Supreme Court of Canada

docx

School

Acsenda School of Management *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

304

Subject

Management

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by MinisterMonkey8170

Report
1 Supreme Court of Canada Mandeep Kaur (20000793) Acsenda School of Management BADM301: BUSINESS LAW Sasha Ramnarine November 26, 2022
2 Supreme Court of Canada PART A   Name of the Parties: Her Majesty the Queen (Appellant) and Thomas Michael Cowan (Respondent) The appellant appealed the ruling of the trial judge. ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT: The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that he had intentionally hidden his criminal history from the respondent and that this was a mistake. The appellant argued that he was not required to reveal his criminal past to the respondent since the respondent was unaware of the assault until after the appellant had been convicted of it. In addition, the appellant asserted that the lower court judge made a mistake by considering the defendant's criminal history when assessing the amount of spousal support that must be paid by the defendant. The appellant asserted that his previous convictions are irrelevant to the alimony issue at hand. RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT: The respondent contended that the judge in the lower court was justified in finding that the appellant purposefully hid his criminal past from him and that this was the proper conclusion. Respondent contended that Appellant was required to reveal his criminal history prior to the divorce proceedings. To add insult to injury, the respondent maintained that the trial judge did not commit an error while establishing the amount of spousal support for the appellant by taking into consideration the appellant's
20 criminal history. The respondent argued that the appellant's criminal history had to be taken into consideration when deciding the amount of alimony to be paid. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION: The ruling of the lower court was maintained by the Supreme Court of Canada after it heard the appeal from the lower court. The judgment reached by the trial judge, which was that the appellant hid his criminal history from the respondent, was affirmed by the Court. The court decided that the Appellant had an obligation to disclose his criminal history to the Respondent prior to the conclusion of the divorce proceedings. Because of the appellant's extensive criminal record, the lower court's decision to limit the amount of spousal support awarded to the appellant was upheld by the higher court on appeal. The Appellant's Previous Convictions Were Considered by the Court When Making the Alimony Decision.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
4 PART B IMPRESSIONS OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS: I had the impression that the judicial processes were fair and efficiently carried out. To the best of my knowledge, the judge behaved in a fair and sympathetic manner, providing each side with an opportunity to argue their position. Both attorneys, in my perspective, presented their positions in a detailed and convincing manner. My impression was that everyone acted respectfully toward the judge and followed his or her instructions. In my opinion, it was a pretty good strategy to use. According to what I saw, the judge acted fairly and provided an opportunity for each side to present their position. Both attorneys, in my perspective, presented their positions in a detailed and convincing manner. My observations indicate that everyone behaved courteously and paid attention to the judge's instructions. In my view, everything was carried out in the appropriate manner. For my part, I think the judge acted in a fair and polite manner, allowing all parties to present their cases, and listening to what each had to say. Both attorneys seemed to present their positions in a way that was both comprehensive and convincing, in my opinion. According to my observations, the contestants treated the judge with respect and were anxious to carry out his instructions. In my view, everyone should have been given a little more time to elaborate on their perspective before the vote was taken. In most cases, I believed the legal system would do the right thing. After hearing all the arguments, I believe the judge acted fairly and with respect. Both attorneys seemed to present their positions in a way that was both comprehensive and convincing, in my opinion. My observations indicate that everyone behaved courteously and paid attention to the judge's instructions.
20