[Essay Help]: LAWS 114 Civil Litigation
LAWS 114 Civil Litigation. 1. Who was the plaintiff in these cases?
2. Who was the defendant in these cases?
3. In paragraph 3 of the 2015 case, the judge mentions that “it is open to the court to order that the plaintiff shall not recover any costs of this action”; however, the plaintiff does recover costs. Identify ONE reason the judge gives for this result AND give the paragraph number that pertains to this reason. (NOTE: There is more than one possible answer, and the answer is NOT in paragraph 5 or 11)
4. How much money did the defendant claim for costs? (NOTE: You must give TWO answers for this question)
5. What was the total damages award?
6. What was the total costs award in favour of the plaintiff?
7. The costs award in this case was unusual for a few of reasons. Give TWO reasons why the costs award was unusual.(NOTE: There are more than two possible answers)
8. The plaintiff’s employment relationship with the defendant ended on Mar 30, 2012. In the 2014 case, the judge summarizes the plaintiff’s perspective of what happened in paragraphs31-36 and the defendant’s perspective in paragraphs 43-47. The judge agrees with the plaintiff’s account of events (2014 case at paragraph 52, 66-67).Do you think the judge is correct to agree with the plaintiff? Explain why you agree or disagree with the judge. Include at least one supporting detail from either case and give the paragraph number of this detail.
9. In addition to the plaintiff and defendant, the judge refers to several other real people in writing the 2014 case. Chose TWO of the people whose names appear in the 2014 case and write one question that you would like to ask each of them to learn more about this case. (NOTE: You must write a different question for each person. Do NOT chose the plaintiff, defendant or their lawyers.)
10. In paragraph 28 of the 2014 case, the judge explains that the defendant’s lawyers changed the defendant’s answer to one of the questions he was asked during his examination for discovery. This is allowed because r. 31.09 establishes a “duty to correct answers
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!