Tuesday, January 12. 2021

Today's schedule is: 

9:15 - 11:50 C Block Social and Environmental Sciences 

12:30 - 3:05 B Block Legal Studies 

C Block Social and Environmental Sciences - Today, with Benton, in 145, you'll continue working on mountain ecology...today we'll look at the Ptarmigan and Marmot. To help check out:

Later, with Young in 115, I'd like to start with this question...What Happens to a Town’s Cultural Identity as Its Namesake Glacier Melts? From the Smithsonian article...

Most people in the Comox Valley know the Queneesh narrative, with its curious resonance to the biblical story of Noah. One detail from (Andy) Everson’s telling, however, is often left out: Queneesh didn’t just save the K’ómoks—it anchored them in place. “You almost can consider this an origin story,” Everson says...The critical fact is that glaciers were, and to varying degrees still are, seen in First Nations’ cosmologies as beings, just as Queneesh is in the K’ómoks story.

It’s one thing to read about Greenland in the news, or to lose some lovely part of the local scenery. It’s quite another to lose your spiritual anchor or a lodestone of your identity. “People in the community are wondering what it means if the glacier goes,” Everson says. “If there is no glacier, is it still Queneesh?”

Comox Glacier 2013 to 2018 Ice Loss

So...my question is should we grant nature our ecosystems – including trees, oceans, animals, mountains – rights just as human beings have rights? If mountains and glaciers are "beings" then shouldn't they be afforded the same rights as humans? Is Queenesh a being? Can we give Queenesh the same rights we have? Would that help with protecting its right to exist in a changing climate?

We'll use the Whanganui River in New Zealand as an example.


Environmentalism’s Next Frontier: Giving Nature Legal Rights
The Rise of the Rights of Nature
I am the River, and the River is me: Legal personhood and emerging rights of nature
What is Rights of Nature?

B Block Legal Studies - Today we'll take a look at the main differences between civil and criminal law. I would like you to read the Thomas v Hamilton Board of Education (1994) case and we'll talk about it together. Here are the questions for the case that you and a partner should discuss:

1. Why do you think Thomas and his family brought a suit against the school board and the coaches? 
2. What would you have decided if you were the judge in this case?

Next, I'd like to look at the Thornton et al. v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al. (1978) case together (kind of an important case for non-pecuniary loss in Canada). Here are the questions for the case that you and a partner should discuss:

1. Why did Gary’s parents bring this action to court on their son’s behalf? 
2. Why was the action brought against the Prince George School District? 
3. Did the teacher do what was expected or required of him as a physical education teacher? Why or why not? 
4. Do you think that Gary was in any way responsible for his injuries? Why or why not? 
5. In this case, the original trial and appellate court judgments awarded Gary $200 000 for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The Supreme Court of Canada reduced this amount to $100 000. Do you think this was a fair and reasonable upper limit? Discuss.

And lastly, we'll look at three sources:

• Waddah Mustapha v. Culligan Of Canada Ltd., 2006 CanLII 41807 (ON C.A.)
• The Paisley Snail - Donoghue vs. Stevenson
• Principles in Donoghue vs. Stevenson

You should become familiar with Donoghue v. Stevenson  Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562, [1932] UKHL 100, 1932 S.C. so to help

The Donoghue v. Stevenson case relates to the Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd. case. So, I'd like you and a partner to discuss the following and then we'll talk about it as a class:

1. What factors influenced the trial judge’s decision? The Court of Appeal’s decision?
2. Do you agree with the decision of the trial judge or the Court of Appeal? Why?
3. What is meant by “reasonable foreseeablility” and what elements does the court look at when deciding what is “reasonably foreseeable”?
4. Should the test of what is “reasonably foreseeable” be an objective or subjective test? Why?
5. Should the test be different in cases where psychological as opposed to physical harm is involved?
6. Some would say that the Mustapha family reacted to the fly in the water in an unusual and unexpected way. Should a manufacturer or seller be responsible for any extreme or serious harm caused by defective goods (such as those experienced by the Mustapha family), or only what is expected that most people would experience in a similar situation? Where should the courts draw the line of liability for harm suffered by others?

I'll go through civil trial procedures with you and explain what a summons or statements of claim and the options available when a lawsuit is claimed against you (statement of defense, counterclaims, third party claims, or default judgement). Next I'll explain the benefits of an out of court settlement and identify why negotiating an agreement is better than going to court. You can find more on the differences between criminal and civil law at: Diffen or OttoGraph and you can find out more about Civil Procedures at Canada's Department of Justice or the Courts of British Columbia.