A case comment is a focused analysis of a decision

A case comment is a focused analysis of a decision. For this assignment, you must write case comment on one of two cases provided. Your paper should be written in full sentences and paragraphs.

A case comment is a focused analysis of a decision

A case comment is a focused analysis of a decision. For this assignment, you must write case comment on one of two cases provided. Your paper should be written in full sentences and paragraphs. Be sure to use proper citation references if you quote or borrow material from case law or other sources. Both cases can be found at the Supreme Court of Canada decisions website: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/en/nav.do. You can find hard copies of the case in any library that carries law reporters. Address each opinion produced by your chosen case.

Generally, however, you should emphasize the majority opinion of your chosen case. The most effective case comments generally engage in critique.

That is, the author evaluates an argument of his or her choosing and discusses the merits or demerits of the argument—is it a good argument?

For this assignment, keep your case comment simple. Your case comment will be complete if you do the following things: state the issue or issues that are the focus of the comment. Mention whatever facts are necessary to give context to the issue(s).

Firstly, discuss how the court decided the issue(s).

Secondly, discuss (briefly) any wider implications of the decision that you can determine.

Thirdly, provide a final, closing comment on whether you agree with the court’s decision, and give the reasons why.

Fourthly, your case comment doesn’t need to follow the exact order of the components above. Depending on your argument, a different ordering may promote a better logical flow.

However, if you do follow the order above, your case comment will be reasonably well-organized.

The eligible cases for this assignment are fairly long. You are not expected to be able to cover all aspects of the decision you choose. It is more important to properly identify feminist legal issues and discuss them intelligently than to cram the maximum amount of information possible into seven pages. That said, you are expected to exercise reasonable judgment and to select important, rather than trivial, issues. Make sure that you really understand the issue(s). The best way to do that is to read the case many times. Read the entire case even if you only discuss one issue among many. Your ability to write clearly and correctly is critical and will heavily affect your mark.

Use simple language, short(er) sentences and precise words.

A good strategy is to read your argument aloud. If it sounds confusing or unclear, it will come across that way to the reader. Case 1 Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. NAPE, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381 In 1988, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador signed a Pay Equity Agreement in favour of female employees in the health care sector that included those represented in collective bargaining by the appellant union. In 1991, the same government introduced the Public Sector Restraint Act, which deferred the commencement of the promised pay equity increase (section 9) from 1988 to 1991, and extinguished the 1988–1991 arrears. Section 9 effectively erased the Province’s obligation to pay out approximately $24 million.

The justification was that the government was experiencing a financial crisis unprecedented in the Province’s history. The government adopted other severe measures to reduce the Province’s deficit, including a freeze on wage scales for public sector employees, a closure of hospital beds, and a freeze on per capita student grants and equalization grants to school boards. It also laid off almost two thousand employees and terminated publicly-funded medical care coverage for certain items. Grievances were file on behalf of some female employees affected by the cut to pay equity.

The Arbitration Board ordered the government to comply with the original terms of the Pay Equity Agreement, holding that section 9 of the Act infringed section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also that the infringement could not be justified under section 1.

On judicial review, the motions judge quashed the Board’s decision and dismissed the grievances. He agreed that section 9 infringed section 15(1) but found the infringement justifiable under section 1. The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge’s decision. One appeal judge suggest that explicit recognition of the separation of powers doctrine should be added to the section 1test.

The case was further appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the decision reference for this assignment. Case 2 Trociuk v. British Columbia (A.G.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 835 The appellant and the respondent in this case are the estranged father and mother of triplets. The mother (the appellant) filled out and submitted the statement of live birth on her own, and also marked the father (the respondent) as unacknowledged by the mother.

She alone chose and registered the children’s surname, pursuant to sections 3(1) (b) and 4(1) (a) of the British Columbia Vital Statistics Act. Under section 3(6) (b) of the Act, the father is preclude from altering the registration.

Accordingly, the Director of Vital Statistics refused both of the father’s requests to have the birth registration forms amended to include his identity. The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the father’s request for a declaration that the legislation violates section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and also Freedoms. The Court of Appeal, in a majority judgment, upheld that decision. The decision referenced for this assignment comes from the Supreme Court of Canada.
The relevant readings: