In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a

previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when
deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common
law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable
outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is
attained. Black's Law ictionary defines !precedent! as a !rule of law established for the first
time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar
cases.!"#$ %ommon law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory
law &statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies', and regulatory law &regulations
promulgated by e(ecutive branch agencies'.
Stare decisis &)nglo*Latin pronunciation+ /s tr i d s a s s /' is a legal principle by which ,udges
are obliged to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from
the phrasing of the principle in the Latin ma(im Stare decisis et non quieta movere+ !to stand
by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed.!"-$ In a legal conte(t, this is understood to mean
that courts should generally abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters."-$
Case law is the set of e(isting rulings which have made new interpretations of law and,
therefore, can be cited as precedent. In most countries, including most .uropean countries,
the term is applied to any set of rulings on law which is guided by previous rulings, for
e(ample, previous decisions of a government agency * that is, precedential case law can
arise from either a ,udicial ruling or a ruling of an ad,udication within an e(ecutive branch
agency. Trials and hearings that do not result in written decisions of a court of record do not
create precedent for future court decisions."/$
Home
About
Blog
Contact
Twitter
Facebook
Google+

Home
/ Writing & Analysis
/ Stare decisis and tecni!ues o" legal reasoning and legal argument
0tare decisis and techniques of legal reasoning and legal argument
Copyright 1987 Paul M. Perell
Originally published in (1987) 2:2,3 Legal Research Update 11 and republished ith per!issi"n#
Introduction
#t gi$es away no secret to obser$e tat lawyers a$e teir own uni!ue disci%line
and a%%roac to te resolution o" legal %roblems& 'ot sur%risingly( tere are laws
)esearc *ssentials *lectronic )esearc Statutory )esearc Writing & Analysis
Best Guide to Canadian +egal )esearc
about determining te law& ,ne o" te most im%ortant o" tese laws is te law o"
%recedent or stare decisis& Tat doctrine and its signi"icance in %ractical terms are
te sub-ect matters o" tis %a%er& Tis %a%er is also about ow a lawyer in
e$eryday %ractice answers a legal !uestion and ow tat lawyer e$aluates and
"ormulates legal arguments& Te %a%er is only to a $ery limited e.tent concerned
about te %ractical %roblems o" ow to "ind or look u% te law/ rater( te concern
is ow a lawyer sould deal wit te autorities tat e or se "inds& Because
di""erent legal systems a$e di""erent a%%roaces to te %ro%er way o" deciding a
legal %oint( te %ers%ecti$e will be Canadian and %rimarily tat o" ,ntario&
The doctrine of stare decisis
Wat is te doctrine o" %recedent or o" stare decisis0 1ro"essor Gall described it in
te "ollowing terms2
Te o%eration o" te doctrine o" stare decisis is best e.%lained by
re"erence to te *nglis translation o" te +atin %rase& 3Stare decisis4
literally translates as 3to stand by decided matters4& Te %rase 3stare
decisis4 is itsel" an abbre$iation o" te +atin %rase 3stare decisis et non
!uieta mo$ere4 wic translates as 3to stand by decisions and not to
disturb settled matters4&
Basically( under te doctrine o" stare decisis( te decision o" a iger
court witin te same %ro$incial -urisdiction acts as binding autority on
a lower court witin tat same -urisdiction& Te decision o" a court o"
anoter -urisdiction only acts as %ersuasi$e autority& Te degree o"
%ersuasi$eness is de%endent u%on $arious "actors( including( "irst( te
nature o" te oter -urisdiction& Second( te degree o" %ersuasi$eness is
de%endent u%on te le$el o" court wic decided te %recedent case in
te oter -urisdiction& ,ter "actors include te date o" te %recedent
case( on te assum%tion tat te more recent te case( te more reliable
it will be as autority "or a gi$en %ro%osition( altoug tis is not
necessarily so& And on some occasions( te -udge5s re%utation may
a""ect te degree o" %ersuasi$eness o" te autority&6
#n Learning the La 78t ed& 689:;( Glan$ille Williams describes te doctrine in
%ractical terms2
Wat te doctrine o" %recedent declares is tat cases must be decided
te same way wen teir material "acts are te same& ,b$iously it does
not re!uire tat all te "acts sould be te same& We know tat in te
"lu. o" li"e all te "acts o" a case will ne$er recur( but te legally material
"acts may recur and it is wit tese tat te doctrine is concerned&
Te ratio decidendi <reason o" deciding= o" a case can be de"ined as te
material "acts o" te case %lus te decision tereon& Te same learned
autor> wo ad$anced tis de"inition went on to suggest a el%"ul
"ormula& Su%%ose tat in a certain case "acts A( B and C e.ist( and
su%%ose tat te court "inds tat "acts B and C are material and "act A
immaterial( and ten reaces conclusion ? 7e&g& -udgment "or te
%lainti""( or -udgment "or te de"endant;& Ten te doctrine o" %recedent
enables us to say tat in any "uture case in wic "acts B and C e.ist( or
in wic "acts A and B and C e.ist te conclusion must be ?& #" in a "uture
case A( B( C( and @ e.ist( and te "act @ is eld to be material( te "irst
case will not be a direct autority( toug it may be o" $alue as an
analogy&:
#t "ollows "rom William5s analysis tat te addition o" "act @ to a "uture case means
tat conclusion ? may or may not "ollow& #n oter words( te %resence o" a new
"act @ may a$e te e""ect o" distinguising te "uture case "rom te %recedent or
con$ersely te %recedent may be e.tended to a%%ly to te "uture case&
Tere is considerable literature about weter te doctrine o" stare decisis is a
good or bad oneA but( te doctrine is usually -usti"ied by arguments wic "ocus
on te desirability o" stability and certainty in te law and also by notions o"
-ustice and "airness& Ben-amin CardoBo in is treatise( $he %ature "& the 'udicial
(r"cess stated2
#t will not do to decide te same !uestion one way between one set o"
litigants and te o%%osite way between anoter& 3#" a grou% o" cases
in$ol$es te same %oint( te %arties e.%ect te same decision& #t would
be a gross in-ustice to decide alternate cases on o%%osite %rinci%les& #" a
case was decided against me yesterday wen # was a de"endant( # sall
look "or te same -udgment today i" # am %lainti""& To decide di""erently
would raise a "eeling o" resentment and wrong in my breast/ it would be
an in"ringement( material and moral( o" my rigts&4C Aderence to
%recedent must ten be te rule rater tan te e.ce%tion i" litigants are
to a$e "ait in te e$enDanded administration o" -ustice in te courts&E
#n )eney $& $he *epart!ent "& +ighays(9 Fiddleton G&A& "or te ,ntario Court o" A%%eal
stated2
But( in my $iew( liberty to decide eac case as you tink rigt( witout
regard to %rinci%les laid down in %re$ious similar cases( would only result
in a com%letely uncertain law in wic no citiBen would know is rigts
or liabilities until e knew be"ore wat Gudge is case would come and
could guess wat $iew tat Gudge would take on a consideration o" te
matter( witout any regard to %re$ious decisions&H
Tat te doctrine o" stare decisis is related to -ustice and "airness may be
a%%reciated by considering te obser$ation o" American %iloso%er William I&
Frankena as to wat constitutes in-ustice2
Te %aradigm case o" in-ustice is tat in wic tere are two similar
indi$iduals in similar circumstances and one o" tem is treated better or
worse tan te oter& #n tis case( te cry o" in-ustice rigtly goes u%
against te res%onsible agent or grou%/ and unless tat agent or grou%
can establis tat tere is some rele$ant dissimilarity a"ter all between
te indi$iduals concerned and teir circumstances( e or tey will be
guilty as carged&8
Te critics o" te doctrine acce%t it as te general rule but ca"e under it wen
te staleness o" old law leads to un"airness and in-ustice& For e.am%le( +ord
@enning( te "ormer Faster o" te )olls as argued2
#" lawyers old to teir %recedents too closely( "orget"ul o" te
"undamental %rinci%les o" trut and -ustice wic tey sould ser$e( tey
may "ind te wole edi"ice comes tumbling down about tem& Gust as te
scientist seeks "or trut( so te lawyer sould seek "or -ustice& Gust as te
scientist takes is instances and "rom tem builds u% is general
%ro%ositions( so te lawyer sould take is %recedents and "rom tem
build u% is general %rinci%les& Gust as te %ro%ositions o" te scientist
"ail to be modi"ied wen sown not to "it all instances( or e$en discarded
wen sown in error( so te %rinci%les o" te lawyer sould be modi"ied
wen "ound to be unsuited to te times or discarded wen "ound to work
in-ustice&6J
0tare decisis and the hierarchy of the courts
Iee%ing wit te %ractical a%%roac o" tis %a%er( we will now lea$e aside tis
debate and consider te %ractical %roblems o" dealing wit te doctrine as it
e.ists "or te %ractising lawyer& +et us ten consider te e.am%le o" a lawyer
%re%aring legal argument "or court&
Te lawyer will be a%%earing be"ore a %articular court and te "irst ting tat te
lawyer must do is to note te rank o" tat court in te ierarcy o" courts& Tis is
necessary "or two reasons2 "irst( because a iger ranking court is not bound to
"ollow te decision o" a lower court and second( because some courts do not a%%ly
te rule o" stare decisis wit res%ect to teir own %rior decisions&
Wile it migt be tougt tat it would not be di""icult to decide tis !uestion o"
ranking( tere are in "act some %roblems because te ierarcy and te attitude
o" $arious courts a$e canged "rom time to time& For e.am%le( "or Canada(
a%%eals to te 1ri$y Council in criminal matters were abolised in 68::66 and it
was only in 68A8 tat all Canadian a%%eals to te 1ri$y Council were
abolised&6> #n ,ntario( "rom 6H8C to 68:6 but not a"terwards( tere was a
section o" te 'udicature ,ct wic obliged a Gudge o" te Hig Court not 3to
disregard or de%art "rom a %rior known decision o" any oter -udge o" coDordinate
autority on any !uestion o" law or %ractice witout is concurrence&46: Furter(
%era%s by reason o" te abolition o" a%%eals to te 1ri$y Council or %era%s
because o" te e.am%le o" te House o" +ords wic in 68EE announced tat it
would re$erse itsel" in %ro%er cases6A or %era%s because o" te maturing o"
Canadian -uris%rudence( te Su%reme Court o" Canada as relati$ely recently
reassessed its own %osition on te e""ect o" its own %rior decisions& #n ligt o"
tese canges( te current %osition "or ,ntario -uris%rudence a%%ears to be as
"ollows2
Te Su%reme Court o" Canada is not bound to "ollow its own %rior decisions or
te decisions o" te 1ri$y Council&6C As 1ro"essor Gordon Bale as noted2
Te Su%reme Court can no longer be content to say tat te case is
go$erned by an earlier decision eiter o" its own or o" te 1ri$y Council
unless te decision %ro$ides te %ro%er reconciliation o" te com%eting
interests wic are in$ol$ed&6E
All Canadian courts are bound to "ollow a %recedent o" te Su%reme Court o"
Canada69 and any %reD68A8 decision o" te 1ri$y Council wic as not been
o$erruled by te Su%reme Court o" Canada& A minority o%inion o" te Su%reme
Court o" Canada is( owe$er( not binding&6H
Te ,ntario Court o" A%%eal is not bound to "ollow a decision o" te a%%ellate
court o" anoter %ro$ince&68
Te ,ntario Court o" A%%eal will generally be bound by its own %rior decisions
unless te liberty o" te sub-ect is in$ol$ed or unless te %rior decision was
gi$en %er incuriam( tat is( inad$ertently witout consideration o" an a%%licable
autority or statutory %ro$ision&>J #t sould be noted by com%arison tat
a%%ellate courts in certain oter %ro$inces a$e allowed temsel$es greater
"reedom in o$erruling teir own %rior decisions&>6
All ,ntario %ro$incial courts lower tan te Court o" A%%eal are bound to "ollow a
decision o" te ,ntario Court o" A%%eal&>> A @i$isional Court decision as a
decision o" an intermediate court o" a%%eal would bind lower courts& 7#t sould
be noted tat te @i$isional Court also sits as a court o" "irst instance&;
All ,ntario %ro$incial courts are not bound by te decisions o" te a%%ellate
courts o" oter %ro$inces or by decisions o" te Federal Court o" A%%eal&>:
A decision o" a court o" coDordinate -urisdiction is not binding>A altoug were
tere is con"lict it may be a%%ro%riate to re"er te case to te Court o"
A%%eal&>C #t sould be noted tat in certain circumstances( te @istrict Court
may a$e coDordinate -urisdiction wit te Hig Court and not be obliged to
"ollow te decision o" te oterwise iger court&>E Similarly( it seems tat wit
res%ect to %rocedural matters( te Faster5s ,""ice and te @istrict Court may be
considered to be coDordinate courts&
Wile decisions o" coDordinate courts are not binding( tese decisions are igly
%ersuasi$e& Tis is because o" te conce%t o" -udicial comity wic is te res%ect
one court olds "or te decisions o" anoter& As a conce%t it is closely related to
stare decisis& #n te case o" R# $& %"r# -lec# ."#(>9Fc)uer C&G&H&C& stated2
# tink Hogg G& stated te rigt common law %rinci%le to be a%%lied in
is -udgment in Re/ e/ rel# 0c1illia! $& 0"rris( <68A>= ,&W&'& AA9 at AAHD8(
were e said2 3Te doctrine o" stare decisis is one long recogniBed as
a %rinci%le o" our law& Sir Frederick 1ollock( in is 2irst 3""4 "&
'urisprudence( Et ed&( %& :>62 3Te decisions o" an ordinary su%erior
court are binding on all courts o" in"erior rank witin te same
-urisdiction( and toug not absolutely binding on courts o" coDordinate
autority nor on te court itsel"( will be "ollowed in te absence o"
strong reason to te contraryK4&
# tink tat 3strong reason to te contrary4 does not mean a strong
argumentati$e reason a%%ealing to te %articular -udge( but someting
tat may indicate tat te %rior decision was gi$en witout
consideration o" a statute or some autority tat ougt to a$e been
"ollowed& # do not tink 3strong reason to te contrary4 is to be
construed according to te "le.ibility o" te mind o" te %articular
-udge&
Legal argument when there is a precedent
Tus noting te court ranking o" te -udge be"ore wom te lawyer will be
a%%earing and guided by te doctrine o" stare decisis( te lawyer will ten %re%are
is or er argument& Lsually( te best %osition "or te lawyer occurs wen tere is
a %recedent case su%%orting is or er client5s case& Te lawyer will ten argue
tat te court is eiter bound( or tat te court( i" not actually bound( ougt to be
%ersuaded by te %recedent case to "ind in te client5s "a$our& #n is or er
researc( te lawyer will tere"ore look "or cases wit results wic su%%ort te
client5s %osition and te lawyer will %re%are to argue tat te ratio decidendi o"
tose %recedent cases co$ers te "acts o" te case at bar& Howe$er( -ust locating
and e$aluating te %ros%ects o" %recedent cases is not easy since it is o"ten
di""icult to determine and articulate te autority o" a case& Foreo$er( skill is
necessary to analyBe and organiBe te material "acts o" bot te %recedent case
and te case at bar& Tat said( more di""icult %roblems o" legal reasoning and legal
argument occur wen te lawyer is unable to "ind a close case or any case at all
or( worse yet( wen a case %resents itsel" wic a%%ears to be un"a$ourable& How
does te lawyer deal wit tese %roblems0
To get around an a%%arently un"a$ourable case( tere are a number o" tools and
tecni!ues a$ailable to te lawyer& Te lawyer may not sim%ly ignore te
un"a$ourable case and o%e tat te oter side does not disco$er te autority&
Tis is unetical>H and wit res%ect it may be submitted tat it is also unetical
and intellectually disonest "or a -udge in deciding a case to sim%ly ignore a
%recedent case wic stands in te way o" te decision tat te -udge wants to
make& Tis is not to say tat lawyers and -udges must deal wit e$ery case tat
remotely touces on a sub-ect but only tat tere sould be an onest e""ort to
%lay by te rules&
Te tecni!ues tat are a$ailable "ollow as a conse!uence o" acce%ting and ten
mani%ulating te doctrine o" stare decisis& Te tecni!ues structure and direct te
lawyer5s legal reasoning and argument& Te "ollowing are generally recogniBed2
Te lawyer can argue tat te %recedent case does not stand "or te legal
%ro%osition "or wic it as been cited& #n oter words( te lawyer articulates te
ratio decidendi o" te case di""erently& An e.am%le o" tis may be "ound in te
treatment o" te case o" Ri5t" 0arine Ltd# $& 1ashingt"n 6r"n 1"r4s&>8 #n $he ,tt"rney
7eneral &"r the (r"5ince "& Ontari" $& 2atehi(:J *stey G& witout resol$ing te di""iculties
associated wit tis case obser$ed2
'oneteless it must be acknowledged tat Ri5t" as been $ariously
a%%lied or re-ected by te courts o" tis country( some o" wom "ind in
te ma-ority -udgment recognition o" economic loss and some o" wom
a$e "ound te o%%osite&:6
Te lawyer can argue tat wile te %recedent case does articulate te legal
%ro%osition "or wic it as been cited( ne$erteless te %ro%osition was obiter
dicta 7tings said by te way;& Sub-ect to an e.ce%tion "or considered
%ronouncements o" te law by a%%ellate courts( comments by te -udge wic
are not %art o" te ratio decidendi are obiter dicta and are teoretically not
binding in a subse!uent case&:> Te e.ce%tion is tat were an a%%ellate court
e.%resses a considered o%inion on a %oint o" law ten suc ruling is binding on
te lower courts notwitstanding tat it was not absolutely necessary to rule on
te %oint in order to dis%ose o" te a%%eal&::#t sould be noted tat i" a -udge
rests is decision on two di""erent grounds neiter can be caracteriBed as
obiter dictum&:A
Te lawyer can argue tat wile te %recedent case does stand "or te legal
%ro%osition "or wic it as been cited( te case as been e""ecti$ely o$erruled
by a decision o" a ig court or by te introduction o" a new statute& *.am%les
o" tis kind o" legal argument will ob$iously occur a"ter signi"icant decisions o"
te Su%reme Court o" Canada& For instance tat Court5s decision in 8a!l""ps 5#
%ielsen:C did away wit te distinction between nonD"easance and mis"easance
in negligence actions against munici%alities and many old cases wic turned
on tat distinction can no longer be relied u%on&
Te lawyer can argue tat wile te %recedent case does stand "or te legal
%ro%osition "or wic it as been cited( te case at bar is di""erent/ tat is( te
cases are "actually distinguisable& Glan$ille Williams suggests tat tere are
two kinds o" 3distinguising42 restricti$e and nonDrestricti$e and states2
'onDrestricti$e distinguising occurs were a court acce%ts te
e.%ressed ratio decidendi o" te earlier case( and does not seek to
curtail it( but "inds tat te case be"ore it does not "all witin tis ratio
decidendi because o" some material di""erence o" "act& )estricti$e
distinguising cuts down te e.%ressed ratio decidendi o" te earlier
case by treating as material to te earlier decision some "act( %resent
in te earlier case( wic te earlier court regarded as immaterial&
An e.am%le o" restricti$e distinguising may be noted in te House o" +ords
decision in (eab"dy 2und $& )ir Lindsay (ar4ins"n Ltd#(:E were te Court restricted
te a%%lication o" ,nns $& 0ert"n L"nd"n 3"r"ugh&:9 Te ,nns case is cited as
autority "or te %ro%osition tat a munici%ality may be liable in negligence
were it "ails to %ro%erly ins%ect building %lans& #n te (eab"dy 2und case( by
de"ining te duty o" te munici%ality as being owed to owners and occu%iers
treatened wit te %ossibility o" in-ury to sa"ety or ealt( te House o" +ords
s%eci"ied and made less general( te sco%e o" te munici%ality5s res%onsibility
as it ad been de"ined in te ,nns case& #n te result( te Court did not allow a
claim by te de$elo%er o" a ousing %ro-ect wo su""ered damages wen te
munici%ality5s drainage ins%ector "ailed to %oint out tat te drainage system
was not being installed in accordance wit te a%%ro$ed design&:H Tus(
in (eab"dy 2und te element o" restricti$e distinguising is te introduction o" te
re!uirement o" te %ossibility o" in-ury to sa"ety or ealt&
An e.am%le o" nonDrestricti$e distinguising may be noted in te Su%reme Court
o" Canada decision in $"n "& the (as $& ("r4y (ac4ers Ltd#:8 #n tis case( te Court
noted tat te autority o" +edley 3yrne ."# Ltd# $& +ellerAJ re!uired te %lainti"" in
a negligent misre%resentation claim to sow tat e relied on te skill and
-udgment o" te %arty "rom wom e ad recei$ed incorrect in"ormation& #n
te("r4y (ac4ers case te %lainti"" ad recei$ed incorrect Boning ad$ice "rom
munici%al o""icials but te %lainti""5s re%resentati$e was a "ormer munici%al
council member wo ad more e.%ertise in %lanning matters tan te o""icials&
#n tese circumstances( tere could be no reliance and te doctrine or autority
o" +edley 3yrne by its own criteria was not a$ailable& Te %lainti""5s claim was
dismissed& Te material "act o" te %lainti""5s lack o" reliance %ro$ided te
element "or nonDrestricti$e distinguising o"+edley 3yrne&
Were te case being relied u%on as a built in %ublic %olicy "actor( te lawyer
wo wises to distinguis te case may argue tat %ublic %olicy as canged
and wile te legal %rinci%le o" te %recedent case is still good law( it is
distinguisable because o" te cange o" circumstances& Te %ossibility o" tis
ty%e o" argument was noted in te case o" %"rden&elt $& 0a/i! %"rden&elt 7uns and
,!!uniti"n ."#(A6 an im%ortant case wit res%ect to te %rinci%le tat contracts in
restraint o" trade may be $oidable on grounds o" %ublic %olicy& #n is -udgment in
tis case( +ord Watson noted2
A series o" decisions based u%on grounds o" %ublic %olicy( owe$er
eminent te -udges by wom tey were deli$ered( cannot %ossess te
same binding autority as decisions wic deal wit and "ormulate
%rinci%les wic are %urely legal&A>
Te lawyer can argue tat wile te %recedent case does stand "or te legal
%ro%osition "or wic it as been cited( tere is anoter %recedent o" e!ual
weigt wic stands "or te o%%osite %ro%osition& Te lawyer ten goes on to
argue tat it is tat oter case wic te court sould "ollow& Tis ty%e o"
argument is related to but in te end result di""erent "rom te 3%er incuriam
argument4 because it does not necessarily callenge eiter decision as a$ing
been gi$en %er incuriam& Te rule is rater tat te court may decide wic one
o" te con"licting decisions to "ollow& #nterestingly and as will be seen in a
somewat ironical way( te a$ailability o" tis rule in ,ntario is itsel" an e.am%le
o" te rule& Te legal argument "ollows&Te 6H9E ,ntario a%%ellate decision
o" 2is4en et al# $& 0eehanA: is autority "or te %ro%osition tat were tere are
con"licting decisions o" e!ual weigt te court sould "ollow te more recent
decision& +ower courts "ollowed te 2is4en et al# $& 0eehan rule in 3an4 "&
0"ntreal$& 3ailey and 3ailey(AA and in .hinia4 $& .hinia4(AC altoug
in .hinia4 Wilson G& described te duty im%osed by te rule to be
%resum%tuous&AEHowe$er( in +a!ilt"n $& +a!ilt"nA9 Fiddleton G&( sitting as a
lower court -udge( said tat were tere are con"licting decisions( te lower
court -udge may "ollow te decision wic commends itsel" most to im&
Ln"ortunately( Fiddelton G& does not cite te 2is4en case and
te +a!ilt"n $& +a!ilt"n decision may tus be said to a$e been gi$en %er
incuriam& But( in 68CH te Court o" A%%eal decided 1""l&rey $& (iche&AH #n tat
case( +eBel G&A& stated2
but # am now "aced wit two con"licting decisions in tis Court on te
same %oint( and in tat un"ortunate state o" tings # a%%reend tat #
must coose between tem as # a$e done& Tat is wat was done
in 9"ung $& 3rist"l ,er"plane ."#( <68AA= 6 I&B& 96H( were tree e.ce%tions
to te a%%lication o" te rule in :ela;<ue; <te stare decisis rule= were
stated& ,ne o" tese 7te "irst incidentally; is tat 3te court is entitled
and bound to decide wic o" two con"licting decisions o" its own it will
"ollow4& <%& 9>8= Tere is autority also "or te %ro%osition tat were
two cases cannot be reconciled( te more recent and the !"re c"nsistent
ith general principles "ught t" pre5ail& See .a!pbell $& .a!pbell 76HHJ;( C A%%&
Cas& 9H9 at %& 98H&A8<em%asis added=
Te 2is4en decision is again not cited but its %rinci%le tat te later o" two
con"licting cases sould be "ollowed is acknowledged but !uali"ied by te
re!uirement tat te later case be more consistent wit general %rinci%les&
Tus( to te e.tent tat tere is any inconsistency
between 2is4en $& 0eehen wit1""l&rey $& (iche( te 2is4en case directs
tat 1""l&rey be "ollowed& #" te 1""l&rey rule is used to resol$e any con"lict in
autority between te cases( it must come down on its own side or it would not
be an autority& #" tere is no inconsistency between te cases because o" te
!uali"ication or e.%lanation noted by +eBel G&A& ten again te 1""l&rey rule will
be "ollowed&
Legal argument when there is no binding precedent
Te abo$e se$en ty%es o" legal argument are te %rinci%le tecni!ues used to get
around an a%%arently binding %recedent and we can turn ne.t to te %roblem o"
not being able to "ind a %recedent case& Because tere is considerable room "or
imagination and creati$ity in res%onding to tis %roblem( it is more di""icult to
identi"y te main tecni!ues& 'e$erteless( some ty%ical res%onses may be
identi"ied& Below we will consider tree classical ty%es o" legal reasoning used in
tese circumstances& Again te doctrine o" stare decisis( tis time in s%irit( may be
noted&
Were a lawyer cannot "ind a binding %recedent( e or se may rely on a nonD
binding %recedent "rom anoter -urisdiction& Wile not obliged to do so( te
court may be im%ressed wit or be %ersuaded by te reasoning and be %re%ared
to ado%t te rule establised by te "oreign case& Howe$er( care must be taken
in em%loying tis tecni!ue because it o"ten necessitates re$iewing te "oreign
law to determine weter tere may be underlying di""erences in %rinci%les
wic !uali"y or wic may diminis te %ersuasi$eness o" te "oreign case& For
e.am%le( decisions on te ,!erican 3ill "& Rights will ob$iously be im%ortant and
el%"ul in inter%reting our own .harter "& Rights and 2reed"!s& Howe$er( it must not
be lost sigt o" tat tere is no %ro$ision in te ,!erican ."nstituti"ncom%arable to
te %ro$ision in our .harter tat te rigts set out 3are guaranteed sub-ect only
to suc reasonable limits %rescribed by law as can be demonstrably -usti"ied in a
"ree and democratic society4&CJ
Were a lawyer cannot "ind a binding %recedent( e or se may "orm a legal
argument "rom "irst %rinci%les& Tis a%%roac identi"ies legal %rinci%les "rom
decided cases and argues tat wile te "actual circumstances o" te cases may
a%%ear di""erent( analytically tey are te same& Tis kind o" legal argument is
o"ten used wit res%ect to determining te measure o" damages& For e.am%le(
witout any re"erence to its %articular "acts( 1erthei! $& .hic"uti!i (ulp ."#C6 is
o"ten cited as autority "or te legal %rinci%le tat were tere is a breac o"
contract ten as "ar as money can do so( te in-ured %arty is to be %laced in as
good a %osition as i" te contract ad been %er"ormed& Te general %rinci%le is
ten a%%lied to te %articular "acts o" te immediate case&Tis ty%e o" a%%roac
may be noted also wit res%ect to te issue o" liability/ "or e.am%le( +edley 3yrne
= ."# Ltd# $& +eller, supra( as "re!uently been cited as a%%lying to "act situations
wic do not remotely resemble te "acts o" tat case& Tis kind o" argument
does not %ur%ort to e.tend or de$elo% te law/ rater( te sense o" it is -ust te
o%%osite& Te underlying %remise is tat te -udge will be a%%lying and will not
be de%arting "rom decided law& Te s%irit o" stare decisis may be noted ere&
Were a lawyer cannot "ind a %recedent e or se can go beyond "irst %rinci%les
and instead de$elo% an argument tat te decided cases a$e e$ol$ed to a
general %rinci%le wic co$ers te immediate case& Tis is a $ery so%isticated
and creati$e ty%e o" argument& #t is te kind o" argument in wic common law
lawyers and -udges take %articular %ride& #t is tis ty%e o" argument tat can be
identi"ied in te ma-ority -udgment o" +ord Atkin in 0c,lister ("r
*"n"ghue) $& )te5ens"n&C> #n tat case( tere were two strong dissenting -udgments
o" +ord Buckmaster and +ord Tomlin and teir legal argument was tat te
%lainti""5s claim did not come witin te reac o" te establised autorities but
re%resented a new ty%e o" claim& +ord Atkin5s res%onse was tat wile te
decided cases migt eac e.amine %articular ty%es o" liability( tere must be a
common rationale& His +ordsi% stated2
At %resent # content mysel" wit %ointing out tat in *nglis law tere
must be( and is( some general conce%tion o" relations gi$ing rise to a
duty o" care( o" wic te %articular cases "ound in te books are but
instances&C:
His +ordsi% ten went on to com%lete is "amous s%eec wic is te
"oundation o" te modern law o" negligence& #n is a%%roac( we can again note
te s%irit o" stare decisis& +ord Atkin did not ignore te %recedents& #nstead e
"ound witin tem an underlying %rinci%le wic e ten a%%lied& #n a sense(
+ord Atkin looked backward be"ore e mo$ed te law "orward& Furter( is
argument was not based on any assertion tat te %rinci%le e was articulating
was te ne.t logical ste% in te law& #ndeed( an a%%eal to %ure logic is di""icult
because establised %recedents may %re$ent te law "rom de$elo%ing as a
matter o" logical %rogression& +ord Halsbury in >uinn $& LeathenCA stated2
A case is only an autority "or wat it actually decides& # entirely deny
tat it can be !uoted "or a %ro%osition tat may seem to logically
"ollow "rom it& Suc a mode o" reasoning assumes tat te law is
necessarily a logical code( wereas e$ery lawyer must acknowledge
tat te law is not always logical at all&CC
Tus( 0c,lister ("r *"n"ghue) $& )te5ens"n does not o""end te letter or s%irit o" te
doctrine o" stare decisis and %ro$ides a classic e.am%le o" legal reasoning and
legal argument in circumstances were tere was no near %recedent "or te
case&
%onclusion
Tis %a%er as "ocused on one as%ect o" legal reasoning and argument( tat o"
te use o" %recedent& Howe$er( it must be conceded tat stare decisis is only a
%art o" tis to%ic& Tere is muc more& Tere are substanti$e rules "or te
inter%retation o" statutes and tere are s%ecial rules and considerations wen te
statute is a ta. act or a criminal code or a constitutional document& Tere are
s%ecial and o"ten di""icult rules "or te inter%retation o" contracts and
testamentary instruments& Tere are uni!ue considerations wen %rinci%les o" te
law o" e!uity are in$ol$ed and %roblems caused by te e$identiary rules o" onus o"
%roo" or o" rebuttable and irrebuttable %resum%tions& yet( wile te multitude o"
tese rules %ro$ides te lawyer wit a large $ariety o" oter tools and tecni!ues
"or legal reasoning and legal argument( it also as to be conceded tat stare
decisis continues to %lay te %i$otal role&
.ndnotes
6& Gerald +& Gall( $he .anadian Legal )yste!( >nd ed& 7Toronto2 Carswell +egal
1ublications( 68H:; at >>J& Tis te.t includes an e.cellent bibliogra%y on tis
sub-ect including a lengty list o" cases and articles&
>& Te re"erence is to Goodart( 3@etermining te )atio @ecidendi o" a
Case4( -ssays in 'urisprudence and the ."!!"n La 768:6; 6&
:& Glan$ille Williams( Learning the La( 8t ed& 7689:; at E9DEH& See also S&F&
Waddams( 6ntr"ducti"n t" the )tudy "& La( >nd ed& 7Toronto2 Carswell( 68H:; at 6J>D
66H&
A& For e.am%le( Te )t& Hon& +ord @enning( $he *iscipline "& the La 7+ondon2
Butterworts( 6898; at >HCD:6A/ Ben-amin '& CardoBo( $he %ature "& the 'udicial
(r"cess 7'ew Ha$en and +ondon2 Male Lni$ersity 1ress( 68>6; at 8DCJ/ Friedman(
3Stare @ecisis at Common +aw and under te Ci$il Code4 768C:; :6 .an# 3ar
Re5# 9>>/ FacGuigan( 31recedent and 1olicy in te Su%reme Court o" Canada4
768E9; AC .an# 3ar Re5# E>9/ Weiler( 3+egal Nalues and Gudicial @ecision Faking4
7689J; AH .an# 3ar Re5# 6 and Bale( 3Casting ,"" te Fooring )o%es o" Binding
1recedent4 768HJ; CH .an# 3ar Re5# >CC&
C& Te !uote is "rom W&G& Filler( $he *ata "& 'urisprudence( at ::C&
E& See CardoBo( supra( note A at ::D:A&
9& <68::= ,&W&'& 9H: 7C&A&;&
H& 6bid& at 9H:DA&
8& William I& Frankena( -thics( >nd ed& 7*nglewood Cli""s( '&G&2 1renticeDHall #nc&(
689:; at A8&
6J& See @enning( supra( note A at >8>&
66& >: & >A Geo& N( c& C:( s& 69&
6>& 6: Geo& N#( c& :9&
6:& See "or e.am%le( )&S&,& 68>9( c& HH( s& :67>;&
6A& (ractice )tate!ent ('udicial (recedent)( <68EE= 6 W&+&)& 6>:A 7H&+&;&
6C& Re&erence re ,gricultural (r"ducts 0ar4eting ,ct( <689H= > S&C&)& 668H/ ,#:#7#
0anage!ent )cience Ltd# $& 3arell *e5el"p!ents Ltd&( <6898= > S&C&)& A:/ 0in# "& 6ndian
,&&airs = %"rthern *e5# $& Ran5ille768H>;( 6A6 @&+&)& 7:d; C99 7S&C&C&;( re$5g 768HJ;(
66C @&+&)& 7:d; C6> 7,nt& C&A&; wic a""5d 768HJ;( 6J9 @&+&)& 7:d; E:> 7,nt& S&C&;&
6E& See Bale( supra( note A at >EJ&
69& 1"l& $& $he >ueen 7689A;( A9 @&+&)& 7:d; 9A6 7S&C&C&;&
6H& Re 1ard 7689C;( C ,&)& 7>d; :C 7@i$& Ct&;&
68& 1"l& $& $he >ueen( supra( "ootnote 8&
>J& R# $& -a4ins( <68A:= ,&)& 688 7C&A&;/ R# $& 0c6nnis 7689:;( 6 ,&)& 7>d; 6 7C&A&;/ Re
+ardy $rust( <68CC= C @&+&)& 6J 7,nt& C&A&;/ R# $& 7"dedar"5 7689A;( : ,&)& 7>d; >:
7C&A&;/ -/ parte (ic4ett 7689E;( 6> ,&)& 7>d; 68C 7C&A&;&
>6& See Gall( supra( note 6 at >>E( and autorities tere cited&
>>& Re .anada $e!perance ,ct: Re ."ns"lidated Rule "& (ractice( <68:8= ,&)& C9J( a""5d 7sub#
n"!# ,#7# Ont# $& .an# $e!perance 2ederati"n; <68AE= A&C& 68: 71&C&;/ R $& 0"rris( <68A>=
,&W&'& AA9&
>:& 3edard $& 6saac( <689>= > ,&)& :86& )e$5d on oter grounds 7sub#n"!#
6ssac $& 3edard; :H @&+&)& 7:d; AH6/ Re ."!!"nealth "& :irginia and ."hen (%"# 2) 7689:;( 6
,&)& 7>d; >E>/ R# $& 7uertin( <6896= > ,&)& CJC 7Co& Ct&;/ R# $& 3eaney( <68E8= > ,&)&
96 7Co& Ct&;/ %"rris $& +a!ilt"n( <68A:= ,&W&'& CEE/ ?er"/ .an# 6nc# $& %eary 768HA;( A:
C&1&C& >9A 7,nt& 1ro$& Ct&;&
>A& R# $& %"r# -lec# ."#( <68CC= ,&)& A:6/ R# $& 7r"5es 76899;( 69 ,&)& 7>d; EC&
>C& See R# $& %"r# -lec# ."#( supra( note >C and )ule >>( Ontari" Rules "& .i5il
(r"cedure and "ormerly s& :A( 'udicature ,ct( )&S&,& 68HJ( c& >>:&
>E& 0asse $& *ietrich( <6896= : ,&)& :C8&
>9& <68CC= ,&)& A:6&
>H& +aw Society o" L%%er Canada( (r"&essi"nal ."nduct +andb""4( )ule H(
Commentary 67; and autorities tere cited&
>8& <689A= S&C&)& 66H8&
:J& 768HC;( 6C @&+&)& 7At; 6:> 7S&C&C&;&
:6& 6bid# at 6:8&
:>& Landre5ille $& 7"uin 76HHA;( E ,&)& ACC&
::& R# $& )ellars( <68HJ= 6 S&C&)& C>9/ Ottaa $& %epean( <68A:= : @&+&)& HJ> 7,nt&
C&A&;/ Re 0c8ibb"n and R# 768H6;( :A ,&)& 7>d; 6HC( a""5d :C ,&)& 7>d; 6>A a""5d on
oter grounds 7sub n"!# R# $& 0c8ibb"n( <68HA= 6 S&C&)&
6::/ 1"l"s;cu4 $& Onys;c;a4 7689E;( 6 C&1&C& 6>8 7,nt&;&
:A& )tuart $& 3an4 "& 0"ntreal 768J8;( A6 S&C&)& C6E( re$5g 69 ,&+&)& A:E( a""5d <6866=
A&C& 6>J 71&C&;/ E.#-#*# (Ont# 3rd) Courts( %ara& :H8&
:C& <68HA= C W&W&)& 6 7S&C&C&;&
:E& <68HA= > W&+&)& 8C: 7H&+&;&
:9& <689H= A&C& 9>H 7H&+&;&
:H& Te law in Canada may be di""erent& See an article by te writer %ublised in
te ,d5"cates@ >uarterly2 3Common +aw 'egligence and te +iability o" Go$ernments
and 1ublic Autorities4&
:8& 7689E;( EC @&+&)& 6 7S&C&C&;&
AJ& <68E:= > All *&)& C9C&
A6& <6H8A= A&C& C:C( and see te discussion in Friedman( supra( note A at 9:ED9:9&
A>& <6H8A= A&C& C:C at CC:&
A:& 76H9E;( AJ L&C&O&B& 6AE&
AA& <68A:= ,&)& AJE&
AC& <689>= > ,&)& EA&
AE& 6bid& at E8&
A9& 768>J;( A9 ,&+&)& :C8&
AH& 768CH;( 6: @&+&)& 7>d; EJC&
A8& 6bid& at EJH&
CJ& .anadian .harter "& Rights and 2reed"!s, 1art # o" te ."nstituti"n ,ct, 1982( being
Scedule B o" te.anada ,ct 1982 7L&I&;( 68H>( c& 66( s& 6&
C6& <6866= A&C& :J6 71&C&;&
C>& <68:>= A&C& CE> 7H&+&;&
C:& 6bid# at CHJ&
CA& <68J6= A&C& A8C 7H&+&;&
CC& 6bid# at CJE&
Lse"ul +inksCan+## Westlaw Canada Ouicklaw Federal legislation BC
legislation ,ntario legislation Courtouse +ibraries BC LBC +ibrary C+* Society o"
BC AccessC+* +aw Society o" BC +egaltree&ca SCC Gudgments SCC Case
#n"ormation BC Su%erior Courts BA#+## ALST+## +awCite Find+aw
Gum% to&&&
#ntroduction
Te doctrine o" stare decisis
Stare decisis and te ierarcy o" te courts
+egal argument wen tere is a %recedent
+egal argument wen tere is no binding %recedent
Conclusion
*ndnotes
#n tis section
Ti%s & resources "or legal writing
1re%aring a legal memorandum
Sam%le memorandum o" law
Stare decisis and tecni!ues o" legal reasoning and legal argument
+egal citation
Citation linking so"tware
Step-by-Step Legal Research Process
Get el% at eac stage o" te legal researc %rocess&
)tart pr"cess A
Co%yrigt P >J6A Caterine Best& All )igts )eser$ed&
@isclaimer
Terms o" Lse
Site Fa%