LEGL 212 HUMAN RIGHTS OUTLINE OF LEGAL ISSUES
ASSIGNMENT
- Students will review the following human rights employment law problems and will then develop an outline setting out all of the legal issues that arise in each of the two fact situations. There should be two outlines completed, one outline for each of the two situations. The outlines should not be more than 3 pages each for a total of 6 pages, not including the title or reference pages. After identifying the legal issues, the student will set out the law that they believe answers the legal questions that have arisen from the legal issues. The student can use the textbook, the modules, and “outside sources” to set out the law (the applicable law can be legislation or case law or a combination of both). The student should have at least one “outside source” of law (found after a search for secondary sources of law rather than found in the textbook or the module notes) for each of the issues. There should a reference sheet at the end of each outline that cites all of the sources used in the outline. Note that the textbook properly cites cases and legislation so follow the format found in the textbook.
- When looking for outside sources of law, the student should endeavour to find secondary sources rather than looking directly for primary sources of law such as specific applicable cases or legislation. One may look for “on point” cases and legislation on CanLii, but it is easier to find the primary sources when an expert has written about the issue. Examples of secondary sources are journal articles, case studies and information sheets found on web pages. Typical sources of these types of writings are web pages from law firms who practice in the area, government websites, agency websites, non-profit websites and online journals. Therefore, one may use Google to find these sites and look for the 2 discussions that are “on point” to the legal issues. Please ensure that you are looking at Alberta and Canadian sources.
- After setting out the law, the student will apply the law to the facts set out in each of the problems. This can be done in point form and should not be in an essay format. There is a sample outline below.
- Careful attention should be paid to whether or not there is discrimination, if there is a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR), and, if applicable, the duty to accommodate.
- It is recommended that students review the Alberta Human Rights Commission website found at http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca .
MARKING Students will be assigned marks based on:
1) how well they identify the legal issues,
2) how well they set out the applicable legal principles to answer the legal issues,
3) how well they apply the legal principles to the facts in the case,
4) how well they provide outside sources of research to help answer each of the issues, and
5) how well they properly cite the cases and legislation that they refer to
SAMPLE OUTLINE
- The following is a sample outline to use a rough guide to be completing the assignment.
- Note that this outline applies to a simple negligence problem and does not deal with the legal issues that arise in the two problems in this assignment. Also, there may be more legal issues in the assigned problem than are outlined in this sample.
- Also note that the legislation and case law cited in this sample are not applicable to this assignment.
OUTLINE OF NEGLIGENCE CASE: TOM v. JANE
Legal Issue#1 – Was Jane negligent when she ran over Tom’s foot with her bicycle?
Legal Principles:
In order to determine if Jane is negligent, one needs to show that:
- She owed a duty of care to Tom
- She breached the standard of care owed to him
- Tom suffered an injury
- Jane’s carelessness caused Tom’s injury
According to Donoghue v. Stevenson, a person owes a duty of care to anyone where it is reasonably foreseeable that they may be harmed by that person’s conduct.
According to Yates, a breach of the standard of care occurs when someone does not behave as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. Also, the injury suffered need not be just a physical injury but could emotional injury as well. However, the injury must be “material”; it cannot be just a small scratch, for example.
Again, according to Yates, the injury must be a direct consequence of the careless behavior of the person accused of being negligent.
Application to Facts of Case:
- Jane owed a duty of care to Tom because he was standing on the sidewalk next to Jane’s bicycle and it would be reasonably foreseeable that if she was careless, he could be injured
- Jane breached the standard of care owed to Tom because she proceeded to ride her bicycle while looking behind her and didn’t see Tom standing there
- Tom suffered an injury because he had a broken toe 4. Jane’s carelessness caused Tom’s injury because his toe cracked when she rode over it
Legal Issue #2 – Was Tom contributorily negligent and is, therefore, partially responsible for his own injury?
Legal Principles:
Although it is clear that Tom would owe a duty of care to himself, in order to determine if Tom is contributorily negligent, one needs to show that:
- He breached the standard of care and did not behave as a reasonable person
- He suffered an injury
- His carelessness, at least partially, caused his injury
- Fault can be apportioned to him and, therefore, reducing the damages owed to him
According to section 1(1) of the Contributory Negligence Act, a judge can apportion blame to the victim of negligence where his or her own negligence has also contributed to the victim’s injury.
In order to determine negligence, one would follow the steps outlined under Legal Issue #1
Application to Facts of Case:
- Tom did not behave reasonably when he was jaywalking across the street and ran onto the sidewalk in front of Jane’s bicycle
- He suffered a broken toe
- Tom was hit by the bicycle because he ran onto the sidewalk after jaywalking and, then, his toe was broken
- Tom’s behaviour was clearly partially a cause of the accident
Reference Sheet
- Donoghue (or McAlister) v. Stevenson, [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords
- Yates, Richard et al, Business Law in Canada, Fifth Custom Edition for MacEwan University (10th ed., 2013) Toronto, ON: Pearson Education Canada Inc.
- Contributory Negligence Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-27
PROBLEM #1
Barry Jones is an installer of telephone and cable lines for a local non-unionized telephone company, Easy Access Telephone Co. His responsibilities include driving a truck to various residential and business sites, working outside and climbing to high places during all seasons, gaining access to the interior of residential and business sites, installing required telephone or cable lines, climbing into small areas such as basement crawl spaces or attics, answering questions customers may have while on site and explaining the installation and services.
Barry has always had satisfactory job performance evaluations and has been performing his job for 16 years. There are 24 other telephone installers, 15 warehouse people, 30 office workers and 12 people in customer service.
Barry has just begun having problems with depression and was recently diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. While he was installing a high-speed internet cable at a customer’s residence, he was talking very loudly and in an agitated voice. The customer, an elderly lady, was nervous with him and made a complaint to the telephone company after he left.
Barry’s Supervisor, Suzie Goodfellow, decided that he could no longer be left alone with customers in their houses. He was told that his job would change, and he would work in the warehouse loading boxes onto shelves and trucks. Barry was not happy with this change and indicated that he would not do it. He was very agitated during this exchange and Suzie decided he wasn’t safe to work with and fired him.
Barry filed his complaint with the Human Rights Commission on January 3, 2018. The parties have been unable to settle, and the matter is now set for a panel hearing.
PROBLEM #2
Gini Valentino is a dance instructor at Happy Hearts Dance Studio. She has been teaching dance lessons at Happy Hearts for the last 5 years. She is by far, the favourite dance instructor of the students. Many students ask for her personally when renewing their lessons each year. She is very outgoing, flexible and a good dancer.
Some of the dances Gini teaches are: the Vienna waltz, the old-time waltz, the samba, the tango, the quickstep and various country line dances. In addition to her dance instruction, Gini is responsible for booking students, collecting fees, booking rooms at the dance studio and reception duties when she is not teaching. There are 5 dance instructors at Happy Hearts and one full-time receptionist who is a qualified dance instructor and who substitutes for the dance instructors when they are not available to teach a class.
Last January, Gini decided to take up snowboarding as a hobby. She became good at it fairly quickly since she is so athletic. Unfortunately, on February 14, 2017 she was snowboarding and took a bad fall. Her pelvis was broken in 3 places and she strained her hamstring.
She was off work from February 14, 2017 until June 14, 2017. At that time, her short-term disability coverage ended, and her doctor did not feel that she had a serious enough problem to go on long term disability. Although, her pelvis has healed, it did not heal perfectly, and she does feel pain on exertion. Her hamstring also gives her some trouble if she stretches too much. Although the hamstring is likely to heal if not aggravated, her pelvis will likely cause her some trouble throughout her life.
Happy Hearts owner, Jim Crusty, doesn’t feel that she is capable of teaching the dances any longer. Gini feels that she could teach some of the less strenuous dances. She also feels that she is still a valuable employee given her good people skills. Jim and Gini had several meetings to discuss her abilities and the number of classes she could teach but on June 30, 2017, Jim indicated “too bad, so sad” and told her not to come back to work. Gini filed her complaint with the Human Rights Commission the next day. No reasonable settlement has been reached.
