Mr. Robinson Case Study Answers
Mr. Robinson para. 122
I am not prepared to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Robinson was on the ice as it was not logical that three Tiger-Cats defencemen would be on the ice in the last minute of the game when the Tiger-Cats were down by two goals.
The trial judge takes judicial notice of hockey strategy and uses it as her rationale for dismissing the testimony of Mr. Robinson. The belief that he would not be on the ice at this point in the game is wholly speculation. It also goes against the evidence of another witness Mr. Shorey, who stated that teams in the closing stages of the game play their best players, regardless of the positions they play.
Regarding Mr. MacIsaac para. 136
Mr. MacIsaac was a defenceman who was out of position …show more content…
She arrived to her verdict illegally, no evidence was presented about whether players in the league play the same positions throughout the whole game. Furthermore, the judge disregarded the fact that the appellant’s team was losing by two goals, and the game was almost over Additionally Mr. Shorey, testified that the team was planning on pulling the goalie to add another skater, which proposes that the team was attempting to win the game, and score …show more content…
MacIsaac para.138
I also reject Mr. MacIsaac’s assertion that Mr. Casterton had the puck because it would be illogical for Mr. Casterton not to see Mr. MacIsaac if he had the puck and would have to manoeuvre around him.
Once more, the judge is assuming the actions of the complainant. There is no way the judge would know that he would have his head up if he had control of the puck, she is speculating. Furthermore, she is going against the testimony of Mr. Casterton, who stated that there is less need to keep one’s head up in no-contact leagues.
The trial judge has committed speculative reasoning, as stated above, and as R. v. Morrissey (1995), 22 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), at pp. 530-531 states once there is an error, the conviction must be quashed. The judge speculated about key facts regarding the case, rejected testimonies, and came up with a conclusion based on her knowledge of hockey. Additionally, the trial judge illegitimately created judicial notice by believing that hockey strategy is a proper subject. However, hockey does not follow the two principles of judicial notice acceptance; (1) it must be notoriously or generally accepted that no reasonable person would disagree; or (2) being capable of immediate demonstration by reference to sources of indisputable accuracy. As daily societal interactions, such as sports articles or social media show us Canadians often disagree with what is a good hockey strategy at any given situation. Also, there is no source of
I am not prepared to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Robinson was on the ice as it was not logical that three Tiger-Cats defencemen would be on the ice in the last minute of the game when the Tiger-Cats were down by two goals.
The trial judge takes judicial notice of hockey strategy and uses it as her rationale for dismissing the testimony of Mr. Robinson. The belief that he would not be on the ice at this point in the game is wholly speculation. It also goes against the evidence of another witness Mr. Shorey, who stated that teams in the closing stages of the game play their best players, regardless of the positions they play.
Regarding Mr. MacIsaac para. 136
Mr. MacIsaac was a defenceman who was out of position …show more content…
She arrived to her verdict illegally, no evidence was presented about whether players in the league play the same positions throughout the whole game. Furthermore, the judge disregarded the fact that the appellant’s team was losing by two goals, and the game was almost over Additionally Mr. Shorey, testified that the team was planning on pulling the goalie to add another skater, which proposes that the team was attempting to win the game, and score …show more content…
MacIsaac para.138
I also reject Mr. MacIsaac’s assertion that Mr. Casterton had the puck because it would be illogical for Mr. Casterton not to see Mr. MacIsaac if he had the puck and would have to manoeuvre around him.
Once more, the judge is assuming the actions of the complainant. There is no way the judge would know that he would have his head up if he had control of the puck, she is speculating. Furthermore, she is going against the testimony of Mr. Casterton, who stated that there is less need to keep one’s head up in no-contact leagues.
The trial judge has committed speculative reasoning, as stated above, and as R. v. Morrissey (1995), 22 O.R. (3d) 514 (C.A.), at pp. 530-531 states once there is an error, the conviction must be quashed. The judge speculated about key facts regarding the case, rejected testimonies, and came up with a conclusion based on her knowledge of hockey. Additionally, the trial judge illegitimately created judicial notice by believing that hockey strategy is a proper subject. However, hockey does not follow the two principles of judicial notice acceptance; (1) it must be notoriously or generally accepted that no reasonable person would disagree; or (2) being capable of immediate demonstration by reference to sources of indisputable accuracy. As daily societal interactions, such as sports articles or social media show us Canadians often disagree with what is a good hockey strategy at any given situation. Also, there is no source of