Ontario Court of Justice Cases Paper Example

Court 1

The full address of the court we visited was the United District Court, W.D Washington Seattle. I attended this court with my classmates Martin Raymond and Brian Brandon. The date that this trial took place was on 9th April 2014. We had to arrive early before the trial started. We arrived at 8.00 am to hear the trial. The court took a whole day, and we left at 5. 00 pm. However, in the middle of the court sessions, we were given a lunch break at 1 .00 pm to 2.00 pm. The name of the presiding judge was Richard A. Jones, and his official title was the District Judge. The name of the case that we observed was Khoury v. Asher. During the trial, various lawyers were involved. These lawyers represented their specific parties that is the petitioners and respondents. The lawyers who acted for the plaintiffs included Matts Adams, Chris Strawn, Betsy Tao, Sarah Mehta, Michael Tan, Judy Rabinovitz, Sarah A. Dunne, Robert Pauw, and Devin T. Theriot-orr. The lawyers who represented the respondents included Stuart F. Delery who is the assistant attorney general under the civil divisions, Colin A Kisor, Aaron S. Goldsmith, Timothy M. Belsan, Hans H. Chen and Lori B. Warlick. This case was a civil trial which involved the detention of immigrants. According to the proceedings of the case, the plaintiff wanted the government to impose mandatory detention to the immigrants that it has detained at the time they are released from prison and not after a month, years or decades. However, when the government holds the immigrants, it should provide a hearing to identify whether their imprisonment is justified.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Court 2: Small Claims

We visited the Ontario Court of Justice to hear the small claims. The full address of the courts that we visited is Alexandria Court House 110 Main St. North P. O Box. 699, KOC 1AO. We attended the court sessions on 31st August 2018. We arrived early since the court sessions were to be held in the morning. Our arrival time was 8. 00 am, and we left at 12.30 pm after the proceedings had ended. The name of the judge presiding over the case was J. Sebastian Winny. The official name of the judge was Deputy Judge Sebastian Winny. During the court session, we only observed on the case which was the Henderson v. Khan Case. In this case, one party was represented by the lawyer while the other one not. Ruth Emmalene Henderson who was the plaintiff represented herself while Noman Khan, the defendant, was represented by Shahzad Siddiqui. This case dealt with the area of law which focused on the breach of contract. In this case, the two parties had entered into an agreement and sale on 28th August 2017. The defendant contracted to acquire a Waterloo property from the plaintiff at $650 000. The purchase paid a deposit of $20000 into the realtor's trust account. The closing date for this deal was postponed several times. Despite the frequent postponement of the closing date, the purchase failed to honor the 29th March 2018. As a result, the plaintiff was sued for damages amounting to $25 000. During the hearing of the proceedings, it may be that Mr. Henderson had sued the wrong party. As a result of this, the motion was dismissed.

Court 3: Ontario Court of Justice - Criminal

The court that we visited is the Ontario Court of Justice based in Canada. The full address of this court is Alexandria Court House 110 Main St. North P. O Box. 699, KOC 1AO. On the date of visiting the court, I was accompanied by my classmates who are Martin Raymond and William Mc Donald. The date that this trial took place was on 24th September 2018. We attended the court session for a half day which was the afternoon session. We arrived at the court for the trial at 2. 00 pm and left at 5. 00 pm after the trial had ended. The judge presiding over the case was C. A Parry while the official name was Justice C.A Parry. At the court, we only observed one case which was a hearing of a criminal case. Therefore, the name of the case that we attended was R. v. Kowalchuk. The charge that was involved during this case was driving under the influence of alcohol. During the proceedings of the case, Mr. Kowalchuk was charged with driving while his blood alcohol content was above the legally required level. Mr. Kowalchuk argued that as he was being arrested, his rights were violated by the Police officer alleging that he had not found a reasonable suspicion that he had alcohol in his body. Officer Combs smelled alcohol when Mr. Kowalchuk was speaking to him in the parking lot. Mr. Kowalchuk told the officer that he had been drinking earlier. As a result, Mr. Kowalchuk was charged with driving with a high level of alcohol in his body. Also, officer combs was charged with violated the rights of Mr. Kowalchuk since he was not from around.

Summary Reflection

There are several differences that we identified in these three courts. One of the differences is that the atmosphere was different in the different courts. In the first court when dealing with a severe case, the atmosphere was tense while in other courts there was a calm atmosphere since the cases that were being addressed were simple. The other difference is that not all the cases required the lawyer to represent an individual. In some case, some individuals represented themselves. In the first court, the demeanor of the judge was severe because the matter that was before him was serious. During the court proceedings, there was no any new behavior that surprised me. Everything that was carried out during the court proceedings was according to my expectations. The significant aspects that I learned from these court proceedings is to keep the reports being used at the court well and to always be truthful in every step. When the records are not correctly kept, they might affect the case that is being heard. For instance when the report that contains evidence about a particular case is lost, then the person who is presenting that matter might lose in court. Also, it is wise, to tell the truth in the courts of law because lying may result in the contradiction of various issues. Contradiction might cause suspicion in the case, and the one may lose the case. Also, the court session will help me in my studies because I have been able to understand the court session and the most critical activities that are carried out there.