D Block Physical Geography - I have the Learning Commons booked. Thank you to the group who came in to the class yesterday to film your weather forecast and report project. We will only have one group in Room 115 at a time to film your project so for the rest of us we will be in the Learning Commons / Library preparing your video or scripting. Remember, the chroma key green screen in the classroom is in the middle of the room, facing the smartboard (the whiteboard thingy I use every day). You can project your script on the smartboard and read it there, while your partner video records you, this way, you'll not need to memorize your script. Try to stand just a foot in front of the screen so that you can avoid shadows. I'll have the blinds shut and the class lights lights off. There are also Softbox studio lights on either side of the green screen all so that your background pops.
For the forecast, always ask yourself: “WHY DOES THIS MATTER?”: Why should the viewer care? The answer can be as simple as reminding the audience that they need to bring a jacket to school the next day, or as complex as the evolving local wildlife habitats. Either way, as reporters, you should train yourself to be thinking about “WHY” what you’re reporting on matters. Also place the weather in context. Research and then talk about statistics like records and averages. For example, “today might feel warm, but it’s actually ___ degrees warmer than the hottest day on record”, or “It’s ____ degrees warmer than the average temperature in July over the last five years”. You can also discuss how the average temperatures during any given year are changing.
To that end...CBC Climate Dashboard
Alex & Frida first; then Dill, Nadia & Elliott. Noah & Grayson need to finish their video as well. Then, who's next?
C Block Human Geography - To examine the key question "Why Do Ethnicities Engage in Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide"? we focus first on the former Yugoslavia (1991-1999) and ethnic cleansing (take a deeper look at Srebrenica in the Bosnian War). Ethnic cleansing is undertaken to rid an area of an entire ethnicity so that the surviving ethnic group can be the sole inhabitants. The point of ethnic cleansing is not simply to defeat an enemy or to subjugate them but it involves the removal of every member of the less powerful ethnicity - women as well as men, children as well as adults, the frail elderly as well as the strong youth. There's a good timeline and in depth page of the Balkan Wars (including Srebrenica in the Balkan War and also Podujevo in the Kosovo war) on the CBC here. You'll need to work on the following for me:
- Define ethnic cleansing
- How is ethnic cleansing different than normal warfare?
- Regarding the Yugoslav refrain that was common during the rule of Josip Tito, identify Yugoslavia’s: Five Nationalities; Four Languages; Three Religions; and Two Alphabets
- Why did Serbs and Croats in Bosnia (aka Bosnia-Herzegovina) ethnically cleanse themselves of Bosnia Muslims?
- After the 1996 Dayton Accords (end of Yugoslav civil war) What country controlled Kosovo
- What ethnic group lives in Kosovo (and %)?
- With the breakup of Yugoslavia, what began to happen in Kosovo?
- How did the U.S. and U.N. respond?
- Define balkanized
- Define balkanization
And don't forget that the other secondary school in Courtenay is named after Master Corporal Mark Robert Isfeld, a field engineer, who was serving on a peacekeeping mission (United Nations Protection Force Yugoslavia or UNPROFOR) with the 1 Combat Engineer Regiment near Kakma, Croatia. He was involved in mine clearance at the time of his death on June 21, 1994 and was on his third peacekeeping mission in a two and one-half year period.
B Block Legal Studies - Today, in the Library, we'll review damages and look the the caps (limits) to non pecuniary loss. Here is some info to help:
Compensatory Damages - The basis: Compensation in tort law is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. The Purpose: To restore the Plaintiff, in so far as money can do, to the same position as if no tort had been committed. It entitles Plaintiff to be compensated for their pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses arising from the Defendant’s tort.
Compensatory damages are divided into Special and General damages.
Special Damages include: Pre-trial pecuniary losses incurred by Plaintiff which includes lost income, nursing and personal attendant costs, medical expenses and consequential expenses. General Damages include: Future losses resulting from Defendant’s tort. A Plaintiff may be compensated for three heads of damages under general damages: (1) Inability to work; (2) future care cost; and (3) non-pecuniary losses. Each item of damage must be separately considered and compensated for.
This section is adapted from:
The History and Treatment of Damages in Canada
Patricia J. Armstrong
Lindsay LLP
Damages in British Columbia Tort Claims: What You Need to Know
Preszler Law Firm
General Damages - (3) Non-Pecuniary Loss
In contrast to the relative ease with which pecuniary damages can be determined, non-pecuniary damages compensate for those consequences of an injury that, although real, are not so easily quantified. These types of damages tend to relate to a person’s subjective experience of an injury, which, of course, are not accompanied by an invoice or receipt. In Canada, the factors which are analyzed to determine an appropriate award are: 1) the plaintiff’s age, 2) the nature of the injury, 3) the severity and duration of the pain, 4) the level of the disability, and 5) the loss of lifestyle or impairment of life (Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34 at para. 46).
Perhaps the best-known type of non-pecuniary damages are damages for pain and suffering, which seek to compensate an injured person for having to experience pain as the result of the injury.
Other types of non-pecuniary damages include: Disfigurement; Loss of expectation of life; and Loss of amenities of life.
In fixing the amount of such damages in British Columbia, courts consider past awards in similar cases, considering the type of injury, age of the injured person, and other relevant circumstances (see above).
Limits on Non-Pecuniary Damages in British Columbia
When many people think of “pain and suffering” damages, they think of the extremely high damage awards often made in the United States. But here in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada has long imposed an upper limit on pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary damages.
In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada decided a trilogy of cases in which it established a cap on non-pecuniary damages. On January 19, 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada tackled this issue head-on by ruling on a trilogy of cases to limit the maximum amount of non-pecuniary damages a plaintiff could receive in a civil action (Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 (SCC) [Andrews]; Thornton v. School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267 (SCC) [Thornton]; and Arnold v. Teno, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287 (SCC) [Arnold]) (the “Trilogy”). As the Court explained (emphasis added):
Note, however, that this upper limit is only available in the worst of injury cases. For example, in two of the cases in which the Court first developed that limit, the plaintiffs were young adults who had become paralyzed from the neck down. In the average B.C. tort claim, plaintiffs should anticipate an award of non-pecuniary damages well below the cap. Non-pecuniary damages were meant to provide a substitute for loss of amenities and to make the plaintiff’s life more bearable. Damages may be awarded in other headings to provide equality in the amount of compensation a plaintiff receives in a negligence case.
In D.S. v. Quesnelle (2019) ONSC, the Ontario Superior Court held that the cap on general damages of $100,000 set by the "trilogy" Supreme Court of Canada cases did not apply to intentional torts.
Non-Compensatory Damages include: Punitive Damages which are appropriate where the Defendant’s misconduct was so malicious, oppressive and highhanded. Their Purpose? Punishment and deterrence. Nominal Damages are small amounts of money awarded when the plaintiff has successfully established a cause of action but has suffered no substantial loss or is unable to prove what that loss is. Their purpose? Vindication of the Plaintiff’s rights and a minor deterrence to the Defendant.
This section is adapted from:
The History and Treatment of Damages in Canada
Patricia J. Armstrong
Lindsay LLP
Generally, punitive damages are imposed in rare circumstances where there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs markedly from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. Their purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff, but to give the defendant his or her just dessert (retribution), to deter the defendant and others from similar misconduct in the future (deterrence), and to mark the community’s collective condemnation (denunciation) of what has happened. Currently, the range for punitive damages in Canada is between $50,000 to $1 million. Most cases, however, fall within the $100,000 to $200,000 range (see Clarfield v. Crown Life (2000), 23 C.C.L.I. (3rd) 266 (Ont. S.C.J.), Kogan v. Chubb (2001), 27 C.C.L.I. (3rd) 16 (Ont. S.C.J.), Fidler v. Sunlife, 2004 BCCA 273, Fernandes v. Penncorp Life Insurance Company, 2013 ONSC 1637).
In Canada, aggravated damages are awarded to compensate a party for the mental distress experienced from another party’s misconduct or misbehaviour. Aggravated damages cover intangible injuries such as mental distress, pain, anguish, grief, anxiety, vexation, humiliation, indignation, outrage, wounded pride, damaged self-confidence or self esteem, loss of faith in friends or colleagues, and other similar matters. As no Supreme Court of Canada case has ruled on aggravated damages in bad faith claims, the damages are specific to the provinces and vary in range. In provinces such as British Columbia, the highest award has only been $35,000 (Asselstine v. Manulife, 2005 BCCA 292). On the other hand, a recent 2013 Ontario case awarded $100,000 in aggravated damages on a disability insurance claim (Fernandes v. Penncorp Life Insurance Company, 2013 ONSC 1637). Currently, the typical range for aggravated damages in Canada is $10,000 to $100,000 but most of the awards fall on the lower end of the spectrum.
As the numbers currently stand in Canada, the upper limit for non-pecuniary damages is approximately $360,000. The range for aggravated damages is between $10,000 and $100,000, and the range for punitive damages is between $50,000 and $1 million.
The History and Treatment of Damages in Canada
Patricia J. Armstrong
Lindsay LLP
Damages in British Columbia Tort Claims: What You Need to Know
Preszler Law Firm
General Damages - (3) Non-Pecuniary Loss
In contrast to the relative ease with which pecuniary damages can be determined, non-pecuniary damages compensate for those consequences of an injury that, although real, are not so easily quantified. These types of damages tend to relate to a person’s subjective experience of an injury, which, of course, are not accompanied by an invoice or receipt. In Canada, the factors which are analyzed to determine an appropriate award are: 1) the plaintiff’s age, 2) the nature of the injury, 3) the severity and duration of the pain, 4) the level of the disability, and 5) the loss of lifestyle or impairment of life (Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34 at para. 46).
Perhaps the best-known type of non-pecuniary damages are damages for pain and suffering, which seek to compensate an injured person for having to experience pain as the result of the injury.
Other types of non-pecuniary damages include: Disfigurement; Loss of expectation of life; and Loss of amenities of life.
In fixing the amount of such damages in British Columbia, courts consider past awards in similar cases, considering the type of injury, age of the injured person, and other relevant circumstances (see above).
Limits on Non-Pecuniary Damages in British Columbia
When many people think of “pain and suffering” damages, they think of the extremely high damage awards often made in the United States. But here in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada has long imposed an upper limit on pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary damages.
In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada decided a trilogy of cases in which it established a cap on non-pecuniary damages. On January 19, 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada tackled this issue head-on by ruling on a trilogy of cases to limit the maximum amount of non-pecuniary damages a plaintiff could receive in a civil action (Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 (SCC) [Andrews]; Thornton v. School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267 (SCC) [Thornton]; and Arnold v. Teno, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287 (SCC) [Arnold]) (the “Trilogy”). As the Court explained (emphasis added):
[T]he problem here is qualitatively different from that of pecuniary losses. There is no medium of exchange for happiness. There is no market for expectation of life. The monetary evaluation of non-pecuniary losses is a philosophical and policy exercise more than a legal or logical one.Justice Dickson for the Supreme Court of Canada imposed a conservative upper limit on non-pecuniary damages:
I would adopt as the appropriate award in the case of a young adult quadriplegic like Andrews the amount of [CDN]$100,000. Save in exceptional circumstances, this should be regarded as an upper limit of non-pecuniary loss in cases of this nature (Andrews at p. 21).As a result, the Court established $100,000 as the cap on non-pecuniary damages. However, it later clarified that that amount was subject to inflation. In the 1981 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Lindal v. Lindal ([1981] S.C.J. No. 108 (SCC), it was agreed upon that the $100,000 cap would be adjusted at the rate of inflation to determine the upper limit at the time of trial. Today, the cap is a bit more than $360,000.
Note, however, that this upper limit is only available in the worst of injury cases. For example, in two of the cases in which the Court first developed that limit, the plaintiffs were young adults who had become paralyzed from the neck down. In the average B.C. tort claim, plaintiffs should anticipate an award of non-pecuniary damages well below the cap. Non-pecuniary damages were meant to provide a substitute for loss of amenities and to make the plaintiff’s life more bearable. Damages may be awarded in other headings to provide equality in the amount of compensation a plaintiff receives in a negligence case.
In D.S. v. Quesnelle (2019) ONSC, the Ontario Superior Court held that the cap on general damages of $100,000 set by the "trilogy" Supreme Court of Canada cases did not apply to intentional torts.
Non-Compensatory Damages include: Punitive Damages which are appropriate where the Defendant’s misconduct was so malicious, oppressive and highhanded. Their Purpose? Punishment and deterrence. Nominal Damages are small amounts of money awarded when the plaintiff has successfully established a cause of action but has suffered no substantial loss or is unable to prove what that loss is. Their purpose? Vindication of the Plaintiff’s rights and a minor deterrence to the Defendant.
This section is adapted from:
The History and Treatment of Damages in Canada
Patricia J. Armstrong
Lindsay LLP
Generally, punitive damages are imposed in rare circumstances where there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs markedly from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. Their purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff, but to give the defendant his or her just dessert (retribution), to deter the defendant and others from similar misconduct in the future (deterrence), and to mark the community’s collective condemnation (denunciation) of what has happened. Currently, the range for punitive damages in Canada is between $50,000 to $1 million. Most cases, however, fall within the $100,000 to $200,000 range (see Clarfield v. Crown Life (2000), 23 C.C.L.I. (3rd) 266 (Ont. S.C.J.), Kogan v. Chubb (2001), 27 C.C.L.I. (3rd) 16 (Ont. S.C.J.), Fidler v. Sunlife, 2004 BCCA 273, Fernandes v. Penncorp Life Insurance Company, 2013 ONSC 1637).
In Canada, aggravated damages are awarded to compensate a party for the mental distress experienced from another party’s misconduct or misbehaviour. Aggravated damages cover intangible injuries such as mental distress, pain, anguish, grief, anxiety, vexation, humiliation, indignation, outrage, wounded pride, damaged self-confidence or self esteem, loss of faith in friends or colleagues, and other similar matters. As no Supreme Court of Canada case has ruled on aggravated damages in bad faith claims, the damages are specific to the provinces and vary in range. In provinces such as British Columbia, the highest award has only been $35,000 (Asselstine v. Manulife, 2005 BCCA 292). On the other hand, a recent 2013 Ontario case awarded $100,000 in aggravated damages on a disability insurance claim (Fernandes v. Penncorp Life Insurance Company, 2013 ONSC 1637). Currently, the typical range for aggravated damages in Canada is $10,000 to $100,000 but most of the awards fall on the lower end of the spectrum.
As the numbers currently stand in Canada, the upper limit for non-pecuniary damages is approximately $360,000. The range for aggravated damages is between $10,000 and $100,000, and the range for punitive damages is between $50,000 and $1 million.
A Block Criminology - So, yesterday's question was
Why do you think True Crime is such a popular content area/genre in mass media and what are the potential effects of consuming it? Are the voyeurisms of consuming the True Crime genre of media an example of curiosity or exploitation? Does it teach? Does it normalize? Does it Rationalize? Does it Trivialize?
To help:
AND I loved the show the Newsroom...more on it when we look at the portrayal of women in crime media, specifically Nancy Grace's coverage of the Casey Anthony trial...but here's a discussion on what is newsworthy
Vulture (article) "The Ethical Dilemma of Highbrow True Crime"...from the article
TV Insider (article) Why Viewers Love True-Crime ShowsNetwork news magazine shows like Dateline and 48 Hours are somber and melodramatic, often literally starting voice-overs on their true-crime episodes with variations of “it was a dark and stormy night.” They trade in archetypes — the perfect father, the sweet girl with big dreams, the divorcee looking for a second chance — and stick to a predetermined narrative of the case they’re focusing on, unconcerned about accusations of bias. They are sentimental and yet utterly graphic, clinical in their depiction of brutal crimes.
Psychology Today (article) The Guilty Pleasure of True Crime TV True crime TV is addictive to viewers.
Time Magazine (article) "Murder Shows—The New Soap Operas for Women?" and "Why We Are Drawn to True Crime Shows?"
Washington Post (article) "My Favorite Murder’ and the growing acceptance of true-crime entertainment" and the My Favorite Murder Instagram site
Entertainment Weekly (article) "Confessions of a Court TV Addict"
New York Times (article) "Is True Crime as Entertainment Morally Defensible?"
Globe and Mail (article) "Our addiction to true crime has a human cost"
CBS News This morning (article) "Why women are fueling the popularity of true crime podcasts"
The Guardian (article) "Serial thrillers: why true crime is popular culture's most wanted"
Quartz (article) How “true crime” went from guilty pleasure to high culture
The Atlantic (article) The New True Crime
Entertainment Weekly (article) "Confessions of a Court TV Addict"
New York Times (article) "Is True Crime as Entertainment Morally Defensible?"
Globe and Mail (article) "Our addiction to true crime has a human cost"
CBS News This morning (article) "Why women are fueling the popularity of true crime podcasts"
The Guardian (article) "Serial thrillers: why true crime is popular culture's most wanted"
Quartz (article) How “true crime” went from guilty pleasure to high culture
The Atlantic (article) The New True Crime
This sets us up for Shaming, media, social media, crime, perception...it all comes together this week. Monica Lewinsky can help us understand this through her own personal experiences:
And...it's got potty mouth so *beware and watch with care* but John Oliver on Public Shaming
From Hollywood Insider:
Tabloid journalism was created in 1903 and would include celebrity and local gossip, sensationalize crimes, and human tragedies. This obviously would lead to creating paparazzi and more scandal-focused storytelling like clickbait eventually leading to social media. No one is truly safe from public shame: Britney Spears to Princess Diana faced this intense and unforgiving scrutiny. The film also discusses how social media algorithms are set up in a way to gain profit from views. One expert used the analogy that two kids on the playground are starting to fight when a third kid comes up and starts chanting “Fight! Fight! Fight!” According to him, Twitter acts a lot like that third kid. It’s how the internet earns money, it’s all advertisement and if they can get you to click on it, the more profits they earn. In order to advertise, there is often an element of sensationalism, and people are even more inclined to care if it makes them angry
Today's Fit...
No comments:
Post a Comment