The case that will be examined in this case analysis is Baker v. Canada. It is a case about a mother, Mavis Baker. Ms. Baker overstayed her visa in Canada. After supporting herself illegally for eleven years, she was ordered deported. She asked to be exempt from the law based upon other circumstances. This case will be analyzed from the theoretical perspective of a legal positivist; conclusions will be made by viewing the case through this perspective. This perspective essentially sees law as being independent of the state and existing on its own terms. To be more specific, it is a way of thinking that posits no necessary connection between law and extra-legal disciplines such as morality, politics and economics. This analysis will explain
…show more content…
The analysis begins by explaining the case from the legal positivist perspective. The appellant, Mavis Baker, an illegal immigrant living in Canada for eleven years, was ordered deported. Ms. Baker had four Canadian born-dependent children. She required medical treatment for her post-partum psychosis and paranoid schizophrenia. Ms. Baker applied to be exempt from the requirement that permanent residence applications must be made from outside Canada. Her reasoning for this was based upon humanitarian and compassionate considerations under s.114(2) of the Immigration Act. Ms. Baker argued this through the use of supporting letters that there would be inadequate medical treatment in her country of origin and that both she and her children would experience emotional hardship upon her departure. Reviewing officer, Officer Caden, dismissed the application claiming that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate reasons. Simpson J of the Federal Court – Trial Division then dismissed the application for judicial review, but certified a question under s.83(1) of the Immigration Act concerning the extent to which the best interests of a Canadian child need to be taken into account …show more content…
Canada case in a way in which the facts are stated accurately. However, there is the possibility that a legal positivist would also explain this case in a more biased manner by considering Ms. Baker’s arguments as extraneous. By understanding how this perspective would approach this case, the connection between morality and the law can be found in the ratio, and the significance of procedural fairness can be seen as articulated through the basic rule or principle in the case. A legal positivist would agree with a majority of the courts’ assessments, except the Supreme Court of Canada’s assessment; however, the assessment of a legal positivist could also be considered as incorrect. Yet, if the legal positivist were to look at this case through a slightly different view, they would agree with the Supreme Court’s assessment and be considered correct. Analyzing a case through a different perspective not only furthers the understanding of that theoretical perspective, but provides a refreshing outlook on the legal principles of the
The analysis begins by explaining the case from the legal positivist perspective. The appellant, Mavis Baker, an illegal immigrant living in Canada for eleven years, was ordered deported. Ms. Baker had four Canadian born-dependent children. She required medical treatment for her post-partum psychosis and paranoid schizophrenia. Ms. Baker applied to be exempt from the requirement that permanent residence applications must be made from outside Canada. Her reasoning for this was based upon humanitarian and compassionate considerations under s.114(2) of the Immigration Act. Ms. Baker argued this through the use of supporting letters that there would be inadequate medical treatment in her country of origin and that both she and her children would experience emotional hardship upon her departure. Reviewing officer, Officer Caden, dismissed the application claiming that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate reasons. Simpson J of the Federal Court – Trial Division then dismissed the application for judicial review, but certified a question under s.83(1) of the Immigration Act concerning the extent to which the best interests of a Canadian child need to be taken into account …show more content…
Canada case in a way in which the facts are stated accurately. However, there is the possibility that a legal positivist would also explain this case in a more biased manner by considering Ms. Baker’s arguments as extraneous. By understanding how this perspective would approach this case, the connection between morality and the law can be found in the ratio, and the significance of procedural fairness can be seen as articulated through the basic rule or principle in the case. A legal positivist would agree with a majority of the courts’ assessments, except the Supreme Court of Canada’s assessment; however, the assessment of a legal positivist could also be considered as incorrect. Yet, if the legal positivist were to look at this case through a slightly different view, they would agree with the Supreme Court’s assessment and be considered correct. Analyzing a case through a different perspective not only furthers the understanding of that theoretical perspective, but provides a refreshing outlook on the legal principles of the