User:Admin

This is my user account. Contact me at [email protected]. I am also on twitter @pjdostal.

• Special:RecentChanges
• recent Talk pages
• list of All Pages
• list all Template pages
• Oldest pages

• Special:ReplaceText

• Web analytics (google)

Create:

• Sentencing for Property Offences
• Accessory After the Fact to Murder (Offence)

MEDIA POLICY

• Ontario Media Policy
• Nova Scotia Media Policy
• British Columbia Media Policy

Crown policy Manual

• BC Crown Policy Manual

Some writing tools:

• slick write
• text to speech
• Text compare

New Decisions

• Last week on CanLII
• Last week on CanLII (Appellate)
• NS (all)
• ONCA
• ONSC
• ONCJ
• MBCA
• MBQB
• BCPC
• BCSC
• BCCA

Templates

1

{{SummaryPending}}

2

{{LinkNeeded}}

3

{{DraftCharge}}

4

; On Finding of Guilt
{{VictimHeader}} <!-- Sections / Notice of Agree / Notice of Restitution / Notice of VIS -->
|s. 151 {{DescrSec|151}} || || ||
|-
{{VictimEnd}}

5

{{DesignationHeader}}
|-
|s. 266 {{DescrSec|266}}|| {{XMark}} <!--wire--> || {{OKMark}} <!--DO-->||{{OKMark}} <!--SPIO--> || {{XMark}} <!--consent-->
{{DesignationEnd}}

6

==Record Suspensions and Pardons==
{{NoRecordSuspension|s. 162 {{DescrSec|162}} }}
{{RecordSuspension|s. 266 {{DescrSec|162}} }}

7

{{ProbationM| }} months probation</nowiki>
{{ProbationY| }} years probation</nowiki>
{{SDNA}} Template:SDNA</nowiki>
{{DRAFT}}

THIS TEXT IS IN ROUGH DRAFT STATE. NOTHING HERE WILL BE OF USE TO READERS.

</nowiki>

Quote box

The court may allow video testimony if it is "appropriate" in "all the circumstances" including:

• the location and personal circumstances of the witness
• the costs that would be incurred if the witness had to be physically present; and
• the nature of the witness’ anticipated evidence.

s. 714.1

Tasks

• checklist of wiretap applications
• update participating in terrorist activities, there are many errors

Maintenance

Grammar

• "the the"
• "hte"

Lawyering

“First, all prospective lawyers should make themselves intimately familiar with the fundamentals of deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning... is based on the act of proving a conclusion by means of two other propositions. Perhaps 90 percent of legal issues can be resolved by deduction, so the importance of understanding this type of reasoning cannot be overstated. Second, students should acquaint themselves with the principles of inductive generalization.” [1]

“Third, reasoning by analogy—another form of inductive reasoning—is a powerful tool in a lawyer’s arsenal. Analogies help lawyers and judges solve legal problems not controlled by precedent and help law students deflect the nasty hypotheticals that are the darlings of professors.”

Defined broadly, deduction is reasoning in which a conclusion is compelled by known facts.

all its power, the basic principle of the syllogism is surprisingly straightforward: What is true of the universal is true of the particular.

We start with the basics. To shape a legal issue in the form of a syllogism, begin by stating the general rule of law or widely-known legal rule that governs your case as your major premise. Then, in your next statement, the minor premise, describe the key facts of the legal problem at hand.