. page 80) the Supreme Court of Canada held that Ias a general rule ,a social host does not owe a duty of care to a person injured by a guest who consumed alcohol. Briefly review the facts, issues and ratio [reasons for deciding )the case ,and then answer the following 1. Does a Court have jurisdiction [the legal or inherent right] to recognize new duties ofcare [responsibility or legal obligation of a person to avoid acts or emissions that could likely cause harm to others], and ifso, should that have been done in this case? 2. Although Desormeaux was convicted under the Criminal Code , no Statute Law governed the claim by lChilds against the homeowner where the party was held. Common law [judge-made law] fills in those gaps unaddressed by legislation. What is "stare decisis n and how is that concept relevant here? 3. What are the public policy reasons for and against expanding the Court's ability to recognize new duties of care . particularly those involving uninsured defendants ? 4. Wat are the arguments for and against the 2 methods of making law common law [judge made] or, legislation [laws passed by elected representatives] and what is the difference between public law and private law