24 topics
Law help, starting with what actually binds in a judgment
A judgment can run forty pages and only two of them bind anyone. The ratio decidendi is the legal rule the court had to apply to those material facts in order to reach that result; everything else the judge says, however interesting, is obiter dicta and carries persuasive weight at most. Students who brief a case by summarising the reasons in order end up with no idea which sentence was the holding.
Where students get stuck
How do I find the ratio in a judgment?
Use the removal test. Identify the material facts, identify the outcome, then ask of each proposition in the reasons: if the judge had decided this point the other way, would the result have changed? If yes, it is part of the ratio. If the result stands regardless, it is obiter — including hypotheticals the judge raises about facts that were not before the court, and including most of what a dissent says. Concurring judgments are the awkward case: where judges agree on the outcome for different reasons, the binding rule may be narrower than any one of them states.
Mens rea and actus reus keep collapsing into each other
Actus reus is the external element and it is wider than the act: it can include the surrounding circumstances and a required consequence, which is why a death is part of the actus reus of homicide. Mens rea is the mental element the offence demands — intention, knowledge, recklessness, or in some offences criminal negligence — and it must attach to each part of the actus reus, not just to the movement. The requirement that catches people out is coincidence: the guilty mind has to exist at the time of the guilty act, so forming the intent an hour afterwards is not the offence.
Why can someone be acquitted and then lose the civil case?
Because the two proceedings ask different questions to different thresholds. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a deliberately steep standard justified by the fact that the state is seeking to punish and imprison. A civil claim needs only the balance of probabilities: more likely than not. The same evidence can fail the first and satisfy the second. The parties differ too — the Crown prosecutes, whereas a civil action is brought by the injured person seeking damages rather than punishment.
My IRAC answers get marked down even when the law is right
Almost always because the application is thin. Issue and rule are the cheap parts, and a student who states the test accurately and then writes a conclusion has skipped the section carrying most of the marks. Application means taking each element of the rule in turn and arguing it against these specific facts, including the facts that cut the other way. If your application paragraph would read the same on a different fact pattern, you have restated the law rather than applied it, and the conclusion should follow from the argument instead of announcing it.
Stare decisis — when am I allowed to say a case does not apply?
Precedent binds vertically. A lower court must follow a higher court in the same appellate line; decisions from another province or another country are persuasive only. The technique for escaping an unhelpful binding case is distinguishing: show that a fact material to the ratio in that case is absent here, or that a materially different fact is present, so the rule does not reach your situation. It has to be a material difference. Arguing that the parties had different names is the classic failed distinction.
What's covered
Law topics you can work through with a tutor, generate practice on, or turn into flashcards and a study plan.
Foundations of law
- Sources of law: statute, common law, and the Constitution
- Common law and civil law traditions, including Quebec
- Stare decisis, binding and persuasive precedent
- The court hierarchy and routes of appeal
- Statutory interpretation and the modern principle
Criminal law
- Actus reus, mens rea, and the coincidence requirement
- Parties to an offence and attempts
- Defences: self-defence, duress, necessity, mistake
- Summary and indictable offences and trial procedure
- Sentencing principles and youth justice
Civil and private law
- Negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages
- Intentional torts and defences
- Contract formation, consideration, and breach
- Remedies and the measure of damages
- Property, wills, and family law basics
Constitutional and human rights law
- Division of powers and jurisdictional challenges
- Charter rights and the section 1 Oakes test
- Legal rights on arrest, search, and detention
- Human rights codes and discrimination claims
- Indigenous legal orders and treaty rights
Legal skills
- Briefing a case: facts, issue, holding, ratio
- IRAC and problem-question structure
- Reading a citation and finding a case
- Mooting and oral argument
Law questions
Is anything it says legal advice?
No, and it will not pretend otherwise. This is study support for a law course: doctrine, case structure, and exam technique. It is not a lawyer, it does not know your situation, and if you describe a real dispute it will tell you to speak to a lawyer or to your provincial legal aid or community legal clinic. Do not act on it for anything real.
Will it write my case brief?
It will not hand one over. It will ask you which facts were material and keep asking until your answer explains the outcome, then show you where your stated ratio is broader than the court's reasoning supports. Briefing is a skill the exam tests directly, so a brief you did not build is a mark you will lose later.
Does it cover Canadian law or American law?
Tell it which and it will hold to that, because the differences are not cosmetic — the Charter and the Oakes test are not the Bill of Rights, and Canadian criminal law is federal and codified while American criminal law is mostly state law. Mixing the two in one answer is a visible error, so say your jurisdiction at the start.
Can it help me prepare for a moot or a mock trial?
Yes. You can argue out loud with it, have it sit as the bench and interrupt with the questions your submission invites, and rehearse the answer you give when a judge points at the weakest link in your chain. The whiteboard is useful for mapping the authorities you are relying on before you stand up.
Stuck on law right now?
Talk it through out loud, share your screen, and watch it worked out step by step on a whiteboard.
Start free — no card