Your written submission should contain the following elements:
1. A heading called “Issues.” Below it you will state the legal issues you wish the judges to consider. Your statement of issues should be very brief, and couched in the form of questions directed to the specific legal (not factual) issues that the judges will need to decide in order to determine the appeal. Less is more. Ask 3 only the questions you know the judges will have to answer in your favour in order for your client(s) to win your case. Save your arguments for the “Argument” portion of your case brief, as outlined below.
2. A heading called “Rules of Law,” following which you will state the legal principles, or tests, on which you will be relying in your submission. You will also give a definition for each of them. Do not include rules of law that are irrelevant or unimportant to the argument you will be making later in your submission. Cite sources for the rules of law you identify.
3. A heading “Argument,” followed by your legal argument as it relates to the facts and issues in your case. Your argument will set out how the rules of law you have identified relate to the facts of your case, and the issues you have indicated you will address. The purpose of your argument is to persuade your judges that your client’s position is the correct one in law, and to explain why the judges should decide the case in your client’s favour. Legal authorities, including previous court decisions, and relevant statutory provisions, if any, should be cited in your argument. Your argument will not be persuasive unless you state the legal principles that are applicable in your case, and explain how the facts of your case meet the applicable legal test(s) in a way that achieves the outcome you desire for your client.
4. A heading “Order Sought” in which you will indicate the result you wish the judges to reach. This section will include your names, typed, indicating that you are counsel delivering the submission.
5. An Appendix listing the citations for the court decisions, and the statutory provisions you have relied upon in your argument
#6: The Case of Aiden, and the Angry Accusation
Aiden had worked as an itinerant fruit picker for most of his adult life. He enjoyed the freedom and anonymity that came with his working lifestyle, moving from one fixed period of outdoor employment to the next, during the various harvesting seasons common in the crop growing regions of British Columbia. The fall of last year found Aiden working as a picker and general farm worker at Peckford Parker’s peach and pear orchard in Lake Country. Peckford, known as “Peck”, was a crotchety old-time farmer who disliked pickers like Aiden, viewing them as thieves and grifters who would steal anything that was not nailed down. Peck had hired Aiden on a six-month employment contract the previous spring, on the basis that Aiden would receive a salary of $1,500.00 per month, plus free room and board. The employment was to end at the conclusion of the harvest, later in the fall. Two months before his employment was to end, Aiden was picking peaches in one of Peck’s orchards when he was approached by Peck and an RCMP officer. Aiden could see that Peck was upset. Peck asked Aiden if he had been driving the pick-up truck owned by Peck, transporting fruit bins to the other pickers on the property, as Peck had directed him to do at the beginning of his shift that day. Aiden answered “yes”. Peck then said that a box of tools he had stored in the back of the cab of the truck had gone missing. He asked Aiden if he had taken them. Aiden said “no”. His answer was the truth. Aiden had no knowledge of tools going missing. Peck then turned to the police officer and said that Aiden may have placed the tools in his own car, parked in the same location as the pick-up truck. The police officer then asked Aiden if he could search his vehicle. Aiden said “yes”. The three of them then walked back to the parking lot. Aiden unlocked his car and opened the trunk. The officer conducted a search. No tools were found. Other pickers stopped to look while the officer searched Aiden’s car. With no tools found, Peck stated to the police officer that Aiden mut have “stashed” the tools somewhere else. The officer asked Aiden if this was so, or if he had any information regarding the missing tools. Aiden said “no”. The officer then turned away, and began to ask questions of the other pickers standing nearby. Aiden was incensed. He told Peck he did not appreciate being accused, falsely, of a theft, and that he could not work for him any further. He told Peck that he was “quitting”. Peck said “fine”. Aiden then walked over to the bunkhouse where he had been staying and packed his belongings. Peck accompanied him, observed him packing, and surveyed his room as Aiden collected his things. No further words were exchanged. After Aiden placed his belongings in his car, he wrote out an address where Peck could deliver a cheque for his outstanding wages. Peck took it from him, without comment. A few days later, Aiden’s wages cheque arrived in the mail. 8 The missing tools were never found. As Aiden collected himself in the days following, he became even angrier. He contacted a lawyer and, a week later, he commenced a lawsuit against Peck, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal. Aiden’s case was dismissed at trial. Aiden appeals.