CLN 4U0 Summative Project
Vishnu Satish
Introduction
For my final project for grade 12 law, I decided to do an in-depth analysis of the Quebec City Mosque shooting case.
Earlier in the course, as part of the criminal law unit, I wrote a report on the ruling of Bissonnette's sentencing by the trial judge and the appeal judge. The report is shown below.
But numerous unanswered questions remained. Should a distinction be made between crimes in which someone commits one murder and crimes in which there are multiple murders committed by someone? Should the basis of unconstitutionality be the discretion provided to give a grossly proportionate sentence, or the sentence itself?
I needed a plan. First, I was going to read the original sentencing, the appeal, and the Supreme Court case (again). This time, I would take notes so I wouldn't forget essential points from the documents. I would then create a list of questions about the case, s. 745.51, and how they relate to Canadian law. Finally, I would find an expert in the subject to interview who would answer the questions.
Reading and taking notes on the case
The first step was to read all three critical documents on the case (original trial, defence appeal, Crown appeal) and take notes on them. These documents can be found on CanLII. I was also recommended to read a report on why s. 745.51 should never be rewritten.
While reading these documents, I took notes that covered the essential points. These notes are presented below.
Taking notes helped me understand and retain the information presented in the case and report to a greater depth.
Creating relevant questions
Contrary to my initial belief, composing relevant questions was one of the more complicated aspects of this summative. This is because it involved creative thought and not just pure problem-solving or analytical thinking.
I spent a good while thinking of relevant questions that I could ask aside from the immediate ones that came into my head. Eventually, I came up with a list of ten questions to ask, and these are shown below.
Finding experts
After reading the case and coming up with relevant questions, I had to find experts to interview. I mainly targeted law professors and Crown lawyers, as their emails were the easiest to find. In total, I emailed around 30 experts.
I received more responses than I expected. Responses were a mixed bag. Some stated that criminal law was not their expertise, some noted that the timeline was too tight, and others agreed to an interview.
Unfortunately (this is a good problem), there were too many affirmative responses! One Crown lawyer and two professors agreed to an interview. By the time the Crown lawyer agreed, I had already spoken to two professors, so I thanked the lawyer and informed her that I wouldn't need her help anymore.
The initial email I drafted to send to experts is shown below.
Speaking to experts
Professor Steve Coughlan
The first professor that kindly agreed to speak to me was Professor Steve Coughlan of Dalhousie Unversity. His expertise includes criminal law, criminal expertise, and law and its relation to technology. In 2019, he was ranked in the top 25 most influential in the justice system by the magazine Canadian Lawyer.
The meeting occurred at 10:30 AM on Monday, June 20, 2022. Below is a recording of the meeting.
I took notes on some of the main points of the meeting and added some of my thoughts. Presented below are the notes.
Professor Vincent Chiao
The next professor that agreed to speak to me was Professor Vincent Chiao of the University of Toronto. He is a criminal law and criminal justice expert and a Harvard Law School graduate.
I met Professor Chiao on Tuesday, June 21, 2022, at 1:00 PM. Below is a recording of the meeting.
As with the previous meeting, I made sure to take notes after the meeting, with a bit of my opinion sprinkled in.
Concluding remarks
Being a person who has avoided social science courses due to the ambiguity that exists in them, I've come to understand that ambiguity is unavoidable when dealing with humans (especially a group of humans).
After meeting with Professor Coughlan, I connected his points with the concepts of natural law and positive law that we learned about earlier in the course. This connection was an "aha" moment for me; as I wrote the initial report and came into these meetings and this case solely thinking about the natural law perspective that law is about what humans feel is right or wrong. Professor Chiao's response to the final question I asked reinforced the belief that positive law is more important than I initially believed, since both can influence one another. It's not just natural law that impacts positive law.
In general, Professor Coughlan's responses tended to be strictly on the legal side of things (how the law is presently), such as his point that 745.51 prevented the consideration of rehabilitation, which is why it was struck down. For the one morality-related question I asked him (about whether the added part to 745.51 was correct), he mentioned that it requires empirical study, research, and consultation to make that decision. It's not solely a decision of public opinion or the morals of the majority, it's also about considering the statistical and factual aspects and effects of enacting a law.
Professor Chiao tended to tie his answers back to legal theory and Canadian law. I don't think he answered many of the questions outright, instead he explained why things are the way they are. For example, when I asked whether 25 years as a minimum sentence for first-degree murder is considered a constitutional violation, he said it could be. Still, the Parliament has to enforce some minimums/maximums. He also went into depth about how there is never a consensus on morals which is why the Parliament should make decisions on laws. Total standardization is also difficult to enforce and is something that cannot be achieved in a democracy.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed speaking to both professors, and learned not only about s. 745.51, but also about the way Canadian law works.