Cecily Zamora
In law, a question of law is distinct from a question of fact. While a question of fact must be answered by reference to facts, evidence, and inferences, a question of law must be answered by applying relevant legal principles. Questions of law are resolved by a judge, while questions of fact are resolved by a trier of fact, which in the common law system is often a jury. A question of law in a drunk driving case, for example, might be whether the prosecutor has proved a person is intoxicated because they failed field sobriety tests, while a question of fact in a murder case might be whether the accused had an honest and reasonable belief that there was an imminent risk of death.
Characteristics of a Question of Law in Canada
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Resolved by | Judge or equivalent |
| Relates to | What law applies to a case, how the law applies, what evidence is relevant and admissible, and what instructions to give to a jury |
| Examples | Whether a search warrant was supported by probable cause, whether a breath or blood test is admissible, whether a traffic stop was lawful |
| Compared to | Question of fact, which is resolved by a trier of fact, often a jury |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Questions of law vs. fact
In Canada, a question of law refers to an inquiry or issue that revolves around the interpretation and application of legal rules and principles rather than the determination of factual circumstances. It involves examining the relevant legislation, case law, and legal doctrines to clarify the rights and obligations of the parties involved and to determine the appropriate legal framework for resolving a dispute. On the other hand, a question of fact centres on the specific circumstances and events surrounding a particular case.
Questions of law are typically You may want to see also In Canada, a criminal law jury is made up of 12 jurors selected from citizens of the province or territory where the court is located. Any adult Canadian citizen can be considered for jury duty, although some may be exempt under provincial law. Jury duty is an important part of the Canadian legal system as it allows citizens to participate in delivering justice and allows the accused to be tried by a jury of their peers. In a trial, the judge will instruct the jury on the law and what they must take into account when making their decision. The jury must then make up their own minds about the truth or honesty of the testimony given by witnesses. Jurors are required to listen to the evidence presented and evaluate it with an unbiased and open mind. Questions of law are resolved by a judge, while questions of fact are resolved by a jury. A question of law may include what law applies to a particular case, how the law applies, what evidence is admissible, and what instructions to give to a jury. A question of fact is a question that must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, as well as inferences arising from those facts. For example, in a drunk driving case, a question of law might be whether the prosecutor has proved a person is intoxicated, whereas a question of fact might be whether the accused had an honest and reasonable belief that drinking alcohol would affect their ability to drive. In Canada, most civil cases are tried by judges without a jury, although some civil cases can also be tried by a judge and jury. Jury duty can be for criminal or civil cases, although civil cases with juries are rare. In Quebec, for example, jurors are not used in civil trials. Anyone charged with a criminal offence that could result in a prison sentence of five years or more has the right to a trial by jury. In some cases, a person charged with a criminal offence that could result in a prison sentence of less than five years may also have the right to choose a trial by jury. You may want to see also In the Canadian legal system, a question of law refers to a query about the correct legal test. This is distinct from a question of fact, which concerns the events that transpired between the parties involved, and questions of mixed law and fact, which examine whether the facts of a case satisfy the legal tests. In the context of criminal cases, questions of law can arise at various stages of the legal process. For instance, during a criminal investigation, issues pertaining to the admissibility of evidence or the legality of certain investigative techniques may emerge as questions of law. These questions centre on interpreting and applying the relevant laws and statutes to determine whether the evidence was obtained lawfully and can be admissable in court. Additionally, questions of law can emerge during the trial itself. For example, the interpretation of a specific statute or the applicability of a legal defence can be questioned. In such cases, the presiding judge is tasked with interpreting the law and providing legal instructions to the jury, ensuring that the correct legal standards are applied in their deliberations. Appeal processes in criminal cases also frequently involve questions of law. An appellant may argue that the lower court misinterpreted or incorrectly applied the law during their trial, resulting in an unjust outcome. The appellate court will then review the lower court's application of the law and decide if any legal errors occurred. This process ensures that the law is interpreted and applied consistently across similar cases. Furthermore, questions of law can extend to constitutional matters in criminal cases. For instance, an accused person may challenge the constitutionality of a law or statute under which they have been charged. In such instances, the court will examine whether the law in question aligns with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and make a ruling accordingly. These types of questions of law often have broader implications for the Canadian legal system and can lead to changes in legislation or the interpretation of specific laws. You may want to see also In Canada, questions of law are resolved by a judge, while questions of fact are resolved by a jury. Questions of law relate to what law applies to a particular case, how the law applies in a case, what evidence is relevant and admissible, and what instructions to give to a jury. The Canada Evidence Act outlines the rules for evidence admissibility in legal proceedings. For example, it states that a record made in the usual and ordinary course of business that contains relevant information is admissible in evidence. Additionally, any record, document, or photograph belonging to or deposited with the Government of Canada is admissible in evidence. The Evidence Act also outlines the admissibility of expert evidence. A written statement setting out the opinion of an expert is admissible in evidence without proof of the expert's signature if a copy of the statement is provided to all adverse parties at least 30 days in advance. If the written statement of an expert is given in evidence, any party may require the expert to be called as a witness. Furthermore, the act states that a document bearing the signature of a judge of a court in British Columbia is admissible in evidence without proof of the signature or authority of the judge. If the original record could be admitted as evidence, a copy of that record certified under the seal of the corporation and signed by the local government corporate officer is also admissible without further proof. You may want to see also The potential for jury nullification exists in any trial by jury. In practice, it may occur when a jury feels that a law is unjust, that the punishment for a crime is too severe, or that the specific application of a law in a certain case is unfair. For example, a jury may nullify a charge of marijuana possession if they feel that the drug should be legal. While jury nullification can be seen as a way for citizens to push back against unjust laws, it can also be considered a threat to the rule of law and the democratic process. If juries routinely nullify laws that they disagree with, it could undermine the authority of the legislature and the courts. As such, judges and lawyers are not allowed to suggest jury nullification as a possibility during a trial. In Canada, the concept of jury nullification is not often discussed openly, and it is not a common feature of the legal landscape. However, it remains a possibility in any jury trial and serves as a reminder that the legal system ultimately depends on the good faith and common sense of citizens serving on juries. You may want to see also A question of law is answered by applying relevant legal principles, while a question of fact is answered by reference to facts and evidence. Questions of law are resolved by a judge, while questions of fact are resolved by a jury. Questions of law include what law applies to a particular case, how the law applies in a case, what evidence is relevant and admissible, and what instructions to give to a jury. Yes, the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact can be blurry, with potential overlap and disagreement. For example, it can be unclear whether a statement is a fact or a legal conclusion.Music Copyright: What You Need to Know
Explore related products
Judge vs. jury
Understanding Tax Deductions for Pass-Through Businesses in Law Firms
Explore related products
Criminal cases
Car Accident Lawsuits: Can You Counter-Sue?
Explore related products
Evidence admissibility
State Laws: Intrastate Commerce Discrimination?
Explore related products
Jury nullification
Naturalize Laws: How to Act Them Out
Frequently asked questions
