Your turn

Read the scenario below and answer the questions that follow.

Anna Asourian, a resident of Kapuskasing, Ontario, has just graduated from high school and is about to enter the workforce. Anna has been offered two jobs. The first job is in a factory, where she would be employed as a receptionist. If she accepted this offer of employment, she would have to join a union. The second job is in a small, privately owned business, where she would also be employed as a receptionist, but would not be part of a union.

Anna has come to you for advice. Answer her questions in the space provided.

Anna:

1. 1. What benefits will I gain, if I accept the job where I'll be part of a union?
2. What benefits will I gain, if I accept the job where I won't be part of a union?
3. What disadvantages might I experience in each of the workplace environments in which I've been offered employment?
4. Which job do you think I should accept? Why do you think so?

R. V. Lavallee

In arriving at this decision, Madam Justice Wilson adjusted fundamentally the law of self-defence to accommodate battered women, who, if that law were applied strictly, would not be legally able to advance their plight as a defence. Until this decision, anyone who intentionally caused death

or grievous bodily harm in repelling anassault was legally justified if he or shedid so "under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm." Although the relevant section of theCriminal Codedoes not provide that the accused must apprehend imminent danger when he or she acts, this requirement was inserted by judicial interpretation in a series of cases.

This case is an example of how the law can evolve in response to societal changes.

The ninth paragraph of the report begins with, "In arriving at this decision, Madam Justice Wilson adjusted fundamentally the law of self-defence to accommodate battered women ...". How do you think that this decision fundamentally changed Canadian law?