Newfoundland & Labrador Bar Admission Course

# GROUNDED - real Canadian citations from ca_cases (holdings from briefs where present, else established doctrine); verify before deploy.

## Newfoundland & Labrador Bar Admission Course — Study Notes

---

## 1. FAMILY LAW

### 1.1 Spousal Support and Economic Disadvantage

**Core Principle:** Spousal support compensates for economic advantages and disadvantages caused by the marriage and its breakdown.

**Key Case:** *Moge v. Moge*, [1992] 3 SCR 813 (SCC 1992)
- **Holding:** The Divorce Act objectives must be applied in tandem. Self-sufficiency is one objective among four, not an absolute target. Compensation for systemic economic disadvantage is central.
- **Facts:** Mrs. Moge received limited support after a 19-year traditional marriage that left her with few employment skills.
- **Application:** When assessing spousal support under the Divorce Act (RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp)), courts balance four objectives: (1) recognising economic advantages/disadvantages; (2) addressing child-care impact; (3) relieving hardship; (4) promoting self-sufficiency where practicable. Courts cannot impose self-sufficiency at any cost.

### 1.2 Unjust Enrichment and Family Property

**Core Principle:** Where one cohabitant enriches the other without legal justification, a constructive trust may remedy the disparity.

**Key Case:** *Pettkus v. Becker*, [1980] 2 SCR 834 (SCC 1980)
- **Holding:** Three-element test: (1) enrichment of the defendant; (2) corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff; (3) absence of any juristic reason. Where met and plaintiff's contribution is linked to a specific asset, a constructive trust is available.
- **Facts:** Becker worked an unmarried partner's farm for 20 years with no legal property right; awarded half-interest via constructive trust.
- **Application:** Unmarried cohabitants without matrimonial-property rights may pursue unjust-enrichment claims. Document labour contributions and link them to identifiable assets (land, business).

---

## 2. COMMERCIAL LAW

### 2.1 Exclusion Clauses and Fundamental Breach

**Core Principle:** Exclusion clauses are enforceable if (a) they apply on proper contract interpretation, (b) they were not unconscionable when made, and (c) enforcement is not precluded by public policy.

**Key Case:** *Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways)*, 2010 SCC 4 (SCC 2010)
- **Holding:** The doctrine of "fundamental breach" is abolished. A three-step inquiry governs enforceability: (1) does the clause apply on its true construction? (2) was the clause unconscionable at formation? (3) should the court decline enforcement on overriding public-policy grounds?
- **Facts:** Tercon, an excluded eligible bidder, sued under an RFP that included an exclusion-of-liability clause. The clause did not apply on proper interpretation.
- **Application:** Exclusion clauses are valid tools in commercial contracts. Don't argue fundamental breach; instead, analyse (i) contract language, (ii) inequality of bargaining power at formation, (iii) whether enforcement offends fundamental societal interests (rare).

### 2.2 Contract Interpretation

**Established Principle:** Contract interpretation is a question of mixed fact and law; appellate courts defer to trial judges on factual inferences but remain free on the legal interpretation.

**Application:** Read entire contract text. Avoid fanciful or strained interpretations. Contextual, commercial reasonableness guides courts.

---

## 3. CIVIL PROCEDURE

### 3.1 Standard of Review in Judicial Review

**Core Principle:** Two standards govern judicial review: correctness and reasonableness. "Patent unreasonableness" is abolished.

**Key Case:** *Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick*, 2008 SCC 9 (SCC 2008)
- **Holding:** Reasonableness is concerned with the existence of justification, transparency, and intelligibility within the decision-making process and whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of facts and law.
- **Facts:** A dismissal was reviewed for procedural fairness under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.
- **Application:** On judicial review, apply one of two standards per the decision-maker's role and jurisdiction. Reasonableness is deferential but not deferential-to-absurdity; correctness applies to jurisdictional questions, Charter breaches, questions of law, and procedural fairness.

### 3.2 Evidence and Burden of Proof

**Core Principle:** The W(D) instruction frames how fact-finders assess competing testimony.

**Key Case:** *R. v. W.(D.)*, [1991] 1 SCR 742 (SCC 1991)
- **Holding:** Three-step instruction: (1) If you believe the accused, acquit. (2) If you don't believe the accused but are left in reasonable doubt, acquit. (3) If not in doubt from the accused's evidence, consider the whole evidence and decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- **Application:** In civil trials, instruct juries to avoid treating credibility disputes as binary contests. The burden remains on the party asserting the affirmative throughout.

---

## 4. CRIMINAL LAW

### 4.1 Charter Limitations and the Oakes Test

**Core Principle:** Every limit on a Charter right must be justified under s.1 via a four-step test.

**Key Case:** *R. v. Oakes*, [1986] 1 SCR 103 (SCC 1986)
- **Holding:** A limitation is justified if (1) the objective is pressing and substantial, (2) the means have a rational connection to the objective, (3) the means minimally impair the right, and (4) the deleterious effects do not outweigh the salutary effects.
- **Facts:** The Narcotic Control Act's reverse-onus provision (s.8) required Oakes to prove he wasn't trafficking after possession was proved, violating s.11(d) of the Charter.
- **Application:** Every criminal-law provision limiting Charter rights (reverse onuses, search powers, confession rules) must survive the Oakes test. The Crown bears the burden on a balance of probabilities.

### 4.2 Jury Instructions on Reasonable Doubt

**Established Principle:** Juries must be charged that guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The instruction must convey that the Crown bears the burden from start to finish, and the accused need not prove innocence.

**Application:** Use neutral language. Avoid suggesting credibility conflicts resolve the case. The jury must consider all evidence, not just the accused's testimony.

---

## 5. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

### 5.1 Judicial Review and Mootness

**Core Principle:** A judicial review becomes moot when the practical dispute has disappeared. Moot applications may still be heard if the Borowski criteria are met.

**Key Case:** *Gravel c. Canada (Procureur général)*, 2024 CAF 155 (FCA 2024)
- **Holding:** An ongoing prisoner-authority relationship does not, by itself, justify hearing a moot judicial review on its merits. Each case must be assessed individually under the Borowski framework.
- **Facts:** A parole condition expired and was not renewed; Gravel challenged its validity after the fact.
- **Application:** Don't assume moot applications are automatically heard. Apply Borowski: (1) is there a genuine issue, (2) is there a suitable remedy, (3) is there a compelling public interest in adjudication?

### 5.2 Standard of Review — Reasonableness

**Established Principle:** Administrative decisions are reviewed for reasonableness or correctness. Reasonableness is the default for discretionary policy decisions; correctness applies to jurisdictional questions.

**Application:** When challenging a tribunal or administrative decision, identify the standard of review first. Under reasonableness, the decision is upheld if justified, transparent, and intelligible.

---

## 6. REAL PROPERTY & WILLS / ESTATES

### 6.1 The Constructive Trust and Family Property

**Core Principle:** See **Family Law § 1.2** (*Pettkus v. Becker*). The constructive trust is available where unjust enrichment is established and the plaintiff's contribution is linked to a specific asset.

**Application:** Common scenarios: unmarried couples, farms, family businesses, family homes. Gather evidence of labour, capital contribution, and the defendant's enrichment.

### 6.2 Succession and Estate Administration

**Established Principle:** Wills must be executed in accordance with the provincial *Wills Act* (in Newfoundland & Labrador, the *Wills Act*). Common requirements: testator capacity, signed by testator or will-maker, witnessed (jurisdiction-specific), free of undue influence.

**Application:** Verify compliance with NL *Wills Act*. Challenge validity early if there are capacity or undue-influence concerns. Intestate succession under NL's *Intestate Succession Act* applies a statutory hierarchy if no valid will exists.

---

## Summary: Core Tests and Frameworks

| Subject | Core Test / Framework |
|---------|----------------------|
| **Family Law** | Divorce Act objectives (4-fold analysis); Unjust enrichment (3 elements) |
| **Commercial Law** | Exclusion clause enforceability (3-step); Contract interpretation (mixed fact/law) |
| **Civil Procedure** | Standard of review (Dunsmuir: reasonableness or correctness); W(D) instruction (3 steps) |
| **Criminal Law** | Oakes test (4-step Charter justification); Reasonable doubt instruction |
| **Administrative Law** | Borowski mootness test (3 criteria); Dunsmuir reasonableness |
| **Real Property & Wills** | Constructive trust (Pettkus: 3 elements); Wills Act execution formalities |

---

**Real Citations Used:**
- *Moge v. Moge*, [1992] 3 SCR 813
- *Pettkus v. Becker*, [1980] 2 SCR 834
- *Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways)*, 2010 SCC 4
- *Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick*, 2008 SCC 9
- *R. v. W.(D.)*, [1991] 1 SCR 742
- *R. v. Oakes*, [1986] 1 SCR 103
- *Gravel c. Canada (Procureur général)*, 2024 CAF 155