Law 12 Final Exam
Sackville High School
Social Studies Department
Mrs. J. Montgomery
Mrs. Montgomery reserves the right to include any information from course discussion, assignments, assessments,
etc. that may not be directly included in the list of important terms. You are responsible for ALL information
covered over the course of the semester.
The following questions will prepare you for the final exam.
Answer them all, study the booklet and maximize your success on the exam.
Question Value Number of Questions Suggested Time
Section I: Multiple Choice 10 20 20 Minutes
Section II: Identification 28 6 25 Minutes
Section III: Significant Concepts 20 4 30 Minutes
Section IV: Short Answer 20 4 20 Minutes
Section V: Critical Analysis 22 3 25 Minutes
1.2.2 Analyse the function of law in societies
1.2.4 Evaluate the relationship between law and justice
1.3.1 Identify contributions of ancient legal systems.
1.4.1 Explain the statute-making process
1.4.2 Explain the role of precedent (case law)
1.4.4 Explain the supremacy of the constitution
1.5.1 Describe their rights and freedoms and the restrictions on these (e.g. sects 1, 33)
1.5.2 Analyze the extent to which the rights and freedoms of Canadians were protected prior to 1982.
2.1.1 Describe the two elements of a criminal offence (actus reus and mens rea)
2.1.2 Differentiate among indictable, summary conviction, hybrid, and quasi-criminal offences
2.3.1 Demonstrate an understanding of criminal trial principles
2.3.2 Identify and explain the roles of various officers of the court and other parties involved in
2.3.3 Describe important components of the criminal trial process
2.4.1 Evaluate the extent to which criminal trial principles are upheld in Canada
2.4.2 Demonstrate an understanding of the sentencing objectives stated in the Criminal Code of Canada
2.5.1 Identify the important differences between the Youth Criminal Justice Act and its two predecessors, the
Young Offenders Act and the Juvenile Delinquents Act
3.1.1 Explain how the following differ between civil and criminal law: parties involved, burden of proof, onus,
3.1.2 Explain why violations are either civil breaches or criminal offences
3.2.1 Define what constitutes a tort
3.2.6 Describe standard defences in tort law
6 goals of sentencing Day Parole Occupiers’ Liability
Abetting Divine Right of Kings Pardon
Accessory After the Fact Direct examination Patrol officer
Actus Reus Domestic Law Peremptory Challenge
Adversarial system Entrenched Perimeter
Aggravating factors Family Law Precedents
Aiding Feudal System Procedural Law
Amending Formula Full Parole Product Liability
Assault Fundamental freedoms Public Law
Automatism Greek Law Quasi-Criminal Offence
Bill of Rights Hybrid Offence Reasonable doubt
British North America Act Indictable Offence Roman Law
Burden of Proof Insane Automatism Rule of law.
Bylaws Jury Foreperson Specific Intent
Canadian Bill of Rights Justice of the Peace Stare decisis
Challenge for Cause Justinian's Code Statute Law
Charter (Rights and 6 defences of liability Statutory release
Freedoms) Magna Carta Strict Liability
Circumstantial Evidence Mens Rea Summary Offence
Code of Hammurabi Mistake of Law Tort Law
Common law Mitigating Factors Unescorted temporary
Conditional release Mosaic Law absence
Constitution Motive Vicarious Liability
Co-perpetrator Napoleonic Code Wilful Blindness
Counselling Non-Insane Automatism Work release
Cross-examination Notwithstanding Clause
1. Why do we need both rules and laws in society?
2. What is meant by law is a social construct? Give 3 specific examples that support this.
3. What are the four principles of justice?
4. How are law and justice different?
5. What is a statute and what steps does a bill go through to become a statute.
6. List the 3 types of laws we have in Canada and draw a pyramid diagram to show the proper
7. What is the most powerful section of law in Canada? (think pyramid)
8. What is the difference between rules and laws?
9. When were our rights were guaranteed to us and in which document were they guaranteed?
10. Describe the two elements of a criminal offence
11. What are the four major types of offences and what are their differences?
12. What two principles is our justice system built on?
13. List all participants in the criminal trial process and explain what they do.
14. Make three points showing how a civil trial is different than a criminal trial.
15. What 3 factors must be proven to conclude negligence? Explain them.
16. What is the Youth Criminal Justice Act? Explain the history, purpose, and challenges.
17. Who participates in a civil trial?
18. Where did the Jury system originate?
19. Which country’s laws have historically had the greatest influence on the development of
Canadian law? Explain.
20. How was the Constitution patriated? Make sure to include the Prime Minister responsible, how
and when it happened.
21. How many readings must a bill go through in the House of Commons? What is the purpose of
22. Which laws outline offences that are considered to be criminal?
23. Does the accused need to appear in court if he/she is charged with a summary conviction
24. What conditions must exist for an act, omission or state of being to be considered criminal?
25. When can intoxication be used as a defence?
26. When is evidence from wiretapping or bugging admissible in court? Explain.
27. What are the duties of a Court Clerk?
28. What qualifications must a juror have in order to be considered for jury duty?
29. When would someone be charged with the attempt of a crime? Explain.
30. Is suicide illegal? Would a person be charged with a criminal offence if they helped someone to
commit suicide? Explain the reasoning behind this law.
31. Who is usually the first person to arrive at a crime scene?
32. What information can you determine from a foot print analysis?
33. Why are citizens arrests rare?
34. If a perpetrator uses gloves to cover his or her fingerprints when committing a crime, is it
possible to link his/her handprints to him/her? Explain.
35. Which type of evidence carries more weight in court: physical evidence or a witness’s
testimony? Explain why.
Practice Case Studies
o Kanags Premakumar v. Air Canada – pg 119 o R. v. Menard – pg 177
o A Poisoned Environment Causes Pain – pg 125 o R. v. Mafi – pg 226
o R. v. MacGillivray – pg 144 o R. v. Turner – pg 229
o R. v. Hébert – p 148 o R. v. Stone – pg 263
o R. v. Adey – p 149 o British Columbia (P.S.E.R.C) v. B.C.G.E.U. – ph
1. The rule of law is the cornerstone of our legal system. Its basic premise is that
a. No man is above the law c. Everyone is entitled to their day
b. Without the law, we have in court
nothing d. All men are created equal
2. The jury system can be traced to
a. Babylon, Mesopotamia c. Rome, Italy
b. Athens, Greece d. Susa, Iran
3. Which of the following has historically had the greatest influence on the development of
a. French law c. British law
b. Mosaic law d. Roman law
4. Stare decisis is Latin meaning
a. To stand by the decision c. Let the buyer beware
b. The queen from the head d. You have the body
5. Statute law consists of laws that
a. Are determined by the rule of precedent
b. Are judge-made laws
c. Are passed by elected representatives in the form of acts
d. Are determined by local governments
6. Human rights legislation is used
a. To control prejudice c. To prevent stereotyping
b. To make people equal d. To prevent discrimination
7. Refusing service to someone because of his or her membership in a particular group is an
a. Stereotyping c. Direct discrimination
b. Constructive discrimination d. Prejudice
8. This term refers to a situation where the offender knew that a particular course of action was
wrong, but chose to do it anyway.
a. Motive c. Mens rea
b. Actus reus d. Willful blindness
9. A Justice of the Peace
a. Is a court official appointed to hear minor, summary conviction offences
b. Has the same authority as a judge, but usually issues warrants and performs marriages.
c. Has less authority than a judge, but can issue arrest and search warrants and hear bail
d. Is a court position that exists only in the American court system
10. A jury foreperson
a. Appointed by the judge c. Is selected by the jurors
b. Must be approved by both d. Can break a deadlock in the jury
11. Direct examination is
a. Part of the opening statement
b. Defence counsel asking direct questions to the defendant
c. The first examination by the Crown
d. What follows cross-examination of the “other side’s” witness
12. The purpose of cross-examination is to
a. Conclude testimony from the last witness to be called
b. Show the jury that the witness is unreliable
c. Test the accuracy of the evidence given in witness’s testimony
d. Establish the credibility of the charges
13. Usually, the first person to arrive at a crime scene is a
a. Patrol officer c. Criminal identification officer
b. Scenes of crime officer d. Plainclothes detective
14. Common law is
a. Constantly evolving as judges decide new cases based on earlier judicial decisions
b. Also called cases law because it is based on rulings in previous, similar cases
c. Sometimes referred to as English Common Law
d. All of the above
15. Public Law is a branch of the law
a. Regulates contracts between all members of the public
b. Allows us to sue another individual
c. Regulates the relationship between the government and its citizens
d. Administers your will when you die
16. Canada’s Constitution
a. Divides law-making power between the federal and the provincial governments
b. Determines the structure of the federal government
c. Limits the law-making power of the government by setting out basic laws, principles, and
standards that all other law must adhere to
d. All of the above
17. The purpose of the first reading of a bill is
a. To provide information on the nature of the bill and reasons for its introduction
b. To see if it has enough support to carry on
c. To review it for flaws and revise it
d. To identify the originator of the bill
18. The purpose of the second reading of a bill is
a. To give the government time to reconsider the bill
b. To allow the public to offer their opinions of the bill
c. To pass it on to the Senate for review before it is finally written and approved
d. To debate the merits of the bill and send it to committee for revision
19. The provincial level of government passes laws that relate to certain offences called
c. Quasi-criminal laws
20. The driver of a getaway car at a botched bank robbery is considered to be a(n)
a. Partner in crime
b. Principal actor
c. Accessory after the fact
21. The Court Clerk assists the judge by
a. Keeping a record of the trial exhibits
b. Announcing the beginning and end of the court session
c. Affirming witnesses
d. All of the above
22. To be eligible for jury duty, an individual must
a. Have knowledge of how our judicial system works
b. Be a resident who owns property
c. Be a Canadian citizen, 18 or older, and a resident of the province for at least 1 year
d. Be a person who has no prior criminal record
23. The primary burden of proof is
a. Evidence given in court that must be believed by the jury
b. On the Crown because they must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable
c. On the Defence because they must prove their client is innocent on a balance of
d. All of the above
24. A crime is defined as
a. An act or omission prohibited and punishable by federal statute
b. An act prohibited and punishable by provincial statute
c. An act or omission prohibited and punishable by provincial statute
d. An act prohibited and punishable by federal statute
Write True or False in the blank provided.
1. ________ All laws are rules, but not the other way around.
2. ________ Constitutional law takes precedence over all other laws
3. ________ All crimes are described in the Criminal Code of Canada.
4. ________ In Canada’s criminal justice system, if there is any doubt about the
defendant’s guilt, the accused must be acquitted.
5. ________ The defendant must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
R. v. Mullins-Johnson (1996)
The accused was charged with the first-degree murder of his four-year-old niece. It was the Crown’s
theory that Mullins-Johnson killed his niece in the course of sexually assaulting her. At the time of the girl’s
death, Mullins-Johnson had been living with her family for about two months. He was alone with the girl from
7:30 pm until 9:30 pm, when the girl’s mother returned. The girl’s father came home around 2:00 am, after
consuming 10 to 15 beers. There was evidence that the father could be abusive when drunk.
The girl was found dead around 7:00 am. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem concluded that she
had died from asphyxiation. Although he thought she had been sexually abused on many occasions, he had found
no evidence of recent sexual abuse. He believed that she died between 8:00 pm and 10:00 pm. Other expert
witnesses offered differing opinions about the cause and time of death, but they agreed that she had been sexually
assaulted in the past. Of the five experts who testified, only one believed the deceased had been sexually assaulted
A neighbour testified that he saw the deceased alive about 11:30 pm. There was no forensic evidence
connecting the accused to the deceased. The accused was convicted but later appealed the decision.
1. The Crown’s theory is stated in the case. What do you think would be the defence’s theory?
2. There was conflicting expert evidence about how the deceased died and when she died. Why is the time
of death crucial to this case?
R. v. Merz (1999)
Mr. Merz and Ms. Murray were in a common-law marriage for 12 years when they separated in January
1993. They had two children, aged 10 and 8. A bitter custody suit developed and Mr. Merz was given temporary
custody of the two children.
On April 7, 1993, Merz and his 16-year-old son Troy from a previous marriage met with Murray at a
donut shop to discuss their ongoing child custody dispute. Witnesses heard Merz curse at the victim before she
was shot three times in quick succession. Merz was charged with first-degree murder.
Merz claimed that Troy shot the victim first and that he grabbed the gun and shot her twice more,
believing her to be dead, but wanting to cover for his son. Troy testified that Merz fired all three shots and that he
and Merz formulated a plan earlier that evening to kill the victim. According to Troy, on a prearranged signal (his
father’s request for cigarettes), Troy was to leave the shop, drive to the farm, pick up Merz’s gun, and return to
the shop, leaving the gun in the car. Eyewitnesses confirmed that Troy did leave the shop and that after his return
Merz went out to the truck and then returned to the shop. They saw the accused pull a gun and shoot the victim.
It was the Crown’s position that Merz had murdered Murray to prevent her from getting custody of the
children and any financial settlement that might result from the termination of the common-law marriage. At trial,
the judge allowed testimony given by the deceased in February 1993 during another trial that Merz had threatened
her on two occasions. A friend of the victim and her lawyer also testified that the victim had told them that the
accused had threatened her. The trial judge admitted the statements of the victim’s friend and her lawyer under an
exception to the rule against hearsay evidence.
The accused was convicted of first-degree murder. He appealed that conviction on the grounds that the
trial judge had erred in admitting the hearsay statements of the victim’s friends and her lawyer. The Court of
Appeal agreed that the hearsay statements were inadmissible. Nonetheless, the appellate court was satisfied that
despite the inadmissible testimony, based on the evidence, a reasonable jury would inevitably have concluded that
the accused had shot and killed Ms. Murray and that he had intended to do so. The Court of Appeal held that no
miscarriage of justice had occurred and dismissed the appeal.
1. Why was Merz charged with first-degree murder rather than second-degree murder?
2. What is the minimum punishment for first-degree murder? When would Merz be eligible for parole?
3. If Merz had been convicted of second-degree murder, when would he have been eligible for parole?
R. v. Jackson (2002)
On July 18, 1996, Jeremin Jackson was riding double on a bicycle with a friend in the area of Jane and Finch in
Toronto. P.C. (Police Constable) John MacDonald, who was patrolling in the area on foot, attempted to stop the
appellant pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act. Jackson, at the time 20 years old, was armed with a loaded .357
Magnum revolver and did not stop at P.C. MacDonald’s request but instead jogged away with P.C. MacDonald in
pursuit. Jackson turned and fired a shot from the revolver in the direction of the officer. Jackson then stopped
running and fired a second shot in P.C. MacDonald’s direction.
Jackson testified that he believed the only reason P.C. MacDonald tried to stop him was that he was
black. He further testified that while he did discharge the firearm in the direction of P.C. MacDonald, he had no
intent to kill, injure, or endanger life. His intention was merely to slow down P.C. MacDonald in order to prevent
an arrest. Jackson was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for discharging a firearm with intent to endanger
life and to five years concurrent (served at the same time) for discharging a firearm with intent to prevent arrest.
He appealed both convictions, and both appeals were dismissed.
1. P.C. MacDonald testified he had no intention of arresting Jackson. How then can Jackson be found guilty
of discharging a firearm with the intent to prevent arrest?
2. Jackson testified that he shot in the direction of the police officer, but purposely above his head to slow
him down. Did Jackson have the mens rea for the offence of discharging a firearm with the intent to
Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers (2001)
Trinity Western University (TWU) is a private school associated with the Evangelical Free Church of
Canada. It established a five-year teacher-training program, the first four years of which were spent at TWU and
the fifth year at Simon Fraser University (SFU). TWU applied to the British Columbia College of Teachers
(BCCT) to assume full responsibility for all five years of the program. One of the reasons for this application was
that TWU wanted to have the entire program reflect the school’s Christian world view. Teachers and students at
the school had to sign a contract in which they agreed not to disobey the teachings of the Bible. Practices
considered unacceptable included lying, swearing, viewing pornography, adultery, pre-marital sex, drunkenness,
The BCCT refused to approve TWU’s application because the school’s program appeared to discriminate
against homosexuals. TWU asked for judicial review, and the case was appealed through the B.C. court system to
the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court ruled that the BCCT was wrong to deny TWU full control over
its teacher training program. In its decision, the Court drew a distinction between belief and conduct, noting that
the freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them. There was no evidence to indicate that the
program at TWU fostered discrimination against homosexuals in the public schools of British Columbia.
Therefore, the freedom of the students and teachers at TWU to adhere to their religious beliefs should be
respected. Acting on those beliefs is a different matter. If a teacher from TWU actually engaged in discriminatory
conduct against homosexuals while teaching in the public system, then the BCCT would be within its rights to
bring disciplinary proceedings against that teacher.
1. Why did the Court rule in favour of Trinity Western University in this case?
2. Explain the legal distinction between that Supreme Court drew to justify its decision in this case?