https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&feed=atom&action=historyCourse:Law3020/2014WT1/Group E/Separation Thesis - Revision history2024-03-29T08:39:30ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.35.8https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&diff=5541&oldid=prevCooperr132: /* Decision of the SCC */2014-03-28T23:43:53Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Decision of the SCC</span></span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 23:43, 28 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l61" >Line 61:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 61:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Decision of the SCC===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Decision of the SCC===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Fuller found the court must be loyal to the law. In the present case, the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">justices appear </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the adhere </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">all the requirements of </del>the law <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">and thus maintained their loyal to </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">law. The </del>judges <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">interpreted </del>the Limitation Act <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to </del>bar liability, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Fuller would find this interpretation as what ought to be. Thus, this exemplifies </del>the judges <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">belief </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">what </del>the law ought to be. In reference to external morality, the judges decision displays their belief that society would find their judgement to be morally appropriate. Accordingly society would feel obligated to follow it.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Fuller found the court must be loyal to the law. In the present case, the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">court appears </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">have adhered </ins>to the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">requirement that legislation must override common </ins>law <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">principles such as negligence. Further </ins>the judges <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">establishing that </ins>the Limitation Act <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">must </ins>bar liability, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">displays </ins>the judges <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">interpretation </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> how </ins>the law ought to be. In reference to external morality, the judges decision displays their belief that society would find their judgement to be morally appropriate. Accordingly society would feel obligated to follow it<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. In addition Fuller would also support the decision to follow the Limitation Act as it has the underlying moral purpose of protecting the defendant. </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">It would appear that while Fuller would agree with both Hart and natural law that the decision of the court was valid, he would however disagree with Hart reasoning. </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Fuller would agree with natural law with notion that the courts based their decision on a moral element rather than a strictly legal. However in contrast to natural law, Fuller would not restrict the moral feature to achieving the common good. </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Fuller would largely disagree with Hart in regards to the reasoning of the court. While Hart would find that the judges made their decision to follow the Limitation Act due to its legal validity, and then morality was used to gauge it. Fuller would find that the decision was routed in the morality of protecting the defendant</ins>.</div></td></tr>
</table>Cooperr132https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&diff=5540&oldid=prevCooperr132: /* Decision of the SCC */2014-03-28T23:21:44Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Decision of the SCC</span></span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 23:21, 28 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l25" >Line 25:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 25:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Decision of the SCC===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Decision of the SCC===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">It would appear that Hart would agree with the decision of the court. Hart would find that the application of both the Limitation Act and the Protection of Children Act as the are both valid laws. </del>While negligence would not be found to be a properly valid law, it would appear that it was appropriate for the judges to utilize the principles of negligence to fill in the gaps in the law.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>While negligence would not be found to be a properly valid law, it would appear that it was appropriate for the judges to utilize the principles of negligence to fill in the gaps in the law<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. However, it would appear that Hart would agree with the decision of the court to override negligence principles with the valid Limitation Act. Hart would favour the decision to apply the Limitation Act restrictions over the principles of negligence, as this would display a legally based decision rather than a moral one. </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Noted earlier; Hart would disagree with natural law's assessment that the decision was made in order to achieve the common good, as this would be too morally based</ins>.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>= '''<big>Morality of Law: Lon Fuller</big>''' =</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>= '''<big>Morality of Law: Lon Fuller</big>''' =</div></td></tr>
</table>Cooperr132https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&diff=5539&oldid=prevCooperr132: /* Decision of the SCC */2014-03-28T23:02:12Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Decision of the SCC</span></span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 23:02, 28 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l25" >Line 25:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 25:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Decision of the SCC===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Decision of the SCC===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Hart would <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">find </del>the decision of the court <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to apply </del>the Protection of Children Act <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">and </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Limitation Act to be appropriate judgements</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">However, the </del>negligence <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">law </del>would be found to be <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">an invalid </del>law<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. Accordingly</del>, it was appropriate for the judges to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">apply </del>the negligence <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">principles since there is a large gap </del>in the law<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. Hart would now require Parliament to fill in this gap through legislation</del>.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">It would appear that </ins>Hart would <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">agree with </ins>the decision of the court<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. Hart would find that the application of both the Limitation Act and </ins>the Protection of Children Act <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">as </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">are both valid laws</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">While </ins>negligence would <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">not </ins>be found to be <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">a properly valid </ins>law, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">it would appear that </ins>it was appropriate for the judges to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">utilize </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">principles of </ins>negligence <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to fill in the gaps </ins>in the law.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>= '''<big>Morality of Law: Lon Fuller</big>''' =</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>= '''<big>Morality of Law: Lon Fuller</big>''' =</div></td></tr>
<!-- diff cache key kumuwiki-kw_:diff::1.12:old-5538:rev-5539 -->
</table>Cooperr132https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&diff=5538&oldid=prevCooperr132: /* Negligence Law */2014-03-28T22:59:16Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Negligence Law</span></span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 22:59, 28 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l21" >Line 21:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 21:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Negligence Law===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Negligence Law===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Hart would find the negligence laws to have unsettled meanings, therefore this would be a penumbra case. As a result of this penumbra the judges were required to fill in gaps. Hart would find the negligence <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">laws </del>to be filling <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">in a huge </del>gap in the law. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Parliament </del>should <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">now </del>step <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">in </del>to legislate the negligence <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">principles</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">To do so </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">judges utilized </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">underlying principles and elements </del>of negligence<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. The negligence laws attempt to prevent harm to others and deters unreasonable conduct</del>. Negligence law was brought about for the purpose of shifting the loss from the victim to the wrongdoer. Accordingly Hart would find this to be brought about through moral principles rather than legal principles. Therefore, Hart would not accept this law. </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Hart would find the negligence laws to have unsettled meanings, therefore this would be a penumbra case. As a result of this penumbra the judges were required to fill in gaps. Hart would find <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">judges using </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">principles of </ins>negligence to be filling <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the </ins>gap in the law <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">regarding regulating reasonable conduct within society</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Accordingly, while Hart would not find negligence on its own to be valid law, he would find that its principles </ins>should <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">be used to fill the evident gaps in the law. It would appear that Hart would find that in order to turn negligence in to potentially valid law, a first </ins>step <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">would be parliament </ins>to legislate the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">principles. This would give </ins>negligence <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">more of a legal grounding</ins>. </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">However </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">validity according to Hart may still be negated by focusing on </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">purpose </ins>of negligence. Negligence law was brought about for the purpose of shifting the loss from the victim to the wrongdoer. Accordingly Hart would find this to be brought about through moral principles rather than legal principles. Therefore, Hart would not accept this law.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Decision of the SCC===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Decision of the SCC===</div></td></tr>
</table>Cooperr132https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&diff=5524&oldid=prevCooperr132: /* Application to K.L.B. v. B.C. */2014-03-28T19:15:04Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.</span></span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 19:15, 28 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l47" >Line 47:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 47:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<br>'''<br></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<br>'''<br></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">I believe </del>Fuller would <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">look at </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">balancing between the majority’s ruling that the government </del>was <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">liable </del>for <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">direct negligence against </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">plaintiffs and the Limitation’s </del>Act as <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">an interpretation </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">purpose </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">a </del>law. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> On the one hand there was </del>the Protection of Children Act <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">(1960) that imposed </del>a <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">high level </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">duty </del>and <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">held </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">government to be responsible for harm endured by foster children</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">On the other hand, there was </del>the Limitation Act <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">that tries </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">prevent long outstanding claims </del>from <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">being brought against defendants</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Fuller would <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">have seen the decision </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">statute bar </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">appellant’s claim as being </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">purpose of </del>the Limitation Act <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">outweighing </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Protection </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Children </del>Act. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> Also</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">he </del>would <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">have viewed </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">application </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Limitation Act as following with the </del>inner morality of law, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">as it needs </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">be consistent and explainable</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">It would not have been </del>the case <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">if </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">ruling would have disregarded </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Limitation Act</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> Following </del>the Limitation Act <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">keeps </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">decision </del>of judges <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">consistent and explainable</del>.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Protection of Children Act===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Contrary to Hart, </ins>Fuller would <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">find </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Protection of Children Act </ins>was <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">entirely brought about </ins>for <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">moral purposes. Fuller would not find this to be a overlap. Fuller would further find </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Protection of Children </ins>Act <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to be valid law </ins>as <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">a result </ins>of the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">inner morality </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the </ins>law. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Fuller would find </ins>the Protection of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the </ins>Children Act <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">should be interpreted in light of its purpose, to protect children. This is </ins>a <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">evidently moral purpose. The community would recognize the protection </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">children as having a moral base </ins>and <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">would according follow </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">law</ins>. </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Limitations Act===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Fuller would find </ins>the Limitation Act <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">was brought about </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">protect the defendant </ins>from <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">disadvantage</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Accordingly </ins>Fuller would <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">find this </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">be a predominately moral purpose. Fuller would find </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">inner morality of </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Limitations Act to be evident, </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">law is clear, concise, explainable and rational. The </ins>Limitation Act <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">clearly states the time constraints upon bringing action. Additionally, </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">external morality </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the Limitations </ins>Act <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">comes from recognition of both parties</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Therefore</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Fuller would find society </ins>would <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">recognize this value and obey </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">law. </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Negligence Law===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">The purpose </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">negligence laws is to prevent harm to others and deter negligent conduct. Fuller would also find </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">negligence law to have </ins>inner morality<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. Society would recognize the moral values </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">negligence law and obey this </ins>law<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. Thus</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Fuller would find the negligence law has both inner and external morality and is valid law. </ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Decision of the SCC===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Fuller found the court must be loyal </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the law</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">In </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">present </ins>case<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">, the justices appear to the adhere to all </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">requirements of the law and thus maintained their loyal to </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">law</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">The judges interpreted </ins>the Limitation Act <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to bar liability, Fuller would find this interpretation as what ought to be. Thus, this exemplifies </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">judges belief </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">what the law ought to be. In reference to external morality, the </ins>judges <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">decision displays their belief that society would find their judgement to be morally appropriate. Accordingly society would feel obligated to follow it</ins>.</div></td></tr>
</table>Cooperr132https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&diff=5521&oldid=prevCooperr132: /* Application to K.L.B. v. B.C. */2014-03-28T18:37:29Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.</span></span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 18:37, 28 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l10" >Line 10:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 10:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>H.L.A. Hart has some criticisms of both natural law and positivism. In regards to natural law, Hart feels that not all law must be moral, and that even morally neutral or immoral laws can still be valid law. This also lends itself to Hart's criticism of positivism. As stated earlier, Hart states that there are certain times when laws are so immoral they should be disobeyed. As well, he believes that the sovereign is a part of the legal system and therefore should be subject to the law.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>H.L.A. Hart has some criticisms of both natural law and positivism. In regards to natural law, Hart feels that not all law must be moral, and that even morally neutral or immoral laws can still be valid law. This also lends itself to Hart's criticism of positivism. As stated earlier, Hart states that there are certain times when laws are so immoral they should be disobeyed. As well, he believes that the sovereign is a part of the legal system and therefore should be subject to the law.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<br>'''<br></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<br>'''<br></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">=</del>==Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">==</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Hart would <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">look </del>to the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">rule governed practices </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">first see how this </del>case <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">should </del>be <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">decided</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> His idea </del>of <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">rule governed practice develops duties between people, which was what was focused on in this </del>case. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>The <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">appellant’s were arguing that they were owed a duty of care by </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">government</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">through </del>the Protection of Children Act. Hart would <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">have agreed that there </del>was <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">direct negligence, </del>as this <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">duty </del>was <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">established as a </del>rule governed practice. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> </del>Hart would have <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">also seen the use </del>of the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">penumbra as this case was quite difficult </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">grapple with and fell outside the settled core</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> The settled core being what was owed by </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">government under </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Protection of Children Act</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> But </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">circumstances of this case had it fall outside of that, </del>so the judges <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">needed </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">use the rule governed practice </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">determine if there </del>was <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">other standards that </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">government didn’t meet, meanwhile filling in </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">gaps of </del>the law. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> Lastly, </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">rule governed practice was utilized in barring </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">action under </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Limitation </del>Act<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. The </del>Limitation Act <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">grants a defendant rights against prolonged actions</del>. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> It also develops a duty between people</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">in that they need </del>to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">bring their actions forward as soon as they are able or aware of one</del>, <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">which unfortunately </del>was <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">not </del>the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">case </del>in <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">K</del>.<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">L.B. I believe </del>Hart would <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">have seen all of </del>this <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">as the application of the rule governed practice to help decide a hard case</del>.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''<br>'''<br></del></div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Limitation Act</ins>===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Hart would <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">likely find that the application of the Limitation Act would fall within the settled core of the law. The provisions within the Limitations Act have settled meanings, and not fall within the penumbra cases. Accordingly the judges were not required </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">fill in any "gaps", of uncertainty. The application of </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Act </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the present </ins>case <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">would be considered to </ins>be <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">an easy case</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">The Act directly applied to the circumstances </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the </ins>case. The <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Limitation Act can be seen as containing both moral and immoral values, depending on whether the individual is </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">claimant or defendant. Hart would find no issue with this double aspect</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">because </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Act was enacted for legal purposes, but with tolerable moral overlap.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins>Protection of Children Act<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Similar to the Limitation Act, Hart would find this to be an easy case, and not fall within the penumbra. The act was enacted to promote the utility of society. It is in society's best interest to have children mature into valuable contributing citizens within their community</ins>. Hart would <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">find the moral aspect of this law </ins>was <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">produced </ins>as <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">a result of society assessing </ins>this <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">law from a moral perspective. Hart would find this overlap to be acceptable as the law </ins>was <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">brought about through the legal </ins>rule governed practice. </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Negligence Law===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Hart would <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">find the negligence laws to </ins>have <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">unsettled meanings, therefore this would be a penumbra case. As a result </ins>of <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">this penumbra </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">judges were required </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">fill in gaps</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Hart would find </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">negligence laws to be filling in a huge gap in </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">law</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Parliament should now step in to legislate </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">negligence principles. To do </ins>so the judges <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">utilized the underlying principles and elements of negligence. The negligence laws attempt </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">prevent harm </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">others and deters unreasonable conduct. Negligence law </ins>was <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">brought about for the purpose of shifting </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">loss from </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">victim to </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">wrongdoer. Accordingly Hart would find this to be brought about through moral principles rather than legal principles. Therefore, Hart would not accept this </ins>law. </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">===Decision of the SCC===</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Hart would find </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">decision of </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">court to apply </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Protection of Children </ins>Act <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">and the </ins>Limitation Act <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">to be appropriate judgements</ins>. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">However</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the negligence law would be found </ins>to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">be an invalid law. Accordingly</ins>, <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">it </ins>was <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">appropriate for the judges to apply </ins>the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">negligence principles since there is a large gap </ins>in <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">the law</ins>. Hart would <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">now require Parliament to fill in </ins>this <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">gap through legislation</ins>.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>= '''<big>Morality of Law: Lon Fuller</big>''' =</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>= '''<big>Morality of Law: Lon Fuller</big>''' =</div></td></tr>
</table>Cooperr132https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&diff=5518&oldid=prevCunninghamm132: /* Application to K.L.B. v. B.C. */2014-03-28T18:34:15Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.</span></span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 18:34, 28 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l34" >Line 34:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 34:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<br>'''<br></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<br>'''<br></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.===</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>I believe Fuller would look at the balancing between the majority’s ruling that the government was liable for direct negligence against the plaintiffs and the Limitation’s Act as an interpretation of the purpose of a law. On the one hand there was the Protection of Children Act (1960) that imposed a high level of duty and held the government to be responsible for harm endured by foster children. On the other hand, there was the Limitation Act that tries to prevent long outstanding claims from being brought against defendants. Fuller would have seen the decision to statute bar the appellant’s claim as being the purpose of the Limitation Act outweighing the <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">other law</del>. Also, he would have viewed the application of the Limitation Act as following with the inner morality of law, as it needs to be consistent and explainable<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">, which </del>would not have been the case if the ruling would have disregarded the Limitation Act.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>I believe Fuller would look at the balancing between the majority’s ruling that the government was liable for direct negligence against the plaintiffs and the Limitation’s Act as an interpretation of the purpose of a law. On the one hand there was the Protection of Children Act (1960) that imposed a high level of duty and held the government to be responsible for harm endured by foster children. On the other hand, there was the Limitation Act that tries to prevent long outstanding claims from being brought against defendants. Fuller would have seen the decision to statute bar the appellant’s claim as being the purpose of the Limitation Act outweighing the <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Protection of Children Act</ins>. Also, he would have viewed the application of the Limitation Act as following with the inner morality of law, as it needs to be consistent and explainable<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. It </ins>would not have been the case if the ruling would have disregarded the Limitation Act<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. Following the Limitation Act keeps the decision of judges consistent and explainable</ins>.</div></td></tr>
<!-- diff cache key kumuwiki-kw_:diff::1.12:old-5511:rev-5518 -->
</table>Cunninghamm132https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&diff=5511&oldid=prevCunninghamm132: /* Separation Thesis: H.L.A. Hart */2014-03-28T18:07:38Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Separation Thesis: H.L.A. Hart</span></span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 18:07, 28 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l4" >Line 4:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 4:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>While law and morality may parallel one another, they are not the same thing, as stated in the natural law theory. HLA Hart contends that they are two different systems, but morality can be used to assess whether a law should be followed or not. There is a balancing between law being a legal rule that ought to be followed and the morality of the law. In certain cases, Hart demonstrates that sometimes a law may be completely valid and effective, but too evil or immoral for people to follow. He points to the case of the laws enacted within the Nazi regime as an example of this. Hart develops the idea of the “Rule of Recognition”, which states that for laws to be operative they must be established within a legal system and followed by some people in society for reasons other than that they would be punished for disobeying them. These reasons could be because the law is good, that people would not be serving their own self-interest if they did not follow them, or that they are simply in the habit of always following the rules.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>While law and morality may parallel one another, they are not the same thing, as stated in the natural law theory. HLA Hart contends that they are two different systems, but morality can be used to assess whether a law should be followed or not. There is a balancing between law being a legal rule that ought to be followed and the morality of the law. In certain cases, Hart demonstrates that sometimes a law may be completely valid and effective, but too evil or immoral for people to follow. He points to the case of the laws enacted within the Nazi regime as an example of this. Hart develops the idea of the “Rule of Recognition”, which states that for laws to be operative they must be established within a legal system and followed by some people in society for reasons other than that they would be punished for disobeying them. These reasons could be because the law is good, that people would not be serving their own self-interest if they did not follow them, or that they are simply in the habit of always following the rules.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Harts states that for a law to be valid law, it must abide by two sets of rules. The primary rules being that a law should tell us what we can and can’t do. The secondary rules are that there must be rules that govern the system that develops the laws. This, he claims, is law as a ‘rule governed practice’. The laws have ‘ought to’ claims that apply to those in society, which are similar to <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">neural </del>rules in sport (he compares it to the rules in baseball). These rules develop duties between people, as well as grant them rights in certain situations. The principles of justice established within a rule governed practice are made a part of the law, but can also be subject to change as things change within the system and the surrounding society.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Harts states that for a law to be valid law, it must abide by two sets of rules. The primary rules being that a law should tell us what we can and can’t do. The secondary rules are that there must be rules that govern the system that develops the laws. This, he claims, is law as a ‘rule governed practice’. The laws have ‘ought to’ claims that apply to those in society, which are similar to <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">neutral </ins>rules in sport (he compares it to the rules in baseball). These rules develop duties between people, as well as grant them rights in certain situations. The principles of justice established within a rule governed practice are made a part of the law, but can also be subject to change as things change within the system and the surrounding society.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Hart also introduces a term called ‘the penumbra’. To explain this, he begins with the notion that laws have a settled core of meaning, since laws can be expressed in general terms. But the facts of certain cases may not fall within this settled core. It is then considered to be in the penumbra. When judges are looking to decide these penumbra cases, they need to look to the terms of the rule governed practice which establishes their laws. In this way, when they are making their decision and filling in the gaps of the law, they are using the same set of principles used to develop laws in the first place. This removes any possibility of a judge letting their own personal morality or preference affect the judgement.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Hart also introduces a term called ‘the penumbra’. To explain this, he begins with the notion that laws have a settled core of meaning, since laws can be expressed in general terms. But the facts of certain cases may not fall within this settled core. It is then considered to be in the penumbra. When judges are looking to decide these penumbra cases, they need to look to the terms of the rule governed practice which establishes their laws. In this way, when they are making their decision and filling in the gaps of the law, they are using the same set of principles used to develop laws in the first place. This removes any possibility of a judge letting their own personal morality or preference affect the judgement.</div></td></tr>
</table>Cunninghamm132https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&diff=5509&oldid=prevCunninghamm132: /* Separation Thesis: H.L.A. Hart */2014-03-28T18:06:09Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Separation Thesis: H.L.A. Hart</span></span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 18:06, 28 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l8" >Line 8:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 8:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Hart also introduces a term called ‘the penumbra’. To explain this, he begins with the notion that laws have a settled core of meaning, since laws can be expressed in general terms. But the facts of certain cases may not fall within this settled core. It is then considered to be in the penumbra. When judges are looking to decide these penumbra cases, they need to look to the terms of the rule governed practice which establishes their laws. In this way, when they are making their decision and filling in the gaps of the law, they are using the same set of principles used to develop laws in the first place. This removes any possibility of a judge letting their own personal morality or preference affect the judgement.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>Hart also introduces a term called ‘the penumbra’. To explain this, he begins with the notion that laws have a settled core of meaning, since laws can be expressed in general terms. But the facts of certain cases may not fall within this settled core. It is then considered to be in the penumbra. When judges are looking to decide these penumbra cases, they need to look to the terms of the rule governed practice which establishes their laws. In this way, when they are making their decision and filling in the gaps of the law, they are using the same set of principles used to develop laws in the first place. This removes any possibility of a judge letting their own personal morality or preference affect the judgement.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>H.L.A. Hart has some criticisms of both natural law and positivism. In regards to natural law, Hart feels that not all law must be moral, and that even morally neutral or immoral laws can still be valid law. This also lends itself to Hart's criticism of positivism. <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">AS </del>stated earlier, Hart states that there are certain times when laws are so immoral they should be disobeyed. As well, he believes that the sovereign is a part of the legal system and therefore should be subject to the law.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>H.L.A. Hart has some criticisms of both natural law and positivism. In regards to natural law, Hart feels that not all law must be moral, and that even morally neutral or immoral laws can still be valid law. This also lends itself to Hart's criticism of positivism. <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">As </ins>stated earlier, Hart states that there are certain times when laws are so immoral they should be disobeyed. As well, he believes that the sovereign is a part of the legal system and therefore should be subject to the law.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<br>'''<br></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<br>'''<br></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.===</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>===Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.===</div></td></tr>
</table>Cunninghamm132https://kumu.tru.ca/index.php?title=Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group_E/Separation_Thesis&diff=5486&oldid=prevCooperr132: /* Application to K.L.B. v. B.C. */2014-03-28T17:36:46Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.</span></span></p>
<table class="diff diff-contentalign-left diff-editfont-monospace" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 17:36, 28 March 2014</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l33" >Line 33:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 33:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div># Disjunction between rules as rules and rules as actually administered by judges</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div># Disjunction between rules as rules and rules as actually administered by judges</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<br>'''<br></div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>'''<br>'''<br></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''<big></del>Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline"></big>'''</del>==</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>==<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">=</ins>Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">=</ins>==</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>I believe Fuller would look at the balancing between the majority’s ruling that the government was liable for direct negligence against the plaintiffs and the Limitation’s Act as an interpretation of the purpose of a law. On the one hand there was the Protection of Children Act (1960) that imposed a high level of duty and held the government to be responsible for harm endured by foster children. On the other hand, there was the Limitation Act that tries to prevent long outstanding claims from being brought against defendants. Fuller would have seen the decision to statute bar the appellant’s claim as being the purpose of the Limitation Act outweighing the other law. Also, he would have viewed the application of the Limitation Act as following with the inner morality of law, as it needs to be consistent and explainable, which would not have been the case if the ruling would have disregarded the Limitation Act.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>I believe Fuller would look at the balancing between the majority’s ruling that the government was liable for direct negligence against the plaintiffs and the Limitation’s Act as an interpretation of the purpose of a law. On the one hand there was the Protection of Children Act (1960) that imposed a high level of duty and held the government to be responsible for harm endured by foster children. On the other hand, there was the Limitation Act that tries to prevent long outstanding claims from being brought against defendants. Fuller would have seen the decision to statute bar the appellant’s claim as being the purpose of the Limitation Act outweighing the other law. Also, he would have viewed the application of the Limitation Act as following with the inner morality of law, as it needs to be consistent and explainable, which would not have been the case if the ruling would have disregarded the Limitation Act.</div></td></tr>
</table>Cooperr132