NCA Exam Questions Aug 2013

NCA  EXAM  QUESTIONS  FOR  AUG  2013     TIPS  FOR  NCA  CANDIDATES:     1. Though  the  instructions  say  that  any  reference  material  may  be  brought  into   the  exam  hall,  Christine  Meyer,  the  examinations  manager  has  authorized  an   unreasonable  search  and  seizure  of  any  material  that  is  a  past  NCA  sample   exam  or  answer.  That  paranoia  has  led  the  proctors  to  search  for  any   document  related  to  the  words  “answer,  questions,  sample,  exam.”  There  is   really  no  need  to  carry  any  past  NCA  sample  exam  into  the  hall.  If  you  read   this  for  exam,  leave  it  at  home  or  in  the  bag.  If  however,  you  want  to  carry   sample  answers  to  the  questions  below  in,  simply  re-­‐label  your  title  to  say   “case  study”  or  case  example  etc.     2. Someone  should  file  a  case  against  Christine  Meyer  for  unlawful  search  and   seizure  and  violation  of  Charter  rights.  The  exam  note  also  says  that  we   should  not  discuss  the  questions  with  each  other  –  that  is  all  rubbish  and  is  a   violation  of  our  freedom  to  speech.  This  is  one  of  the  reasons  I  have  decided   to  post  this.       3. Good  luck.  I  have  not  given  my  contact  details  as  I  do  not  wish  to  be   contacted.  Thank  you.     Criminal  law  exam  –  section  B,  Aug  16,  2013     1.  X  committed  murder  and  was  committed  for  preliminary  enquiry  for  trial.  During   the  course  of  preliminary  enquiry,  it  emerges  that  X’s  friend  who  was  giving   evidence  against  X  was  dishonest  in  previous  cases;  a  hair  microscopy  report  was   not  conclusive  of  X’s  involvement;  a  gun  that  x  owns  had  same  caliber  of  murder   weapon.  Also,  Crown  verbally  receives  hair  microscopy  report  that  may  doubt   involvement  of  X  but  Crown  does  not  share  it  with  defense  right  away  since  Crown   doesn’t  want  to  share  verbal  report  but  was  waiting  for  final  written  report  as  based   on  Crown’s  experience,  verbal  reports  in  the  past  have  changed.  Judge  discharges  X   on  basis  of  X’s  friend  having  tainted  reputation;  controversy  over  the  hair   microscopy;  and  supposedly  unethical  behavior  of  Crown  in  not  sharing  the  verbal   report.     Questions:  45  marks     1. Should  the  judge  have  discharged  X?  Explain.     2. If  Crown  wants  to  still  indict  X  despite  discharge,  what  should  Crown  do?  If   Crown  wants  to  challenge  prel  inquiry  decision,  what  is  the  route?       3. Was  Crown  behaving  ethically?  Explain.      

1  

2.  Regulatory  question  –  Hannah,  18  years  old  served  liquor  by  Zack  at  liquor  store.   S  30  (1)  of  Liquor  Control  Act  states  that  if  liquor  is  sold  knowingly  to  a  person  who   appears  to  be  under  19  years,  person  can  be  fined  and  or  imprisoned  for  6  months.     Zack  didn’t  think  Hannah  was  under  19  years  and  so  sold  her  the  liquor.  Hannah   drank  liquor  on  her  own;  met  some  boys  later  on  –  initiated  some  sexual  contact   with  one  of  the  boys;  and  George  piled  her  with  liquor.  She  falls  asleep  on  George   and  gets  up  while  sexual  stuff  going  on.  Suddenly,  she  gets  up  struggling,  starts   vomiting.  George  calls  911.  Medical  personnel  incorrectly  inserts  trachea  that  then   kills  Hannah.  Expert  says  that  if  tube  was  inserted  correctly,  Hannah  would  not  have   died.       Questions:  55  marks.     1. Can  Zack  be  convicted  of  supplying  liquor  to  Hannah?     2. Can  George  be  convicted  of  sexual  assault  against  Hannah?     3. Can  George  be  convicted  of  manslaughter  against  Hannah?     4. Assume  George  had  defense  of  extreme  intoxication  –  based  on  the  offence   and  other  defences,  can  George  be  convicted  of  offence?     Constitutional  law  exam,  section  A:  Aug  15,  2013     1. Division  of  powers  question.  Long-­‐winded  question  on  Federal  Govt.  saving  a   company  for  the  whole  of  Canada,  to  help  Canada’s  economy  and  this   Company  then  applies  under  the  Federal  Act  to  severe  employees  under  s  3   which  asks  for  directions  from  a  Judge  to  do  so.     Meanwhile,  under  Employees  Services  Act  of  Ontario,  employees  want  to  be  paid   their  remaining  amounts.     You  represent  the  employees.  Can  employees  challenge  the  Federal  legislation  and   how?    -­‐  35  marks,  60  minutes.       2. Charter  question  for  50  marks.  Long-­‐winded  question  with  needless  facts  to   confuse  the  reader.  Basically,  Betty,    a  Buddhist  and  artist  specializing  in   body-­‐piercing  etc.  wants  to  open  a  shop  on  body-­‐piercing  in  a  small  town.   Mayor  is  outraged  after  seeing  her  display.  He  whips  up  town’s  emotions   citing  health  problems,  undesirable  elements  coming  to  the  area  etc  in   passing  a  specific  regulation  disallowing  the  opening  of  body-­‐piercing  shops.   Her  business  is  forcibly  closed.       You  represent  her.  What  are  the  various  Charter  arguments  that  Betty  can  raise?    

2  

  -­‐ 50  marks,  90  minutes.     3.  15  mark  essay  question  (30  min)  on  if  and  whether  Constitution  of  Canada  has   helped  disadvantaged  and  minorities  in  Canada.       Administrative  law  exam,  section  A:  Aug  14,  2013     1. Extremely  long-­‐winded  factual  situation.  Basically,  some  fight  between   council  members  on    a  school  board.  Parents  divided.  Minister  intervenes   and  after  some  warning,  uses  his  discretionary  power  to  verbally  announce   his  decision  to  sack  board  members  and  arbitrarily  appoint  others  on  board   for  sake  of  board.       Questions:  70  marks     1. What  are  the  various  procedural  fairness  issues  involved  for  parents  and   board  members  (in  the  facts,  there  are  various  instances  where  notice  wasn’t   given;  no  hearing;  arbitrary  appointment  etc).   2. What  standard  of  review  to  apply  for  Minister’s  decision?   3. Once  standard  has  been  decided,  what  is  the  correct  decision  to  be  applied  in   the  case?  Can  the  decision  made  by  Minister  overruled?   4. Can  Minister’s  discretionary  announcement  /  decision  be  challenged?   5. Parents  file  a  case.  Can  parents  even  challenge  the  decision?       Q  2.  Long-­‐winded  factual  situation  about  procurement  issue  gone  awry.  A  contactor   X  loses  on  the  bid.  His  sub-­‐contractor,  Y  too  loses  as  a  result  and  learns  that  the  rival   company  selected  was  selected  due  to  possible  fraud  in  selection  process.  Y  decides   to  appeal.  Appeal  board  issues  preliminary  decision  that  losing  contractor  has  no   locus  standii  to  appeal  since  this  was  not  originally  recognized  by  the  Legislature  in   passing  the  Act  as  otherwise,  Legislature  would  have  specifically  mentioned  this  in   the  Act.       Questions,  30  marks     1. Can  Y  appeal?  What  are  the  possible  impediments  to  appealing  the   preliminary  decision?   2. What  is  the  standard  of  review  to  be  applied  in  reviewing  the  preliminary   decision  and  why?   3. Once  standard  has  been  applied,  what  decision  will  Court  come  to  and  why?     Please  note:  another  Group  in  the  exam,  section  C,  got  similar  fact  situations  but   also  had  an  essay  question  to  answer  for  15  marks  on  Dicey’s  functional  approach  

 

3  

(probably  something  to  do  with  the  origination  of  the  pragmatic  and  functional   approach).       Foundations  of  Canadian  Law,  Aug  19,  2013    Section  B:     Q  1:  Short  answers  (20  marks)     1. Question  on  bijuralism.     2. Question  on  why  Canada  is  considered  legally  plurastic  and  to  explain.     3. Meaning  of  complemtarity  between  Federal  and  Provincial  legislation  and  to   give  example.     4. Meaning  of  harmonization  between  Common  and  civil  laws  and  to  give   example  from  Quebec.     Q  2:  Essay  (15  marks)     Federal  Govt.  enters  into  various  binding  contracts  with  companies  at  Pearson   airport  and  then,  passes  law  repudiating  such  contracts  and  bars  companies  from   accessing  Courts.  Professor  Monahan  states  that  such  actions  by  the  Federal  Govt.  is   arbitrary  and  high-­‐handed  and  is  against  the  rule  of  law.     Do  you  agree  with  Prof  Monahan  and  why  or  why  not?  Will  the  Supreme  Court   agree?  Why  or  why  not?     Q  3:  essay  questions  (8  x  2  =  16  marks)     Mayor  of  Toronto  wants  your  advice  on  the  following  two  issues:     a. Mayor  causes  City  to  pass  law  against  every  retailer  banning  Toronto  Star;   Can  Mayor  /  City  do  this?       b. Mayor  wants  to  meet  Chief  Justice  to  lobby  for  stronger  convictions  against   drug  problem  in  poorer  areas  of  Toronto.     Can  Mayor  do  this?  Why  or  why  not?     Q  4:  essay  question  (15  marks)     If  Ontario  had  codified  law  on  defamation  prior  to  the  Hill  decision,  would  the   judgment  have  been  different?  Why  or  why  not?  Explain  fully.     Q  5:  True  or  false  with  brief  explanation  (12  marks)    

4  

  1. Fiduciary  obligations  flow  from  s  35(1).     2. The  manner  in  which  fiduciary  obligations  flow  from  Provinces  depends  on   how  s  35(1)  is  influenced.     3. Inferior  (provincial)  courts  do  not  have  the  authority  to  decide  cases  relating   to  fiduciary  obligations  because  of  the  Chancery.     4. Legal  positivists  believe  that  fiduciary  obligations  flowing  are  all  fluff  since  it   is  based  on  fairness  and  equity.     Q  6:  essay  (12  marks)     Premise:  International  law  is  ratified  and  entered  into  by  Federal  Govt.       Conclusion:  Federal  Govt.  implements  law.       Is  conclusion  and  /  or  premise  true  or  false.  Explain.     Q  7:  short  question  (10  marks)     What  is  important  about  Van  Der  Peet?  Do  not  repeat  facts.     Group  A  got  questions  on  the  shark-­‐fin  ban  (a  repeat  from  previous  exam  with   some  modifications)  and  on  statutory  interpretation.  

 

5