9:15 - 11:50 A Block Physical Geography
12:30 - 3:05 D Block Legal Studies
A Block Physical Geography - Today we'll begin our look at resources, resource use, and management issues. We'll talk about renewable and non-renewable resources along with the four ethical views on resource use (economic/exploitation; preservationist; balanced-multiple use; and ecological or sustainable). We will focus on consumption. From Unnatural Law: Rethinking Canadian Environmental Law and Policy By David Richard Boyd:
Humanity can’t recycle its way out of consumption problems
In Canada, over-consumption is the root cause of our environmental woes. As the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation points out, our “prevailing emphasis on consumption – with high levels of waste, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions – jeopardizes the capacity of natural resources and systems to support future generations.” Consumption in this context refers not only to the energy and resources consumed by individual Canadians but encompasses the use of energy and resources by the entire industrial economy. Most Canadians see only the tip of the iceberg of the resources consumed to supply the goods and services required by current lifestyles. We are largely blind to the industrial activities that consume vast amounts of resources and cause extensive environmental damage.So what is the material throughput industrial economy?
Humanity can’t recycle its way out of consumption problems
What are the differences between a linear and circular economy.? Here is a bit on a circular economy
Our focus tomorrow will be on water consumption (I'd like you to track your water consumption for the week). Today we'll watch the first few sections of Human Footprint. We'll get through scenes 1-6 today (from birth up to early 20's) and this will take about 45 minutes of class time. If there's time, we'll finish the DVD tomorrow and I'd like you to answer the following:
Our focus tomorrow will be on water consumption (I'd like you to track your water consumption for the week). Today we'll watch the first few sections of Human Footprint. We'll get through scenes 1-6 today (from birth up to early 20's) and this will take about 45 minutes of class time. If there's time, we'll finish the DVD tomorrow and I'd like you to answer the following:
- How much do you consume? Try to examine all of your daily habits (clothing, heating, transportation, eating, schooling, and leisure pursuits to name a few) to determine what impact on natural capital you make on a daily basis (how big your ecological footprint is). How could you reduce your impact on the environment?
- In some areas of the world people are already in conflict over a limited amount of natural resources. How will a growing population affect people’s access to food, potable (safe drinking) water, and fuel? What affect might the population increase have on pollution and encroachment on wildlife habitats?
D Block Legal Studies - Today we start in 115. For your civil law project, there are things you should know about Professional Negligence and standard of care:
Reibl v. Hughes (1980, SCC)
The Court held that the actions of the doctor in this case were negligent. The relationship of doctor -patient gives rise to a duty for the doctor to disclose all material risks relationship to the recommended surgery. The Court held that the doctor failed to adequately communicate to the appellant the risks of the operation that he was to undergo. The doctor was negligent in leaving the patient with the opinion that he would be better off for having the operation. The doctor should have more clearly explained the incidences of mortality and the incidences of morbidity. He was also negligent in not making it plain to the plaintiff appellant that the operation would not cure his headaches. There was no neurological deficit that mandated the surgery. There was also no emergency that required the surgery
1. Lack of informed consent won't lead to liability for battery unless there is no consent at all, where there is fraud, or where the treatment went beyond the consent. However, negligence principles are to be applied.
2. modified objective test - relies on a combination of objective and subjective factors in order to determine whether the failure to disclose actually caused the harm of which the plaintiff complains. It requires that the court consider what the reasonable patient in the circumstances of the plaintiff would have done if faced w/ the same situation.
1st QUESTION: Whether the Dr. gave the warning?
2nd QUESTION: Would the patient have gone ahead anyway?
To succeed there are 3 steps:
1. Plaintiff must show that material risk existed
2. Plaintiff must show that material risk was not disclosed
3. Plaintiff must show that had risk been disclosed plaintiff would not have consented - prove using the subjective/objective test
Family Compensation Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 126
Medical Malpractice Canada
Lawyers BC Medical Malpractice
John McKiggan Medical Malpractice Informed Consent (minors)
1. Lack of informed consent won't lead to liability for battery unless there is no consent at all, where there is fraud, or where the treatment went beyond the consent. However, negligence principles are to be applied.
2. modified objective test - relies on a combination of objective and subjective factors in order to determine whether the failure to disclose actually caused the harm of which the plaintiff complains. It requires that the court consider what the reasonable patient in the circumstances of the plaintiff would have done if faced w/ the same situation.
1st QUESTION: Whether the Dr. gave the warning?
2nd QUESTION: Would the patient have gone ahead anyway?
To succeed there are 3 steps:
1. Plaintiff must show that material risk existed
2. Plaintiff must show that material risk was not disclosed
3. Plaintiff must show that had risk been disclosed plaintiff would not have consented - prove using the subjective/objective test
Family Compensation Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 126
Medical Malpractice Canada
Lawyers BC Medical Malpractice
John McKiggan Medical Malpractice Informed Consent (minors)
FYI:
Spraggs & Co. Should I Claim My Work Injury with WorkSafeBC or in a Personal Injury Lawsuit?
Worksafe BC The basics of making a claim
Worksafe BC What you need to know about benefits and lawsuits for injury, death, or disease in the workplace
Worksafe BC Critical Incident Response
Worksafe BC Workers compensation and Lawsuit basics
Some help regarding the baseball case can be found at City of Vancouver Standards of Maintenance By Law (look at section 5 Structural Conditions). Some help regarding the amusement park and ski resort cases can be found at SAFETY STANDARDS ACT [SBC 2003] CHAPTER 39 and at Safety Standards Act
SAFETY STANDARDS GENERAL REGULATION.
Spraggs & Co. Should I Claim My Work Injury with WorkSafeBC or in a Personal Injury Lawsuit?
Worksafe BC The basics of making a claim
Worksafe BC What you need to know about benefits and lawsuits for injury, death, or disease in the workplace
Worksafe BC Critical Incident Response
Worksafe BC Workers compensation and Lawsuit basics
Some help regarding the baseball case can be found at City of Vancouver Standards of Maintenance By Law (look at section 5 Structural Conditions). Some help regarding the amusement park and ski resort cases can be found at SAFETY STANDARDS ACT [SBC 2003] CHAPTER 39 and at Safety Standards Act
SAFETY STANDARDS GENERAL REGULATION.
After we will work in the learning commons / library to work on our civil law assignment. There are some important sections involving "liability" for businesses and social guests on pages 406-410 (Occupiers' Liability: general invitees; commercial and social host invitees; licensees; trespassers; and the Occupiers Liability Act). These topics are relevant to all cases except for Case 7. For more on the BC Liquor laws (pertaining to case 5) check out the Serving It Right information here or for information on liquor law basics here.
BC Liquor Control and Licensing Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 267
43 (1) A person must not sell or give liquor to an intoxicated person or a person apparently under the influence of liquor.
(2) A licensee or the licensee's employee must not permit
(a) a person to become intoxicated, or
(b) an intoxicated person to remain in that part of a licensed establishment where liquor is sold, served or otherwise supplied.
Liability of officer of corporation
77 If an offence under this Act is committed by a corporation, the officer or agent of the corporation in charge of the establishment in which the offence is committed is deemed to be a party to the offence and is personally liable to the penalties prescribed for the offence as a principal offender but nothing in this section relieves the corporation or the person actually committing the offence from liability for it.
Liability of occupant of establishment
78 On proof that an offence under this Act has been committed by
(a) a person employed by the occupant of a house, shop, restaurant, room or other establishment in which the offence is committed, or
(b) a person permitted by the occupant to be or remain in or on that house, shop, restaurant, room or establishment, or to act in any way for the occupant, the occupant is deemed to be a party to the offence and is liable as a principal offender to the penalties prescribed for the offence, even though the offence was committed by a person who is not proved to have committed it under or by the direction of the occupant but nothing in this section relieves the person actually committing the offence from liability for it.
BC Liquor Control and Licensing Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 267
(2) A licensee or the licensee's employee must not permit
(a) a person to become intoxicated, or
(b) an intoxicated person to remain in that part of a licensed establishment where liquor is sold, served or otherwise supplied.
Liability of officer of corporation
77 If an offence under this Act is committed by a corporation, the officer or agent of the corporation in charge of the establishment in which the offence is committed is deemed to be a party to the offence and is personally liable to the penalties prescribed for the offence as a principal offender but nothing in this section relieves the corporation or the person actually committing the offence from liability for it.
Liability of occupant of establishment
78 On proof that an offence under this Act has been committed by
(a) a person employed by the occupant of a house, shop, restaurant, room or other establishment in which the offence is committed, or
(b) a person permitted by the occupant to be or remain in or on that house, shop, restaurant, room or establishment, or to act in any way for the occupant, the occupant is deemed to be a party to the offence and is liable as a principal offender to the penalties prescribed for the offence, even though the offence was committed by a person who is not proved to have committed it under or by the direction of the occupant but nothing in this section relieves the person actually committing the offence from liability for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment