The case assignment in the course can be found at the link below. It is a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. I will do an in class review of another case after midterm exam to show you how to actively read a case.
I want to consider the APPEAL OF THE JANUARY 17, 2005, City of Regina, in the Province of Saskatchewan. The court reviewed the decision of the trial court in the case of Shawn Babiuk as Appellant and Cory Trann as Respondent. The judge found that the defendant Trann was acquitted by hitting the appellant Babiuk in the jaw as he did this to protect a teammate, Sulodra, on whose face Babiuk stepped. Three questions are raised in the appeal. The first thing you need to understand: Was the defense of another (a teammate) a defense available at law in an action for damages for assault? Further, the court had to figure out: If so, was the force used by Trann in defending Soulodre reasonable in the circumstances? And the last: If Trann is found liable, what is the quantum of damages? To answer these questions, the judge examined information about who each other Appellant and Respondent.
Babiuk and Trann played on different teams in the North Saskatchewan Rugby Union. Previously, these teams were one, but later divided. Since then, there has been great hostility and heated atmosphere between them. It is believed that an erroneous court decision was made due to conflicting evidence. Also, the trial judge found the evidence of Trann and his comrades consistent, so he accepted their version of events. Considering the testimonies of those people who were present that day on the football field, it is impossible to restore the full picture. For example, the referee, recalling that day, is sure that Cory Trann punch Shawn Babiuk and this was not the moment of the game. A teammate, Kelly Greenwood, said he saw Trann ucker punch Babiuk and Soulodre on the ground, holding Babiuk leg as Babiuk was trying to pull it away. But the defendant Trann, claims that he defended his teammate and did not hit Babiuk.
This teammate, Soulodre, also claims to have been attacked by Babiuk, and Trann simply defended him. Another teammate of Trann’s, Michael D. Nolin, said that when the whistle blew, he broke from a clench with Babiuk who stepped backward onto the face of Soulodre, who screamed in pain. Before he could react, Trann jumped to his feet and hit Babiuk. The referee decided that Trann was an attack and could not be regarded as the moment of the game. She also noted that any person has the right to use a reasonable degree of force to protect himself and any other person from the illegal use of force. Based on these facts, the judge ruled to reject the plaintiff's claim. In this situation,
Tran's attack on Babiuc was seen as preventing further injury to Soulodre (Section 37 of the Criminal Code of Canada). Having examined the appeal, the court decided that there was no reason to believe that it was necessary to intervene in the previous court decision. So, it also rejects the claimant's claim. I do not agree with this decision, because I believe that when one person intervenes in a situation to save another, he must measure the strength with which he repels. I agree that in this situation, Soulodre was in imminent danger. But this does not mean at all that Trann had the right to break Babiuc’s jaw. I believe that Tran’s intervention was necessary, but the use of such force is unjustified.