This is worth 20% of your mark (200 points divided by 10 = 20%). Some of you have answered rather weighty questions with a minimum of words and explanation. Answers should be complete: your opinion, your argument (pros and cons), and an application of what we have learnt in the course. Answers that are brief and without reflecting some of the course material will be marked accordingly. Please submit your answers in a word file or something I can read on a PC. Thanks!
This should take you approximately 4 to 6 hours to complete. If it takes you a lot less than that you should probably go back and put in some more effort. For those who want to improve their overall standing this assignment offers an opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and its application.
Part 1: Read the following article https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/migrant-worker-wins-labour-board-ruling-1.5799587
i. Reflecting on the Canadian Charter of Rights and your learning of labour law, was the courts ruling accurate in your opinion? (25 points)
ii. Going back to an earlier question: if improving and implementing fair labour standards for domestic and imported food stuffs meant raising food prices by 20% would you advocate for such standards? Whose obligation is it to advocate for workers (how free is the “free market”)? What steps do you think could be taken by Canada to ensure that food is grown and processed in an appropriate manner? (25 points)
Part 2: Read the following article https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-family-heading-to-court-in-1-5m-inheritance-fight-with-spca-1.5803925
i. Reflecting on your learnings from the section on Wills and Estates create a timeline of what happened in this case. Where could the matter have been resolved and what would you have advised could have been done to avoid the current scenario? (25 points)
ii. How do you think the court should rule and why? Are you comfortable with what happened in the lead up to the holographic will? (25 points)
Part 3: Monsanto v. Schmeiser.
i. In your own words, provide a description of what happened in the case. Your description should include more than one source and detail what happened to someone who does not know anything about the case. You are to write this in an objective third person voice. In other words, try and get the facts down without giving your opinion. Think about explaining the details to your mother or father who does not know what happened. Someone who reads this should be able to have a good handle on what happened and what the argument was from each side. (50 points)
ii. You are on the jury and you must decide whether Schmeiser is guilty or not. What are the key arguments you would make to support your view? What are the arguments that most stand out that contrast your view? What is the main takeaway going forward from this case? (50 points)
