Identify a common law “essential” of the “rule of law” that we have discussed (or will discuss) in class and follow through on instances of the principle in at least three cases (the cases must include cases from at least two jurisdictions – ie CAN, US, UK, NZ, HK, or AU). Discuss with your instructor.
B. Content Requirements
Your final exam essay should:
1) Rule of Law - describe the concept “rule of law” in general terms;
2) Rule of Law Essential - describe the common law essential of the “rule of law” principle you have selected;
3) Leading Rule of Law Cases - properly cite and discuss at least three court decisions (the cases must include cases from at least two jurisdictions – ie CAN, US, UK, or AU, from the SCC, USSC, HL/PC/SCUK, CFA or equivalent (if names have changed), and must be correctly cited); your discussion should include reference to secondary sources which discuss the case(s);
4) Cases which refer to one or more of the Leading Cases – show how the common law works and identify and properly cite at least three cases (need not be SCC, USSC, SCUK, HKCFA etc level) which (in a rule of law context) consider, apply, or distinguish one of the leading cases you have identified in 3); if possible, refer to leading cases from one jurisdiction which are referred to in another common law jurisdiction (ie an SCC decision referred to by the HKCA or similar)
5) ReFerences - List (using proper citation format) the sources you have used to write your final essay and other materials you consider relevant.
6) Table of Statistical Data (using Appendix 2 format)
For medical care to be effective, patients must be able to trust that what they tell their doctor will remain confidential. The vagueness and complexity of the law on breach of confidence as it affects doctors and adult patients, serves to undermine this fundamental obligation. The patient’s interests must always trump that of third parties and confidentiality needs to be restored to being an absolute obligation if the relationship between doctor and patient is not to be undermined.” Critically discuss with reference to legal and ethical analysis.