澳洲代写assignment：案件分析
澳洲代写assignment：案件分析
1.第1条，2015年5月13日在省网站上
法律类（私人或公共）：公共
法律类型（刑事，侵权，合同，家庭）：过失法
个人意见：大卫·法斯特的死亡被认为是一个意外事件，因为没有提供任何关于诉讼中提及的名字的疏忽的证据。不过，我认为这个问题是疏忽的，因为即使他有糖尿病问题，他也没有特别的胰岛素
对结论的反应（如果结案）：法院决定驳回请求，因为没有任何事情可以证明有利于疏忽，但是根据疏忽法，参与疏忽行为的所有当局都有责任对他们提出起诉。
2.“锅广告违反刑法典，敌人说”，2015年5月13日和省
法律类别：公共
法律类型：刑法
个人意见：我认为帕梅拉·麦科尔案件很强。为了处理对人身安全构成的严重威胁，需要在加拿大采取聪明的方法来处理大麻。在毒品和食品行为下的大麻药房是加拿大非法开放，其数量正在增加。然而，需要采取一种更强大，更明智的方法，为那些想以合乎道德的方式开设大麻药房的人提供执照。
3.“米尔爆炸案死亡保证费，前WorkSafeBC负责人作证”，2015年5月13日，Westcoast新闻（A8页）
法律类别：公共
法律类型：省级安全法
个人意见：我认为参与工厂工人的生活是必不可少的。根据工作安全委员会的建议，应该对案件进行法律审理，但是对于工厂也没有犯罪的过失指控。
对结论的反应：我很震惊地看到，没有提供正义，并且决定忽视这一事件，认为这是工人的错。在这样的灾难性事件中，雇主有责任以某种方式支持工人的家属，但不承担责任。
澳洲代写assignment：案件分析
1.Article 1, May 13, 2015 on the Province.com
Class of Law (Private or Public): Public
Type of Law (Criminal, Tort, Contract, family): Law of Negligence
Individual opinion of issue: The death of David Fast was found to be an accident as there was no proof provided on any kind of negligence on the part of the names mentioned in the lawsuit. However I think that the issue was of negligence because he was specifically not given any insulin even though he had an issue of diabetes
Reaction to conclusion (if case concluded): The courts decided to dismiss the petition as nothing could be proven in favour of negligence however according to negligence law, all authorities involved in the negligence act are liable for petition against them.
2.“Pot Adverts contravene criminal code, foes say” , May 13, 2015 and The province.com
Class of Law: Public
Type of Law: Criminal law
Personal Opinion: I think that Pamela McColl has a strong case. Smart approach to marijuana in Canada is required in order to deal with serious threats posed to safety of people. Dispensaries of marijuana under the act of drugs and food is Canada are illegally opened and their number is increasing. However what is required is to take a stronger and smarter approach that provides licenses to people who want to open a marijuana dispensary in an ethical way.
3.“Mill explosion deaths warranted charges, former WorkSafeBC head testifies”, 13th May 2015, Westcoast news (A8 page)
Class of Law: Public
Type of Law: Provincial safety law
Personal opinion: I think that the lives of the workers involved in the mills was essential. There should be a legal hearing on the case as recommended by WorksafeBC but still there were no negligence charges of crime were raised against the mills.
Reaction to conclusion: I was shocked to read that no justice was provided and the decision was taken to neglect the incidence altogether considering it to be the fault of the workers. In such a catastrophic event, it is the employer’s liability to in some way support the families of the workers but no liability was imposed.
