|
Post by Grey on Sept 27, 2007 9:39:26 GMT -6
Hello all. I am doing this paper for my law class, and I asked my prof. to explain what a cross-appeal is but he kinda gave the same answer I already had.
Here is just a brief issue of the case...
a lawyer for poor clients argued that the 7% tax increase (for canada) was uncostitutional. He won the case.
The crown appealed the case.
etc. etc. etc.
in the end the appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal was dismissed.
now on the court docket it has
Attorney General of British Columbia Appellant/respondent on cross-appeal
and
Dugald E. Christie Respondent/Appellant on cross-appeal.
This is also the judges ruling. " notwithstanding oursympathy for Mr. Christie's cause, we are compelled to the conclusion that the material presented does not establish the major premise on which the case depends - proof of a constitutional entitlement to legal services in relation to proceedings in courts and tribunals dealing with the rights and obligations"
It is to my understanding that he lost his case. What I don't understand is where the cross appeal comes into play.
If someone could help me clarify it, I would most appreciate it. and Thank-you. Andie
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 27, 2007 10:10:07 GMT -6
Hello all. I am doing this paper for my law class, and I asked my prof. to explain what a cross-appeal is but he kinda gave the same answer I already had. Here is just a brief issue of the case... a lawyer for poor clients argued that the 7% tax increase (for canada) was uncostitutional. He won the case. The crown appealed the case. etc. etc. etc. in the end the appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal was dismissed. now on the court docket it has Attorney General of British Columbia Appellant/respondent on cross-appeal and Dugald E. Christie Respondent/Appellant on cross-appeal. This is also the judges ruling. " notwithstanding oursympathy for Mr. Christie's cause, we are compelled to the conclusion that the material presented does not establish the major premise on which the case depends - proof of a constitutional entitlement to legal services in relation to proceedings in courts and tribunals dealing with the rights and obligations" It is to my understanding that he lost his case. What I don't understand is where the cross appeal comes into play. If someone could help me clarify it, I would most appreciate it. and Thank-you. Andie Andie, Without you giving us more info as to what the cross-appeal was about, it's impossible to say for sure. But it seems like he was cross-appealing to have the gov't pay for his lawyer to represent him in the AG's appeal. And the Court stated that he failed to convince the Court of such. Is that possible?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 27, 2007 10:36:21 GMT -6
I don't know what the cross-appeal was about.
Chrisitne was arguing that it was unconstitutional to tax for legal service especially since the lower class can not afford it.
The attorney general appealed, saying it did not violate the constitution.
so would the cross appeal be his argument- that it does violate the constitution?
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 27, 2007 11:46:21 GMT -6
I don't know what the cross-appeal was about. Chrisitne was arguing that it was unconstitutional to tax for legal service especially since the lower class can not afford it. The attorney general appealed, saying it did not violate the constitution. so would the cross appeal be his argument- that it does violate the constitution? It shouldn't be. It should be the appeal of an issue that he lost in the lower court. So maybe he won the big issue in the lower court, but lost some other side issue???
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 27, 2007 11:53:03 GMT -6
Well, I just found and read the opinion (and the fact that Dugald E. Christie was killed when a car struck his bicycle during a bike ride for legal/social justice.....tragic!) and it dosn't give one teeny little hint as to what the cross-appeal was about.
Sorry I can't help.......
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 27, 2007 15:34:36 GMT -6
Information on CasesSummary 31324 Attorney General of British Columbia v. Dugald E. Christie (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave)
Keywords Constitutional Law.
Summary Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.
Constitutional Law - Rule of law - Access to justice - Whether the principle of the rule of law may be relied on by the courts to strike down otherwise constitutionally valid legislation - Whether the decision of the Court of Appeal is inconsistent with other judicial decisions.
In 1993, the legislature of British Columbia passed the Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, S.B.C. 1993, c. 24 (the "Act"), which amended the Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1992, S.B.C. 1992, c. 22, to require all purchasers or recipients of legal services provided in British Columbia to pay to the government a tax based on the purchase price of these services. The Act stipulates that the tax must be paid by the date on which the purchase price of the legal services is paid or payable, whichever is earlier.
Dugald Christie, the Respondent, challenged the constitutionality of the Act, alleging that it impedes or denies access to justice, contrary to the rule of law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it: (a) is contrary to the right to employ legal counsel; (b) increases both the cost of legal services to the public and the cost of providing those legal services; and (c) is a tax on lawyers' services for enforcement or protection of civil or criminal constitutional rights, and is thereby contrary to the right to employ legal counsel for the protection of those rights. Christie was granted a declaration that the 1993 Act was ultra vires the Legislature to the extent that it applied to legal services provided to "low income persons". On appeal and cross-appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal in part. Christie was granted a declaration that to the extent that the Act purports to tax legal services related to the determination of rights and obligations by courts of law or independent administrative tribunals, it is unconstitutional as offending the principle of access to justice, one of the elements of the rule of law. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if this will help.
I don't know if I am right but did the cross appeal argue that clients should be taxed if they see the lawyer outside of court? ------------------ Anony+ thanks for your help.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 27, 2007 15:55:14 GMT -6
It started at a trial court cause the trial judge found it unconstitutional. The attorney general appealed.
|
|
|
Post by Anony+ on Sept 27, 2007 15:56:43 GMT -6
Ok, I think I have it figured out.
Dugald E. Christie sued the gov't on 3 bases (a, b, and c outlined above). The trial level and appellate court granted him relief on one of the grounds (maybe c? yeah, I think c) but not the others. So the gov't appealed on the granted on the one basis, and he cross-appealed on the failure to grant on the other 2 bases.
I think..........
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Sept 28, 2007 9:36:06 GMT -6
Thank-you for your help. Really appreciate it. Ok, I think I have it figured out. Dugald E. Christie sued the gov't on 3 bases (a, b, and c outlined above). The trial level and appellate court granted him relief on one of the grounds (maybe c? yeah, I think c) but not the others. So the gov't appealed on the granted on the one basis, and he cross-appealed on the failure to grant on the other 2 bases. I think..........
|
|