# Question about posting



## Laurie (29 Jun 2006)

Hi,
I don't speak english a lot, so I'm sorry.
My husband just finish this course of Combat Engineer (041) at it's posting at Edmonton (Alberta).
But, i'm actually at University Laval to study Law, and if I go to Edmonton, I can't continue my studies beacause it not the same Law (in Québec it Civil Law and in Alberta it Common Law). So, I wan't to know if it possible to my husband to ask to be at Valcartier? If yes, How can I do?
Thank You very much
Laurie


----------



## kincanucks (29 Jun 2006)

_My husband just finish this course of Combat Engineer (041) at it's posting at Edmonton (Alberta)._

Sorry that is where he is going and hopefully you with him.


----------



## paracowboy (29 Jun 2006)

he can try to write a memo, but I don't see it working, I'm afraid.

Can your University credits not transfer? I'm sure that there must be some commonalities between the two different branches of Law, aren't there?

(And your English writing skills are FAR better than my French)


----------



## Yrys (29 Jun 2006)

Hum,

I'm sorry to say that it's not 2 branch of law.

It's 2 CORPSE of law. My memories is a bit fussy, but common law
come from the the way justice was usually administered in England 
in the middle ages (ie precedent by judgment of judge for a few century
in real cases) then really later codified into law.

The civil law derived from the roman law (let say 2000 years ago),
that was adopted by French peoples in Napoleon code Law, then imported in 
North America by french people.

When British took control of Haut and Bas Canada (sorry, don't know that in english,
 those are  the olds names of Canada), they let francophone keep their code of law
(civil law) in Québec, but put into place theirs commun law in the rest of Canada.

So if I remembered correctly, there is something like 2000 years of practise 
and codifications of difference in between them.

If I'm wrong into some details sorry, but 1 thing I'm sure its the fact that they are 
not 2 branches of the same Law. And if somebody studies law outside of Québec,
he cannot enter the professional association of lawyers in here (Barreau du Québec)
because he doesn't know the laws of Québec...


----------



## paracowboy (29 Jun 2006)

well, I have learned something today! And now I'm curious. Can you point me towards some websites that would illustrate the histories and diffwerences between the two?


----------



## Yrys (29 Jun 2006)

Well, I learned that into university, and I think I remembered most of it,
cause I was, too, curious about that big differences.

But I presumed that Wikipedia can answers a few questions.
In google, I just found an article y a Mc Gill university professor that speak
a bit about the difficulty cause by the fact that they are different corpses of law:

http://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/maritime-admiralty/uniformitymarlaw/

Chapter 13, no 4.

Oh God, I'm beginning to dread my transportation law course, wich is only next January, sight  :


----------



## Pea (29 Jun 2006)

Common Law is based on precedent, meaning cases that have been decided previously. "Stare Decisis" meaning "as the decision stands" - is the term generally used for Common Law. (also referred to as Case Law) When researching a case one usually does a search to see what other similar cases they can find in same level of court or Province. Reason for this being that you can see how judges have previously ruled on such type of case, giving you a general good look into what the outcome of your case may be. I am a little rusty on what kind of "binding authority" cases from other levels of court and provinces have on judges in others, so I won't comment on that at this time. (let me dig out the law textbook) You can read a bit about the history of Common Law at: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Law

Civil Law is used in Quebec. This is not based on "Stare Decisis" meaning judges do not need to follow previous judge's decisions like they do in the rest of Canada. That is about all I can tell you about Civil Law, as I studied law in Alberta and as such only got a brief introduction into Civil Law. You can read up on the history and such at: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Code_of_Quebec


----------



## Pea (29 Jun 2006)

Here is a good explanation of the difference between Common and Civil Law. It should make it a lot more clear. Taken from:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29

"Thus, the difference between civil law and common law lies less in the mere fact of codification, but in the methodological approach to codes and statutes. In civil law countries, legislation is seen as the primary source of law. By default, courts thus base their judgments on the provisions of codes and statutes, from which solutions in particular cases are to be derived. Courts thus have to reason extensively on the basis of general rules and principles of the code, often drawing analogies from statutory provisions to fill lacunae and to achieve coherence. By contrast, in the common law system, cases are the primary source of law, while statutes are only seen as incursions into the common law and thus interpreted narrowly."

I also found a very good explanation of how Common Law works, and of which is binding for Judges to follow. (It's all coming back to me now.. but instead of explaining it all myself, I will post this good article) The info below can be found at:  http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Resguide/chapt2.htm

"Unlike the legislative process, which employs a systematic, formalized method of rule making, case law develops organically. The common law - judge-made law developed over a period of time - is grounded in the doctrine of stare decisis. Stare decisis requires a judge to follow the ruling of another judge of the same, or higher, court on the same issue. In this manner, new case law is often derived from existing legal principles. The requirement of stare decisis ensures a measure of security and stability in the development of the common law, since it prevents judges from making ad hoc decisions. 

As a result of stare decisis , which is also known as judicial precedent, it is important for lawyers and law librarians to find "like" cases - cases from the past dealing with issues similar to the facts at hand. Ideally, a lawyer is hoping to find "like cases" which were decided in a manner that would be favourable to the lawyer's client. 

Under the doctrine of stare decisis , the rulings of different courts in different jurisdictions have different precedential value. Decisions of the higher courts bind the lower courts. The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest appellate court in Canada, and its decisions bind all other courts in the nation. However, the decision of a provincial appeals court only binds the other courts in that province. Hence, an Ontario lawyer is less interested in a P.E.I. appeals decision than an Ontario appeals decision dealing with the same issues. While the P.E.I. decision - rendered, as it was, by a high-level court - has much persuasive value, it is not necessarily binding on an Ontario judge. 

When researching case law you must always be sensitive to the desirability of finding court decisions from the appeals court of your province, or from the Supreme Court of Canada. However, since some provincial laws (such as securities regulations) do not differ much from province to province, decisions from other provinces may have relatively strong precedential value. This is especially true if the issue stems from a federal statute, such as the Criminal Code , since federal statutes apply across the country. Moreover, occasionally it is not possible to find case law from the desired courts. In such a case, it may be necessary to resort to case law from other provinces, or even other countries. "

And I think that is enough law for one night.   Hope that helps Para!


----------



## Laurie (29 Jun 2006)

So, if you want to do together, he must leave army?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jun 2006)

..ou vous pouvait laisser l' ecole....


----------



## GAP (29 Jun 2006)

Not knowing your situation, this may turn out to be a silly question.

Is it not feasible for you to expand your horizons, finish what you can in Quebec, transfer your credits that you can, and carry on in Edmonton. Once achieved, go back and finish Quebec law at a later time. 

More time consuming, but not necessarily a complete waste, with the plus of allowing you to practice anywhere in Canada

when you have lemons; make lemonade    ;D


----------



## radop215 (29 Jun 2006)

is it not possible for the new member to go IR for a while, and in that time submit numerous memos for return to Valcatraz?
My experience from the past is that whenever a quebecer wants to return to quebec, he writes a memo and poof!
and while that doesnt always work, would it not give you more time to finish what you need to do in quebec and move out/transfer schools

when you have lemons; make lemonade


----------



## Laurie (10 Jul 2006)

Finally, radop215 are right. My husband just wrote a memo to explain the situation and He was transfert to Valcartier.
Thank you everybody


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2006)

there ya go. True Love wins out again.
Annnnd locked!


----------

