|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Dec 23, 2004 15:06:13 GMT -5
(apologies for pun-ny thread title) I am geographically located in a place most refer to as "Canada". Marc and most of you are not. But those who are, or who have researched the issue, let me ask you, what is the typical "court" proceeding like? What are the differences in terms of words, roles, rules, etc. as compared to other "nations" such as "America"? Those of you who have gone through traffic-related, drug-related, or tax-related proceedings first-hand would be recipients of much gratitude from this curious man posing the question, if you were to but share your humble thoughts and exciting experiences! -Also see my questions posted in this other thread: thereisnostate.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=general&thread=1103505364&action=display&start=8Thanks in advance, laddies and gentlewomen! |
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Dec 23, 2004 16:59:17 GMT -5
Not much difference. You can also determine the differences, in any, by asking questions in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Dec 23, 2004 18:17:03 GMT -5
Darren
What part of Canada are you located?
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Dec 28, 2004 6:35:02 GMT -5
Profile is correct. Edmonchuk, Alberta, last of the great salestaxfree provinces ;D
Never been in court myself, considering dropping by a morning or two and seeing what the procedures are... I guess my main question is, do the same categories apply at the top, i.e. (1)criminal procedure, or (2)civil, if civil then (2a)contract injury, or (2b)tort violation. Of course, traffic is apparently (3)non-criminal or something, by the sound of things in America. Perhaps it is the same in Canada eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by di54o on Dec 28, 2004 8:32:41 GMT -5
I also haven't had personal experience w/Canadian courts, so what follows is text-book knowledge. In practice the U.S. legal system is like that of Mexico, while in theory following the British legal system, whereas Canada does follow it both in theory & practice.
Thus, things are vastly different in Canada. Not only do prosecutors represent the Queen, but so do senior barristers (so-called because they're entitled to practice w/in the "bar" separating the court proper from the audience, which solicitors normally aren't entitled to do in most cases, esp. criminal) and called "Queen's Counsel" due to receiving a patent as "one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law".
They & the judges are all trained in common law (except in QuEbec) which is another big difference, and adhere to its traditional procedures.
In the U.S. there's a criminal conflict of interest in forcing all lawyers to be barristers (i.e. licencees of the state) and giving them a monopoly to the exclusion of solicitors who are not licencees of the state, i.e. not bar members.
In Canada a barrister may not directly represent a member of the general public, but only via one's solicitor, who is directly responsible for paying the barrister's fees.
So it's possible for there to be no direct contact w/the defendant, and the barrister isn't put into a conflict of duty (esp. as his primary duty is to the gov't) such that the barrister is unlikely to have been told any details by the client indicating guilt.
.
But the U.S. does mimic feudal aspects of the British system. Click the link on my profile page for an analysis.
|
|
