Exams

Home Up
Last updated : 22/01/01


Osgoode Hall Law School


MID-TERM EXAMINATION
C CRIMINAL LAW
SECTION D

Examiner: Professor Jamie Cameron


Monday, October 19, 1998
Room 204 (Right Side)
8:30 am
C 9:20 am

 

INSTRUCTIONS

Use the answer booklets provided and be sure to put your examination number on your answer booklet(s).

This is an open-book examination.

The exam consists of one question, and your grade in this examination may potentially count 25% toward your final grade.

Be as clear, organized and responsive to the question asked, as you can.

Good luck.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Though the facts below bear some resemblance to current events, the question is fictional. Your answer should be based on these facts, and not on any others.

            As host of an important APEC summit meeting, to be hosted by Canada in Vancouver, what the federal government feared most was embarrassment. The embarrassment of one of its guests, a despot and globally notorious enemy of rights, and its own embarrassment, for having embarrassed a guest in this country.

            To limit the activities of would-be demonstrators your government adopted tough crowd-control regulations. [Feel free to ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially s.2(b)=s guarantee of expressive freedom. After all, your government did.] Violations of CC 101 and CC 102, set out below, are summary conviction offences.

            Crowd-control 101 - Obstruction [CC 101]
          No person shall place any obstruction, including pickets, signs, structures or objects of protest on any street,
          sidewalk or public property along the route of the APEC summit.

             Crowd-control 102 - Disturbance [CC 102]
   
         No person shall cause a disturbance by any means, including chanting, jeering or yelling objectionable or
          disrespectful language at any official of the APEC summit.

            The APEC meetings seemed to be going well, but out on the street police barricades set up along the motorcade route seemed only to rile the many demonstrators spread out along the way.

            The motorcade would be passing by The Place, a large condominium complex inhabited by right-thinking types [i.e., those who think themselves right-thinking]. Zeke being such a type decided to stage his own protest on The Place=s park-like, streetside grounds. Clever and artistic, Zeke constructed a large effigy-puppet of the targeted despot, which he raised on a stick far above the crowd.

            The effigy was creating quite a stir when the despot=s advance-man bodyguard team pushed through the crowd onto the grounds of The Place and attempted to take Zeke=s effigy down. They yelled and screamed at him in a foreign language, but the message was clear. La-de-da, a 70-something resident of The Place, came to Zeke=s rescue. Fearlessly giving one of the bodyguards a shove, she shrieked Ahelp, help, we are being attacked by enemies and war criminals.@. As others in the crowd began heading over to intervene the RCMP caught up, and Zeke and La-de-da were charged.

            Meanwhile the motorcade went by, heading for lunch at a private club on campus. There, four members of the ARights Dogma@ watch group lay down on the path in the club=s garden APEC members would have to cross to get into the club. The front of their T-shirts, visible as they lay on their backs, had a photo image of a torture victim and underneath, the words Adeath to the despot.@ On being requested to leave, they refused and were charged.

            Will the Crown be able to secure any convictions under CC 101 or 102?

 


Osgoode Hall Law School
of York University


FINAL EXAMINATION
Fall 1998

CRIMINAL LAW
(Section D)

Examiner: Professor Jamie Cameron


Thursday, December 10, 1998
Time: 3 Hours (10 minutes reading time); 2:00 C 5:00 pm


INSTRUCTIONS:

1.    This is an open book examination.

2.    There are 3 questions on this exam.

4.    Please read the questions and instructions CAREFULLY and take time to organize your answer.

5.    Please make sure your examination number is clearly marked on your booklets and envelope. You are
       required to return the examination to the invigilator.

Good luck

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION 1 (1/3 OF THE GRADE):

Addlehead, eco-warrior extraordinaire

            Addlehead fronts a group of lads and lasses who are self-appointed guardians of the environment. A.head and the group=s endeavours thus far include heading off whale hunts and setting up logging blockades. Addlehead=s right hand woman is Listmaw who wears a buzz cut and has the image of a beaver shaved into her head.

            This time their rescue mission involves the golden spruce, that once in a lifetime tree of the Queen Charlotte Islands (in British Columbia). Addlehead has received word that the great logging corporation, Nature-off, has plans to take down the grandaddy, the last standing exemplar of golden sprucedom. It is rumoured that corporate honcho T. Juiceface will be on hand personally to bear witness to the event.

            Addlehead and gang (count them, there are one, two, three, four, five) cannot let this happen. This is not just a matter of conservation but is spiritual too, as the tree has significance for North West Coast aboriginals. Not that they bothered alerting their aboriginal friends, but to continue.

            Addlehead, Listmaw and others intercept the corporate vehicle that contains T. Juiceface on an isolated logging road. Juiceface is dragged from the car and, having no other choice, agrees to comply with their demands. This is because A.head has a gun which he aims at Juiceface and the others swing golf clubs around, sand wedges actually, swatting him about the legs.

            The convoy proceeds to the site where Nature-off=s logging crew is poised to perform the historic act. What Addlehead=s group doesn=t know is that the tree is quite diseased, that Nature-off scientists have been there and harvested its seeds, that there is a corporate plan to cultivate offspring and carry the tree=s legacy for centuries into the future. The point is that Nature-off considers its plan to be quite a responsible one, one that is ecologically sound.

            The logging crew is headed up by Frab, who is a strapping, Paul Bunyan type. He has been instructed not to fire up his chain saw but to await the arrival of Juiceface. When the ragtag group of eco-warriors arrives in the corporate vehicle all hell breaks loose.

            Juiceface fears for his life and tells Frab all bets are off, that the tree must be left alone. Frab can see what=s going on and starts the saw up anyway. Juiceface lunges toward him because he really, really, doesn=t want to die. Frab is so powerful he knocks Juiceface about 10 feet, where he falls right onto Listmaw. Bizarrely, she falls backward and hits her head on a large rock. For awhile nobody notices that she is bleeding heavily and some time later dies.

            Frab=s chain saw is chewing into the tree, which drives Addlehead near crazy. He can=t let this happen, as this is the only tree in the world like this. He lunges for Frab who is unable to deflect the assault and gets the fingers of his right hand caught in the blade. Blood and erstwhile finger parts fall onto the soft forest floor.

            Meanwhile a reporter from Frank magazine stands off to the side. Sissifrass should have called the police but didn=t want to lose the opportunity to break this news and maybe become a celebrity. The instant before Frab=s hand went into the saw a huge wood chip flew off and before Sissifrass could duck, it nailed him in the eye. Several weeks later doctors break the news to him that the eye cannot be saved.

            Have any criminal offences been committed here?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION 2 (1/3 OF THE GRADE):

These facts are about a sexual assault, a topic I do not believe it is right to avoid on grounds it is too controversial. Though the facts are fictional, unfortunately this sort of thing does happen.

Lalita

            Uncharacteristically, Lalita is a woman who loves hockey and has tickets right by the boards beside the home team=s player=s box. During the game she often presses her body up against the glass when players jostle along the boards. She is somewhat strange and all the fellows know her, as she is what might be called a Agroupie@.

            Sergio is a new member of the team who just got traded last week. It=s good news for the team, as Sergio is a star, and also for Lalita, who is eager to welcome him to her hometown. Naturally she attends the game where Sergio first skates onto the ice for his team. Sure enough, there are a few altercations involving Sergio along the boards where Lalita sits and although it happens fast (as this is hockey), she manages to make her availability known to him. One of his teammates warns Sergio that she can be unpredictable, whatever that means.

            Like others in the glamour-puss NHL, Sergio does Sudafed, lots of it, to stoke the engine of aggression on the ice. (You know about Sudafed, it=s an over-the-counter drug that helps open blood vessels that are irritated by allergies, it=s kind of an Aupper@.) Normally, Sergio also winds down after the game with beer in the dressing room. He will generally consume at least 10 bottles and maybe as many as 12.

            The evening he meets Lalita the combination of Sudafed and beer has made him a little wobbly but, hey, he=s not going home, not yet anyway. They repair to Lalita=s apartment, meet Randle, her friendly Rottweiler, and drink lots-o-wine. He has far more than her. According to the evidence that is collected the next day, they had two regular-size bottles.

            At a certain point a sexual tango begins, which Sergio considers to be going along quite well. At first Lalita is cooing and then her voice becomes urgent, Ano - more, no - more@. Sergio doesn=t realize there is any problem, as he is quite blitzed and doesn=t understand English so well. Just as Sergio is retracting himself from her body (as he is finished) Lalita grabs the empty wine bottle beside the bed and crashes it in his face. He starts bleeding and passes out. She gets up, dresses and goes out because she feels like going to Starbucks, having a cappuccino.

            Meanwhile, Randle hears the commotion and senses his mistress has been placed in danger. He pads into the bedroom, smells blood and attacks Sergio. Poor Sergio is quite a mess, almost dead, when he is discovered several hours later. Better the details left unsaid, all you need to know is that he ends up somewhat mutilated, will never play hockey again.

            Lalita says she was sexually assaulted by Sergio. It turns out that she is in fact a person who was for years sexually abused as a child. One of the older, neighbourhood boys used to drag her into the woods near her home, threaten and intimidate her, then have forced sex with her. She is deeply scarred by these events and has had extensive therapy in the last few years. Part of the emotional problem for her is that the lad who did this died in a car crash and was never punished. At least once or twice in the last few months Lalita has experienced sudden rage during sexual relations. She explains that it is a powerful need to make the man, her partner stop, right away and at any cost. It=s rage but also deep fear and anxiety that she will be hurt. This, anyway, is what she says happened with Sergio.

            As for the dog, she says he=s never behaved this way and besides, she wasn=t there when he attacked Sergio, who wasn=t welcome in her apartment any more.

            Charges against Lalita are being contemplated under Criminal Code ss. 267 and 268.  Not so fast, though, should Lalita be convicted or should a charge instead be laid against Sergio?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION 3 (1/3 OF THE GRADE):

Answer one of the following questions and only one. Try to make your answer as responsive and as concrete as possible. Give examples from the materials we have studied.

1.        Which Supreme Court of Canada decision do you most like and which do you most dislike in the materials
           we have studied? Explain your choices.

2.        In Creighton McLachlin J. says Athe rule (of symmetry) cannot be elevated to the status of a principle of
           fundamental justice which must, by definition, have universal application.@ What rule is she talking about
           and do you agree? Once again be as specific as you can in explaining why you agree or disagree.

3.        In Jobidon Gonthier J. says A[a]ll criminal law is Apaternalistic= to some degree - top-down guidance is
           inherent in any prohibitive rule.@ Do you agree with what he says, find it objectionable or otherwise
           agreeable as a statement about the criminal law? Use examples and illustrations from the materials to
           explain your answer.


CRIMINAL LAW MID TERM
SECTION B

Professor Jamie Cameron

 

Monday, October 25, 1999
Room 101, right side
9:30 a.m.-10:20 a.m.

 

INSTRUCTIONS

Use the exam booklets provided and please be sure to put your mid term examination number on your answer booklet[s].

This is an open book examination.

The exam consists of one question and your grade in this examination can potentially count 25% toward your final grade in Criminal Law, with no down-side risk.

Be as clear, organized and responsive to the question asked, as you can.

Good luck....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ursa versus....

            Ursa versus ... the first and last wrestling match this century between bear and man. Naturally, tickets to the event staged by the entertainment phenom, Flehm [impresario, organizer and master of ceremonies, all in one], sold at a premium. While little was known about Ursa the bear, this being his fighting debut, his adversary Trounce is one of wrestling=s best known and best loved stars. Of course, that was before the match against Ursa.

            At the beginning of the match the bear seemed confused and uninterested. Not wanting to hurt Ursa but at the same time wanting to be sure he kept the entertainment level up, Trounce threw his usual moves. With the exception of one block of seats occupied by the animal libbers - including their spokesperson Vaygan - the crowd roared with approval. The libbers were enthusiastic too, enthusuatic about their heckling.

            Within minutes Ursa appeared extremely bored; in fact the bear looked ready to lapse into narcolepsy [i.e., fall down onto the floor, fast asleep]. That=s when Flehm took a long pole of some kind and from the sidelines gave Ursa a stiff poke. APick the pace up, you goddamm lazy bear@ he hissed. When the bear moaned loudly, Vaygan became aggressive.

            Bizarrely, Vaygan charged for the ring, his ponytail bouncing menacingly. Thinking, I may be small but I am lightning quick, he slugged Trounce twice and hard in the stomach, before the wrestler could respond. The bear was so taken aback by the turn of events he somehow fell heavily on the weakened Trounce. Splat, the libbers in the audience called out in unison.

            Ursa is alright but tragically, Trounce suffered severe spinal injuries which were career ending and will confine him to a wheelchair the rest of his life. Flehm says he=s not to blame because Trounce was well paid and the event was a sporting first. Vaygan says he=s not to blame either because he drank a concoction of rare Amazon roots just prior to the match, it was the first time he tried the potion recommended by his naturopath, and Vaygan had no idea it would make him behave that way. This conduct was completely out of character for Vaygan, a man who takes great pride in his pacifism.

            There has been a huge outcry by members of the public who are disgusted and can=t believe the event was permitted. It was a cruel thing to do to poor Ursa and, not that there was too much sympathy for Trounce, but he ended up a victim too. The Crown has promised to press charges but the question is - against whom, and - for what? You tell me. Be as specific and as complete as you can.


Osgoode Hall Law School
of York University

 

FINAL EXAMINATION
Fall 1999

CRIMINAL LAW
(Section B)

Examiner: Professor Jamie Cameron

 

Thursday, December 9, 1999
2:00 C 5:10 pm (10 minutes reading time)

 

INSTRUCTIONS:

1.        This is an open book examination.

2.        There are 3 questions on this exam.

4.        Please read the questions and instructions CAREFULLY and take time to organize your answers.

5.        Please make sure your examination number is clearly marked on your booklets and envelope. You are
           required to return the examination to the invigilator.

Good luck

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question I [1/3 of the grade]

Les entartistes [pie-throwers]

            It=s less than a week away from Quebec=s third referendum on Asovereignty@, and the stakes are high. Amid intense campaigning on both sides of the yes and no question, emotions are coming to a boil.

            Pop Tart and Twinkie are Montreal street entertainers, whose repertoire occasionally includes pie-throwing. The pair quite enjoy this art, which they claim has a long tradition in burlesque, and features a deceptively skilled maneuver. Of late the duo hasn=t been doing too many pie-throws, as such antics can be risky. They learned the hard way that the target of their artistry will typically be less amused than onlookers, like the man who took a pie in the face, sucked in a couple of gobs of whipping cream, and then came after poor Pop Tart and Twinkie like a raging bull.

            See here, the referendum is nothing to clown about, as our two entartistes know full well, being ardent federalists who have become increasingly desperate and frustrated over their inability to intercept the Premier of Quebec, Monsieur Boocher, and ensnare him in controversy. It could be said that Pop Tart and Twinkie are losing rationality on this issue. They have tried everything they know to get the Premier=s attention, from storming town hall meetings, to arriving uninvited in strange costumes at his office, to performing acts in the streets which are deliberately offensive to the separatist cause and designed to provoke a row. Alas, their efforts to offend go unnoticed, as it seems [almost] anything goes in la belle province. As referendum day draws dangerously near, the duo concluded, if we don=t act now, with every ounce of strength we can muster, our Canada may be lost.

            Strung out and at the end of their tether, Pop Tart and Twinkie devised a plan, one that would revive the [almost] lost art of pie throwing. Specifically, they decide to pitch a pie at Premier Boocher in public, but the problem is that he is devilishly elusive. To advance their plan, Pop Tart and Twinkie decide to enlist the services of Prance, a popular television news personality, who maintains strict neutrality on air but does not hesitate to express his disdain for separatism off the air. Prance is a central part of the scheme because he has press access to Boocher=s itinerary and can place them Abehind the scenes@. If Prance can be co-opted to reveal the Premier=s movements, voilà, it could be the perfect pie-throwing opportunity for les entartistes.

            Prance likes the idea of a prank, and is keen about making Boocher look bad. But when Pop Tart and Twinkie arrive with their pies to pick him up, attired in clown suits and red noses, Prance gets cold feet and tries to back out. These guys look ludicrous, and what if I lose my job, he wonders. What if someone gets hurt, also runs through his mind.

            Pop Tart and Twinkie believe they have no choice but to act and act now. Not about to be foiled by Prance=s skepticism after they=ve gone to the trouble of suiting up and arming themselves with the best cream pie money can buy, they march the reluctant journalist into his own van, because they don=t have wheels. As they drive, Twinkie sits in the front passenger seat, holding a pie close to Prance, ready to smack it onto the driver=s face, should he double cross them and refuse to lead them to Boocher.

            They arrive at the site of the approaching motorcade where Boocher=s entourage will disembark behind barricades for a photo opportunity with the press, before proceeding to the public event. It=s not easy for Pop Tart and Twinkie to move into position wearing clown suits and red noses while carrying pie, but they are entartistes. At this point, Prance goes along, partly because Twinkie growls at him to stay with the story and get a news scoop, else he=ll get a pie in the face too, and partly because he might get credit for a great lead on the evening news.

            The fateful moment is upon les entartistes. Premier Boocher steps from his limousine, and Pop Tart puts a foot forward, pie in hand. [The two squabbled over who would have the honour and though Pop Tart won the coin toss, Twinkie is content to commandeer the backup pie.]

            The moment Pop Tart vollied the pie toward his target the plan went awry. Boocher=s bodyguard, Slub, stepped into the path of the flighted pie and was caught full in the face. Unfortunately, the crust was loaded with nuts to which Slub had a fatal allergy, and he died without much further ado. In a flash, Twinkie lobbed the next pie at the Premier, who raised his cane and began slashing it about like a helicopter blade, to fend off incoming projectiles. Here his whirling cane whipped Twinkie in the face, causing him to lose an eye. By the way, the second pie also missed the mark, glancing the Premier lightly on the side of his face.

            Meanwhile, eager to file his story, Prance dashed from the scene and climbed into his van. Speeding away from the melee, his vehicle bumped an elderly separatist pilgrim to the ground. The pilgrim had found his way behind the barricades and waited patiently for a glimpse of his leader, only to be very seriously injured for his endeavours. Prance got a scoop alright, though it was not the one he=d hoped for, and the Premier emerged, slightly rattled but almost pie-free.

            Have any criminal offences been committed? If so, by whom and against whom?

            These facts are based on pie throwing incidents in the province of Quebec, where the targets have been politicians and charges have been laid.

            Do not consider any Charter issues arising from these facts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question II [1/3 of the grade]

            The place is a small fishing village in New Brunswick and the time, late November of this year, short months after the Supreme Court of Canada=s controversial decision about a treaty signed in 1760 and the aboriginal fishing rights it protects today. Over and above the debate that normally accompanies Supreme Court of Canada pronouncements, the treaty and fishing rights decision ignited a series of violent episodes between aboriginal and non-aboriginal members of this fishing community. Not only were assaults committed, acts of arson and property destruction also took place. A variety of criminal charges against members of both fishing communities are pending.

            By late November an unspoken truce of sorts had come about, though tempers remained frayed. Ill will between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen was muted some, as each decided it would be best to keep a safe distance from the other.

            On Saturday nights village locals usually gravitated to Joey=s, a local beer parlour where folks would gather for a few rounds, or more. This night marked the first time, since the incidents described above, that aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen found themselves in the same room. Across the vast expanse of Joey=s, the two groups eyed each other cautiously and made a silent vow to let it be.

            Over a period of several hours, many, many glasses of beer were consumed. The noise level grew but everyone minded their own business.

            In one corner, the aboriginal fishermen were headed up by Larry, who had been a leader in this fall=s debate and negotiations about the scope of aboriginal fishing rights. He was surrounded by several of his friends. Kitty corner to them in the bar, Rebb and some of the boys, including Rebb=s close friend Mullen, were yukking it up.

            At a certain point Larry and his group got up to leave. Passing by Rebb=s table, Larry couldn=t resist the temptation to say something; though Rebb wasn=t facing charges, Larry suspected Rebb of having helped torch aboriginal lobster traps during the incidents that followed the Court=s decision. AHey Rebb@ he yelled loudly, as the beer parlour froze in silence, listening apprehensively. AGive my regards to Mable, your wife. That woman sure does fancy our people. While you=re out on the boat she comes to our beds.@ Then he pointed to other members of his group, Anot just me, but him and him and him too.@ AHope you have a good fishing season@, he added leeringly and with that, walked out the door.

            In a flash Rebb was purple in the face and had to be restrained. ALet it go@ his friends implored. AWell I gotta use the men=s room anyway@ Rebb said, and got up from the table. AMe too@ said his lurching and extremely drunk friend Mullen.

            Only they went outside instead, hopped into Rebb=s pick-up truck, and quickly caught up to Larry, who was driving along the road, alone in his truck. Rebb forced Larry=s truck off the road and brought it to a stop. Rebb called out to Mullen to help him drag Larry out of the truck. Mullen was too drunk to function much at all, but he kind of fell on Larry=s legs, which allowed Rebb to land the first few brutal blows. With Mullen standing watch for oncoming traffic, Rebb beat Larry senseless. The two of them drove off and left Larry to die. And he did, in less than an hour.

            Still they weren=t finished. Rebb and Mullen headed to the docks where the aboriginal fishermen stored their lobster traps. In a fury, they were determined to destroy the traps once and for all. Mullen tried to help stack the traps and lay the fire, out by now he was close to losing consciousness. Rebb lighted what he thought was a small fire, one which would ruin the traps and then peter out. But there was a wind that night, and within minutes after Rebb and Mullen left, a huge conflagration was underway, which destroyed the dock and two fishing boats, as well as the lobster traps.

            What charges under the Criminal Code might arise from these facts? Do not consider any Code provisions dealing with impaired driving. Note also that these facts are fictional but have some foundation in the unfortunate aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Marshall. You don=t have to know anything about the decision to answer this question.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question III [1/3 of the grade]


Please answer one of the essay questions below; do not answer more than one. Make your answer as responsive and as specific as you can, and provide illustrations from the materials to demonstrate your points
.


1. Pick any unanimous Supreme Court of Canada opinion we have studied and change the Court=s decision. In addition to explaining why you would decide the case differently, you should provide reasons to support the result that you have concluded would be more consistent with principles of criminal responsibility.


2. In R.v. Bernard, at page V-76 [Volume II], Justice McIntyre responded to the claim that intoxication should provide an excuse to general intent offences by saying A[i]f that is logic, I prefer policy.@ What do you think he means, and do you agree with that statement? [i.e., when do you think the Court should choose in favour of one or the other, and why?] You need not limit your answer to the defense of intoxication if there are other examples of the tension between logic and policy in the cases we have studied.


3. Compare and contrast the opinions of Cory J., L=Heureux-Dubé J. and McLachlin J. in R.v. Cuerrier, at page II-111 [Volume I]. What are the differences between these opinions; what, in your estimation, is the significance of these differences; and which of the three do you prefer? Once again, be as specific in your answer as possible.

 

Address 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3
Phone 1-416-736-5033
Fax 1-416-736-5546
Email jcameron@yorku.ca