Student Handout 3.1 - The Difference Between Civil Law and ...

Student Handout 3.1 - The Difference Between Civil Law and
Criminal Law
When is a legal problem criminal and when is it civil? What difference does it make whether it is criminal or civil?
One way of looking at criminal law is that it is dealing with something of public interest. For example, the public
has an interest in seeing that people are protected from being robbed or assaulted. These are legal problems
that fall into the criminal law.
Criminal law involves punishing and rehabilitating offenders, and protecting society. Since the public has an
interest in having criminal law, we give the government the power to put it in place and enforce it. The police and
Crown Prosecutors are hired by the government to put the criminal law into effect. Public funds are used to pay
for these services.
lf you are the victim of a crime, you report it to the police and they have the responsibility to investigate. They
arrestandchargethesuspect. Inmostcases,ifachargehasbeenproperlylaidandifthereisevidence
supporting it, the Crown Prosecutor, not the person who complains of the incident, prosecutes it in the courts.
This is called a system of public prosecutions. Long ago the person who had been wronged prosecuted the case.
The power to prosecute privately remains, but is used rarely now. Even lf a person starts a prosecution privately,
the Attorney General has the power to take over the prosecution of the case. As a victim, you do not have to be
responsibleforenforcingthelaw. ThepoliceandCrownProsecutordotheirjobsforthepublicatlarge,notfor
you personally.
In a criminal case, the Crown prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." This
means that at the end of a trial the judge or jury can only find the defendant guilty if they are left without a
reasonable doubt about the defendant's quilt. In other words. there is no loqical or rational reason to doubt the
defendant's guilt.
This is not the case in civil law. Civil law is about private disputes between individuals or between individuals and
organizations, Civil matters include areas such as contract law, family law, tort law, property law and labour law.
The person suing for a wrong has the burden of proving their case on a "balance of probabilities." This means
that a judge or jury must believe their story and evidence more than the defendant's version. They do not need to
be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil disputes usually involve some harm, loss or injury to one party or their property. Unlike criminal law,
however, civil law is primarily involved with compensating victims. lf a civil action is successful, the defendant will
be responsible for the wrongful action. While a defendant in a criminal case may be found "guilty" or "not guilty," a
defendant in a civil case is said to be "liable" or "not liable" for damages.
lf you have a civil law problem, you have to take action yourself if you want to get a legal remedy. You can hire a
private lawyer, and you will have to pay the expenses of pursuing the matter. For example, if you hire someone
to paint your house and they do a poor job, it is a dispute between you and the painter. The police do not get
involved. lf you want to sue the painter for breach of contract, it is your responsibility to do so.
Sometimes criminal law is referred to as part of our public law because it applies to all Canadians and regulates
relationships within our society. Similarly, civil law is sometimes referred to as private law because it regulates
private relationships between individuals in our society.
(Source: Public Legal Education Association of Saskatchewan. October 20,2000. Reprinted with Permission.)
146

Student Handout 3.6 - Poirier v. Murphy Gase Study
The Facts
Peter Poirier and John Murphy, both 18 years of age, agreed to carry out a "stunt." The stunt was performed in
an underground parking garage. Peter stood underneath a water sprinkler pipe. After Peter nodded, John began
driving his car from about 100 feet away and, at the last moment, Peter would jump up, grab the pipe, do a chinup,
swerve his hips and legs to one side and clear the car. Drinking was not involved. The stunt was performed
as a form of amusement for Peter and John, and a group of their friends who were in the car with them.
The stunt was performed safely a first time, but the second time Peter was not prepared for it. Peter was hit by
the car and injured. He became unconscious, suffered a brain injury, and underwent lasting personality and
emotional changes.
Questions to Consider
1. Did Peter knowingly assume the risk of harm when he agreed to carry out the stunt?
2. Was John negligent? Did he fail to take proper care to avoid harm to Peter?
3. Did Peter contribute to his own injuries by not taking reasonable care of himself?
4. How would you decide the case and why?
The Judge's Decision
The judge held that Peter had given up his right to sue for negligence the first time the stunt was performed,
because he willingly assumed the risk of harm. The second performance of the stunt was different because Peter
was not ready to perform the stunt. Peter did not assume a risk until he nodded his approval, and he did not do
so for the second run.
Both Peter and John were negligent. John was negligent because he owed a duty as the driver of the car to take
care. He should have realized that Peter was not ready for the second stunt. John was 2/3 at fault.
Peter was also partly responsible for his own injuries. He was negligent in agreeing to do the stunt and in not
removing himself from the risk of harm before the second stunt. Peter was 'l13 at fault.
(Source: Public Legal Education Association of Saskatchewan. Reprinted with permission.)
160