Plse read thus text and help me answer those questions in the last.

Our justice system consists of a number of different components. These different parts work independently of one another yet they are interconnected.

Consider this scenario:

A man witnesses a woman place an item in her bag and leave the store without paying for the item. She was shoplifting. This is considered the offence of theft under theCriminal Code. The woman is later arrested because her actions were recorded on a security camera and the police used the statement of the witness to help identify the woman. The police investigate the theft, determine her identity and she is charged. The matter now goes to court. The woman goes before the judge and pleads "not guilty." The police officer and the witness go to trial to give evidence. The judge decides that she is guilty and that she should pay a fine and do community service. The judge warns her that she is to follow the law and complete the terms of the sentence or she could face time in prison.

Obviously this is a very straight forward example but it does show the connection betweencitizens, the law made by thegovernment,thepolice,thecourtsand potentially, theprisonsystem.Each part of the system is important to maintain a democratic legal system that upholds the rule of law.

Look at the image below. Mouse and pause over each of the pillars to read about the roles and responsibilities of each.

Notice that judges are separate from the government in the image above. Even though Canadian judges are appointed by the government, the judges make decisions independently from the government. Unlike the American system for example, our judges are not elected. We have often seen the courts make decisions that do not favour the government. This is one way that webalance powerin our system.Judicial independenceis a fundamental principle of justice. You are going to focus upon the court and the role of the judge. A couple of questions emerge as you begin to inquire about the role of judges in the justice system: What does a judge do? What happens in a courtroom?

To begin to answer the questions asked above, view the following 11 minute video. It explains the Criminal Court Process in Ontario. In this video, Toronto lawyer Adam Goodman explains the court process if a person is charged with asummary offence.

Use thechartto record your notes

Tips

Remember to consider your sources. You are using the video to learn about the courtroom process. What is the purpose of the video? Can you identify a point of view or legal perspective? Is the source reliable? Asking questions about the sources you view helps you to become a critical thinker.

One thing to keep in mind is that within the justice system,different players may view the same situation from a different perspective.Look at the followingexamplesthat are mentioned in the video you just watched:

Accepting a diversion program might be the right choice in a criminal trial but it may have legal consequences for employment opportunities and immigration proceedings. A criminal lawyer and an immigration lawyer and a potential employer may all view this situation differently. A guilty plea is an option for an accused that would allow a person to accept responsibility for an action and move forward in their life. It would however result in the accused giving up the right to a trial and an understanding that the sentencing is at the discretion of the judge. A defence attorney, a Crown attorney and a judge may all view the acceptance of a plea bargain from a different point of view.

It is all a matter of perspective!

• An appeal may be granted if the lawyer feels that the trial judge has made a mistake in his or her application of the law. Another judge must agree with the lawyer if the appeal is to go forward. The trial judge, the lawyers, the appeal court judge and ultimately a Superior Court Justice may view the particulars of a case differently.

Careers

Though it was made some time ago in British Columbia, the following video does help us to understand the various legal roles in the court system in all provinces, including Ontario. You may be interested in some of theseroles as a potential career. It is also interesting to see thetrial processand the interaction between each of the different players. Notice that the various people in the court work together. Listen for language that is specific to the court process such asevidence, witnessand"beyond a reasonable doubt." Viewing theArrest to Trialvideo is an extension activity that links to career options. If you wish to view it and record the important information, you may find thisquestion sheetis helpful. The video is approximately 15 minutes in length. If you choose to complete this extension activity, be sure to save your responses to your e-portfolio and submit a copy to your teacher.

The judge is one figure who plays a particularly important role in our courts. As we discussed earlier, the other way laws are created are by our politicians through our federal House of Commons and through each of the provincial legislatures. These laws are created by our federal Members of Parliament (MPs) and our Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs). The other way that new laws are created is through our courts with the use ofprecedentor the common law system. Aprecedentis a decision that will be used in future cases that share similar characteristics. A judge is obligated to refer earlier cases. The decisions made by judges are therefore very important.

	For a quick clip that describes the meaning of the concept of precedent please watch this video.

Review

While this video is British, it is important to remember that many aspects of Canadian law stem from British law. The use of precedents is a good example of the close connection between the two systems.

There are many good reasons for using precedents:

1. It promotes predictable and consistent development of legal principles.

For example: The Supreme Court may establish a "test" or a way of deciding an issue. This might help to ensure fairness. An example of this might be the Oakes test which determines if a limit on a right or freedom was reasonable

1. It promotes reliance on judicial decisions.

For example: The court may rule in such a way that requires the government to rewrite or amend a law to be in keeping with a verdict.

1. It limits the power of the judiciary.

For example: A judge may not punish one offender far more harshly than another offender convicted under similar circumstances. Though they have freedom, judges are obliged to use precedents to guide their decisions.

1. It helps people know what to expect in certain legal situations, etc.

For example: A judge may have ruled that evidence collected in a particular way violated the rights of the accused. The police now have a clearer idea of the rules for collecting evidence to be used in a trial.

There are circumstances under which a decision might go against an earlier precedent. A law may be causing harm; it may be wrong or it may have become difficult to defend over time.

Landmark Cases

Let's look at a few important cases.These are often called "Landmark" cases because they result in legal change; they are particularly important and the verdict impacts many people.Landmark cases are legally significant. These cases often take time to be resolved and many people within the justice community have differing perspectives on the way the law should be interpreted. This is a challenge for judges.

The following summaries are taken from an article written by the Ontario Justice Education Network calledCases that have Changed Society.

Please read each case. As you are reading think about:

• the legalsignificanceof the case
• oneconnectionyou can make to this case either from current events or personal experience and knowledge
• onequestionyou have about the case or its outcome.

Be prepared to share your thinking in a discussion. You may wish to use the followingoutlineto record your thinking.

record your thinking.

Case 1: Aboriginal Title: Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. [1997] 3S.C.R..1010

Theappellant, Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en chiefs, claimed Aboriginal title, or ownership, to 58,000 square kilometres of land in B.C. on behalf of their "houses." This claim was based on their legal system of property rights and their pre-contact ownership of the land. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized for the first time that First Nations held title to their land prior to European arrival on the continent. The decision discusses the unique nature and characteristics of Aboriginal title. The court decided that that there was not enough evidence to determine if this land was historically owned by the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en Nations, or whether the Nations had ceded, or given up ownership to the land. However the court did discuss what kind of evidence could be used to establish a land claim. This case creates the legal possibility of a successful claim to Aboriginal title under Canadian law. This case is also notable because it recognizes the importance Aboriginal people attach to oral histories and demonstrates how Canadian legal rules of evidence can accommodate oral histories during trial.

Case 2: No Means No:R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330

After interviewing a job applicant, Mr. Ewanchuk invited her into his trailer to show her some work. He began to touch her. Each time she said no, he stopped his advances but then soon after he would make an even more intimate advance. Mr. Ewanchuk was charged with sexual assault. He raised the defence of "implied consent," arguing that although the woman initially said no, she stayed in the trailer and failed to continually object to his advances. Thetrial judgeaccepted this defence and acquitted him. The Supreme Court of Canada found "implied consent" is not a defence to sexual assault. The court recognized that an accused may have a defence if there is evidence that the accused had an honest but mistaken belief that someone had consented, but the court will not imply consent. This case is notable for debunking the myths and stereotypes about sexual assault and making clear that people must always establish the clear consent of their sexual partners.

Case 3: A Duty to Act to Protect Rights:Dunmore v. Ontario (Attorney General)[2001] 3 S.C.R. 1016

Ontario's Labour Relations Act did not allow farm workers to unionize or receive labour protections. Four farm workers and a Union challenged this exclusion as an infringement of their section 2(d) right of association, as well as their rights unders. 15. equality rights.The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada made the unique finding that the freedom to organize may require the government to extend legislative protection to vulnerable groups. Usually the Charter protects rights when the government has acted in a way which violates an individual's rights. When a government has not taken any action (program, legislation etc), it usually cannot be said to have violated any Charter rights. In this case, the court decided that because the farm workers were unable to exercise their collective freedom to assemble without the protection of labour rights, their freedom of association was violated. The government was required to act to protect these rights. This case acknowledges that the Charter may, in some cases, impose a government duty to act in order to protect Charter rights.

Based on the information and cases that you have read in the three content sections, write a paragraph that answers the following questions:

• Why do we need judges?
• Why must judges be fair and impartial?
• What is the judge's role in the justice system?
• How do judges make decisions?
• Why are judicial independence and judicial impartiality so important?

Be sure to include 5 specific points to support your position.