please create the assignment foor section 7 charter argument as crown i am attaching the case and the assignment in pictures

BCTA 155 ASSIGNMENT 2 of Melanie Shulman Issue(s) - Set out as a question the legal Charter issue that you are dealing with. An Approach to Oral Charter Arguments Legal Analysis - This is where you make your legal argument. Note that you are expected to Due: Week 12 OR 13 (depending on your sign-up) reference AT LEAST three cases to back up your points. AT LEAST two of those cases must come 1. Introduction - Begin by greeting the judge and introducing yourself ("Good morning your booour my name is Percy Shulman and I am counsel for the crown/defence in the matter Dates: Tuesday Class - April 2 or 9 from the Supreme Court of Canada. All statutes and cases should be cited properly. before you today..") Tell the judge what section of the Charter is at play and why but without Wednesday Class - April 3 or 10 Order Sought - Ask the court for the order you want them to make (i.e. "exclude the evidence", "a going in to too much detail ("Today you will hear arguments about section 9 of the Charter and finding that there is no Charter violation" etc.) Do not go beyond your Charter issue. specifically about what constitutes 'detention"). Though you are working alone, you can NOTE: The written portion of your assignment is due on the day that you present - please hand in a acknowledge the fact that your "co-counsel" (the other two students who are working on your hard copy when you present There is no required length for your written assignment but I would expect it to be approximately 4- case) will be handling the other issues in the case. 6 pages long. Mock Charter Argument Assignment 2. Facts - Explain the facts of your case. Be brief but emphasize the facts that work best for your Worth: 25% NOTE: You may send me a draft for feedback. Any such draft must be sent to case. Consider the language you use (i.e. if the charge is assault, the Crown may refer to "attack" or "violence" while the defence is more likely to characterize it as "incident" or even just "the 1. There are SEVEN mock Charter cases posted on Blackboard under "Assignment 2". Each case will Melanie shulman@humber.ca and received by 6 PM on: events of the day in question"). Tell the story as if the judge does not know it but do not include March 29th for those due during Week 12 have three students playing the Crown and three playing Defence. The first four cases will be unnecessary detail. Make sure you include any facts that you will later rely on in the "analysis" April 5th for those due during Week 13 section. presented in class during Week 12. The d in class during Week 13. The written portion of your assignn will be due on the day that you present. Feedback will be for content only. PLEASE visit Humber's Writing Centre for assistance Note: these are not real cases. All six cases come from ojen.ca - feel free to browse that site with writing errors: LRC 3'" Floor. You may need to make an appointment. 3. Issues - Tell the court what issue(s) it has to decide. This should be very brief and stated as a for further information question(s) ("The issue in this case is whether..") 2. Beginning on Wednesday, March 6th at 7PM, there will be a link (on Blackboard called ORAL CHARTER ARGUMENT - 25% of the assignment 4. Legal Analysis - Begin with a "roadmap" - tell the court what your analysis is going to include. "Assignment 2 Sign-Up") to sign up for the role that you wish to play. You will be choosing a case On the day specified for your case, you will present your Charter argument. In your presentation, This is the place to lay out what the Charter test is. For instance: "The main test for analysis of and a role (either Crown A, B or C-OR- Defence A, B or C). The roles are found in the document deal ONLY with the Charter issue for your role (not the other Charter issues in the case). Even section 1 of the Charter comes from the _ _ case. It is a _ (2, 3, 4 etc) part test. I will begin titled "Mock Charter Argument PARTS" (on Blackboard under "Assignment 2"). You may only with part 1 which says_ . Then I will move on to part 2 which says_ _ ethetc etc" After sign up for one role. though the case given to you is written as a trial, you do not have to treat this as an appeal. Argue you have given the roadmap - follow it. Tell the judge that you are dealing with the first part. this as if you are making the argument at trial level. Re-state that part of the test (even though you already stated it in the road map). Then apply 3. This is an individual assignment. There is no reason to coordinate with the other students that test to the facts of your case. Bring in other cases as they are relevant. Then tell the court working on your case. You will be presenting on your own and handing in your own written The structure of your oral submissions should match the nature and order of your written you are moving on to the second part. assignment. All grades will be individual. submissions. However, you should not simply read your written submissions. Consider how you might differently persuade a judge in writing as opposed to orally. 5. Order Sought - End by asking the court for what you want. This should be brief (no more than WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT - 75% of the assignment two-three sentences). For instance, "We ask that the court find that there was no Charter Your oral submissions MUST be no shorter than 6 minutes and no longer than 8. You will be cut off violation"; "We submit that there has been a Charter violation and ask the court to find Please create written submissions for your Charter application. In your submissions deal ONLY with at 8 minutes (asked to finish the sentence you may be in the middle of) and there will be marks accordingly and to exclude the evidence". the Charter issue for your role (not the other Charter issues in the case). Even though the case given deducted if you are under 6 minutes (see rubric). You must also spend NO MORE THAN 3 minutes on to you is written as a trial, you do not have to treat this as an appeal. Argue this as if you are making the intro, facts and issue of your case. The majority of your time should be spent on your legal General Tips the argument at trial level. Your written submissions will be organized as follows: argument. See rubric for deductions If a judge asks you a question do not respond that you will be getting to that point later - Intro - Introduce the Charter issue as it relates to the case in general terms. Some notes: answer the question when the judge asks it Facts - Outline the facts of the case. You will want to emphasize facts that help you to make the This matter is in the Ontario Court of Justice and you can address the judge as "Your Hoogut". . The first time you refer to a case, refer to it by its full name and indicate which court it came point you want to make but you should include ALL relevant facts. You may not add facts that are You WILL be interrupted by Judge Shulman and asked questions. from. After that, you can just refer to it by single name (i.e. "The test for this matter comes from not in the case. Note that many of these cases are quite old at this point but allof the legal issues You are encouraged to "dress the part" (i,e business suit) but will not lose marks if you do not. the Supreme Court case R. v. Percy. In Percy the court ruled that..") Prepare your arguments but try not to write them out verbatim. Do your best to simply discuss are still relevant. If you want to update some of the dates in the cases so that they're more recent - the case with the judge feel free to do so. Do not otherwise change the facts.The Charter Challenge: Case Scenario Spring 2008 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (APPLICANT) -V, - GENEVIEVE POLYANDRY (RESPONDENT) REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT STRAIGHTLACE, J.: 1. Ms. Genevieve Polyandry stands charged that on or about the 15" day of January, 2007, she, being a married person, did commit the offence of bigamy by entering into a form of marriage with another person, contrary to 5. 290 of the Criminal Code. The facts in this case have largely been agreed upon and | will make reference only to those which are necessary to support this decision, 2. OnJanuary 15, 2007, Ms. Polyandry married John Primo in a ceremony presided over by a Minister of their joint religion (1 will expand on this point shortly). After that ceremony, Ms. Polyandry then engaged in a similar marriage ceremony with Louis Secondaire. This was presided over by the same clergyman. Indeed, all persons were aware of the marriage situation, all agreed that this was proper according to their religious views and it was the intention of the persons to live together as husbands and wife. The situation came to light when Ms. Polyandry, who is an employee of a large municipal pension office, attempted to designate both Mr. Primo and Mr. Secondaire as her husband. It was clarified that she had indeed gone through marriage ceremonies with both men. A supervisor denied her claim for registering both persons for spousal benefits, insisting that only one of the men could be recognized as a lawful husband. Ms. Polyandry objected tothis and appealed that decision. The issue of benefits for one or both men is not the issue in this case, When Ms. Polyandry insisted that both men be recognized as her husband, a person in the pension office notified the police, suspecting that there was some sort of criminally fraudulent scheme being created. Upon investigation, the police determined that there was no intention to defraud any person or party, but that Ms. Polyandry had violated S. 290 of the Criminal Code. She was thus charged with bigamy. Mr. Primo, as the person she first married, was not charged. Mr. Secondaire, who knew of the first marriage and still went through a ceremony with the accused in this case was also charged. His matter is being dealt with separately and all the parties have agreed that case should await the outcome of this constitutional challenge. A charge was contemplated against the pastor who officiated at the ceremony, but was not actually laid as he died shortly after this matter arose. All agree that if the provisions of 5. 290 of the Code can withstand Charter scrutiny, then the accused is guilty of the offence. However, Ms. Polyandry has challenged the law on four grounds: TG S IR LG Wt IR IS, ST IR I JTRPE T I WP - a) the law violates her freedom of association under s. 2(d); b) it violates her freedom of religion under s. 2(a); c) it violates her right to life, liberty and security of the person and is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7; and d) it is not a reasonable limit on her freedom, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 5. Before turning to the constitutional issues here, | must set out some factual findings which are necessary for this case. The accused, Mr, Primo, and Mr., Secondaire are all members of the Pluralian faith. The Crown challenged the legitimacy of this as a true religion, referring to it as a cult and without historical or factual foundation. As a result of that, | required evidence to be heard on whether the Pluralian religion was to be recognized as a real faith or church. The accused called two experts in this matter, Professor Ulrich von Quark is a professor of comparative religions at the University of Toronto, He has published numerous books, lectured for many years, and has very impressive academic qualifications. | accepted him as an expert without hesitation, 6. According to Professor von Quark, the Pluralian faith arose in Germany at a time of religious persecution in the 16" Century. It was a small group and came about as a result of a prophet hearing the voice of God, who stated that women were the masters (or to be correct in my use of the English language perhaps | should say mistresses) of the earth and that men were behalden unto them and were placed here to serve women. As part of this revelation, the prophet stated that any woman could take up to four husbands to serve her. The religion suffered many persecutions and a number of its members were executed for their beliefs. As a result, the members of the church sought refuge in other countries, and indeed suffered continued persecution in other places. There are small pockets of devotees in many western countries. Church membership has been estimated as up to 200,000 people world wide at any time. The professor gave extensive testimony on the history of this group, its development, ceremanies, history of charitable work and so on. This testimony was supported by Professor Janine Freelove, who had equally impressive credentials. | therefore hold that the Pluralian faith is a legitimate religion and that the claims of the accused are based upon a legitimate foundation, | turn to the four grounds for this challenge. Under 5. 2(d) of the Charter, everyone has the right to freedom of association. People can come together for various purposes, without state interference, in order to fulfill their personal destinies and accomplish their own goals. The accused claims that her freedom to associate with Mr. Primo and Mr. Secondaire has been limited, as well as her right to celebrate her status within not only her church community but in the greater Canadian community and in associating with other members of the public as a woman with two husbands. The Crown argues that she is free to associate with them as she sees fit, but that freedom does not mean that the state has to recognize that the parties have a particular status in law which the state is required to recognize, | find this latter point compelling. The three people in this case could live together in their own relationship, no matter what people would think of the morality of it and present themselves to others as enjoying this multiple relationship. The law does not stop them doing this, only from having a particular status which the state recognizes. Thus, | do not see free association as being infringed. The second issue is whether freedom of religion is limited in this matter. This must be recognized as distinct from freedom of association. While some people may join together in a place of worship and thus associate in that sense of the word, freedom of religion is predominantly a personal right, which is exercised by the individual. This argument would, at first blush, be more compelling, particularly since | have found that their faith is a real religion, not some sort of cult or convenient statement of beliefs which were created to give a false gloss of religious sincerity to their personal views. However, | must also reject this claim. Although the Charter has constitutional status and all laws which do not conform to it must be invalidated, | look to other cases where claims of religious freedoms have been advanced, particularly those under the Canadian Bill of Rights. From these | gather one overall principle: freedom of religion does not mean freedom from observing the law. If a person claimed that they were an adherent of a church which had a sacrament of using drugs, for example, the law would take precedence over their recreational drug use. This type of finding has been consistent. If a religion allowed a man to beat his wife, would this be tolerated in Canadian society? Obviously not. The idea of religious freedom must conform to the values of Canadian society and | do not see how multiple partner marriage can be held to so conform. Bigamy has long been prohibited by Canadian law and | do not believe that the Charter was designed to overturn the long 10. 1n. standing values of Canadian society. This claim fails, Related closely to this is the claim that the accused is being deprived of her liberty without fundamental justice. Certainly since bigamy is an indictable offence which carries the possibility of a prison term, the accused is in danger of losing her liberty. However, is this not in accordance with fundamental justice? As | noted above, the Charter was not designed to overturn long standing Canadian values. Those values are part of the way in which we evaluate fundamental justice. | see no conflict between that principle and the restriction of the number of people in a marriage. The accused argues that in a case such as this, where all the parties are members of the same faith and all agree with the living arrangement which is entailed by their desires, they are doing no harm to anyone and thus the state should not interfere with them, much less prosecute them and put them at risk of jail. One can imagine that the state should be cautious about condemning the volitional acts of consenting adults which do no one else any harm, again leaving aside the issue of the morality of those acts. There is some superficial appeal to this point. However, the accused is again attempting to say that the principles of fundamental justice allow her to do as she pleases, without regard to the views of Canadian society. | do not agree, Recently, Parliament changed the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. That caused great debate, but the law was changed. What was not changed was the concept that marriage was a union between two individuals, not multiple individuals or any other form of union. | recognize that some societies and some religions may allow for multiple partner marriage. But, this 12, 13. 14, is an exception. Indeed when the territory of Utah was to join the United States of America, it was determined that no person in that territory could pursue a polygamous marriage and be a citizen of the United States. This reflects how deeply ingrained the concept of single partner unions are in our culture, | stress again that the Charter was not designed to overturn society or repudiate its values. | do not accept that the radical change proposed by the accused is in accord with the constitutional law of this country and deny the claim that the principles of fundamental justice have been violated in this prosecution. The last area to consider is that of whether the bigamy provision of the Code is a reasonable limit upon the accused's freedom. Although | have found no Charter violations, | recognize that both parties have the right to appeal this decision and set out what |would hold if that was necessary. | find that this is a reasonable limit. To allow the accused to enter into such an arrangement would mean, as the Crown has argued, that both her spouses are entitled to the full economic benefits of a marriage, including double tax deductions, spousal benefits, survivor benefits, bereavement leaves, and numerous other benefits enjoyed by couples in Canadian society. | cannot see that this is appropriate. While one hesitates to put an economic cost on rights or freedoms, itis a factor which must realistically be considered in assessing whether rights have been infringed or at least whether an infringement is justified. In any event, | find that the definition of marriage as a union of two people to the 15. 16. exclusion of all others and the enforcement of this concept through the criminal sanction of a bigamy is a wvalid federal, legislative concern. The objective of the preservation of traditional Canadian values through the use of criminal law is proper in our society. The Criminal Code deals with many types of conduct which can harm society, such as theft and assaults to name but two. The preservation of societal well being by upholding traditional Canadian values is proper. | see no reason to depart from this concept in thisinstance. Having regard to all the foregoing, | cannot accept the arguments of the accused, although counsel has presented them with great skill. | am indebted to all counsel for their assistance in this most unusual matter, In light of the dismissal of the constitutional challenge to this legislation, | enter a conviction on the charge before this court. The accused will be remanded to the first day of the next month to set a date for sentencing. Straightlace, J