Abrams (see pp. 164-172 of the course pack) argues that the result of Quebec v COPA, at least insofar as it relates to private non-commercial aerodromes, is bad for Canada. COPA (see pp. 136-163 of the course pack) disagrees.

Assignment #2

Abrams (see pp. 164-172 of the course pack) argues that the result of Quebec v COPA, at least insofar as it relates to private non-commercial aerodromes, is bad for Canada. COPA (see pp. 136-163 of the course pack) disagrees.

Read the two articles 164-172 and 136-163 and the Case Quebec v COPA

Which position do you agree with? Why?
Not to explain the legal reasoning, but why is good or bad for Canada. From either Quebec or Copas perspective

Format: Your answer should:
1. Briefly summarize the Courts decision (including its ratio decidendi) in COPA.
2. Summarize Abrams position (on whether it is bad for Canada) and his reasons for this position, as well as COPAs position (on whether it is bad for Canada) and its reasons for this position.
3. Indicate the position you agree with.
4. Provide independent reasons to support your answer (i.e., your argument). Why is wrong, offer a convincing reason.
5. No

Use 12-point font, standard margins, and page numbers. Double-space your assignment, and do not put an extra line-space between paragraphs.

Length: 2-3 pages.

Marking Criteria: Your answer is worth 5% of your total grade. It will be evaluated out of 50 marks on the basis of:
1. Understanding of the COPA decision and both positions. (20 marks)
2. Your argument (20 marks)
3. Clarity, Grammar and Syntax (10 marks)

Last Completed Projects