1. The document discusses the history of common law and equity in Canada, how they were joined, and that equity prevails over common law. 2. It introduces the major divisions of law such as contract, tort, and administrative law that developed from the old system of writs, while also noting some modern collapsing of divisions. 3. Two conflict of laws cases are summarized, establishing the "real and substantial connection" test and that Ontario insurance law does not apply to ICBC.

1. Today:
1. Finish History and Heritage of the
Canadian Legal System
2. Introducing divisions of law

2. Joining of Common Law and
Equity
Rules of law and equity
96.(1)Courts shall administer concurrently all rules of equity
96.
and the common law. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 96 (1);
1993, c. 27, Sched.
Rules of equity to prevail
(2)Where a rule of equity conflicts with a rule of the
common law, the rule of equity prevails. R.S.O. 1990,
c. C.43, s. 96 (2); 1993, c. 27, Sched.
Act,
Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.43.

3. Political Developments and the
Courts
• Parliament composed of regional representatives
• Acted as court of last resort
• 1332: Split into House of Commons and House
of Lords
• Lords retain judicial function today
• Parliamentary Supremacy, Responsible
Government, and Judicial Independence

4. Adoption of English Law in
Canada
• Date of Introduction vs. Date of Reception
• Continued oversight by Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council until 1949
• Confederation through the BNA
(Constitution Act, 1867)

5. Introducing Divisions of Law

6. System of writs
led to modern
branches of law

7. Contract Law: covenant, assumpsit, debt
Tort Law: trespass vi et armis, trespass
on the case, trover
Administrative Law: certiorari,
habeus corpus

8. modern divisions in law
but also
recent collapsing of divisions

9. Conflict of Laws
Domestic vs. Foreign Law
Domestic vs. International Law

10. Domestic vs. Foreign Laws

11. Conflict of Laws example
Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077.

12. Conflict of Laws example
Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077.
De Savoye
Morguard Investments

13. Conflict of Laws example
Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077.
De Savoye
Morguard Investments
Ratio: “real and substantial connection”

14. Conflict of Laws example 2
Unifund v. ICBC, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63, 2003 SCC 40.

15. Conflict of Laws example 2
Unifund v. ICBC, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63, 2003 SCC 40.
Marcia and Ronald Brennan
Owner, driver Unifund
and garage of Ontario
Insurance Corp
of British Columbia

16. Conflict of Laws example 2
Unifund v. ICBC, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63, 2003 SCC 40.
Marcia and Ronald Brennan
Owner, driver Unifund
and garage of Ontario
Insurance Corp
of British Columbia
Ratio: Ontario Insurance Act inapplicable to ICBC

17. Domestic vs. International Law

18. Domestic vs. International Law
• Treaties
• Domestic law
• International courts and tribunals
• Application of Canadian law in Canada to nonCanadians
• Application of Canadian law outside Canada

19. Application of Canadian law outside
Canada
6. (2) Subject to this Act or any other Act of Parliament, no
person shall be convicted or discharged under section 730
of an offence committed outside Canada.
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 6.
Anyone with internet access? Look up ss. 7(1)(b) and 7(2.31).

20. Form vs. Substance
Procedure vs. Substantive Law

21. Substantive Law
• Establishes legal relations
• Provides for substantive rights
• Provides for consequences of violations
• Substantive law applied as at time of events

22. Procedural Law
• Deals with the legal process used to enforce
substantive rights
• Different areas of substantive law have different
procedural rules
• Provides for process, parties, limitations, appeals and
review, evidence, questioning
• Procedural law applied as at time of trial

23. Evidence
• A branch of procedural law
• Differs in different areas of law
• Best Evidence rule
• “Hearsay”
• General rule: To be admitted, evidence must be
relevant and reliable
• “Examination in chief” vs. “Cross−examination”

24. Distinguishing Proc. and Subst.
rights
• Substantive law applied as at time of events
• Procedural law applied as at time of trial
• Courts required to categorize rights
• Justification for this difference?

25. For next class…
Legal Reasoning
• Pages 114−131
• In class, we will discuss the cases on pp. 132−146
(Carbolic Smokeball and Donoghue v. Stevenson)