Not all material is created equal. Focus your efforts on key areas that your professor emphasized or that have been tested in the past. Also, pay attention to the gray areas of the law where there might be differing opinions or rules. This targeted approach makes your study time more efficient.
Outlines & Studying
- Home
- Outlines & Studying
Contact Me
(250) 686-1194
Intro
Creating a thorough, concise outline is a key skill in law school. This guide aims to provide you with a comprehensive approach to outlining Canadian case law in a concise way.
Key Principles – CRANE
- C: Continual – Keep revising and updating your outline as you learn more and as legal landscapes change.
- R: Relevant – Prioritize the most important rules, cases, and interpretations, avoiding unnecessary details. Don’t be redundant. Don’t be redundant.
- A: Active – Use your outline for self-quizzing, discussions, and applying to hypothetical scenarios.
- N: News – Link legal principles to current events or societal issues for better engagement and retention.
- E: Essential – Structure your outline around a framework of key legal rules and concepts rather than just listing cases.
Build your outline with a CRANE
| Principle | Outline Application | Example Case |
|---|---|---|
| C: Continual | Update with new cases like Mustapha to reflect evolving concepts like “foreseeable harm.” | Mustapha v. Culligan |
| R: Relevant | Highlight landmark cases like Donoghue; omit or summarize lesser cases. | Donoghue v. Stevenson |
| A: Active | Use for self-quizzing and peer discussions on topics like “false imprisonment.” | Whitfield v. City of Toronto |
| N: News | Relate “duty of care” to current events, e.g., healthcare during COVID-19. | Ter Neuzen v. Korn |
| E: Essential | Structure around key principles like “Duty of Care” and “Causation,” using cases for support. | Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth; Snell v. Farrell |
CRANE for building your outline.
Step-by-Step Guide
STEP ONE: REVIEW THE SYLLABUS
Begin by understanding the course’s structure through your syllabus. This will provide you with an overarching view of the key topics. I suggest mind-mapping the basic concepts so that you have an active role in setting the outline. The way you spatially organize concepts might be different than your professor’s take. When you take ownership of the process, it becomes more meaningful and therefore easier to remember.
Here’s a few example mind map outlines*:
*shared here only to demonstrate the process of mapping an outline. Not claiming to be comprehensive or accurate.
STEP TWO: ADD RULES
For example, let’s consider the legal rule related to “Negligence” in Canadian Tort Law: A person is negligent if they owe a duty of care and breach that duty, causing harm.
STEP THREE: ANALYZE RULES
Break down the rule into its component parts:
- Owing a duty of care
- Breach of that duty
- Causation
- Harm
Using a funny mnemonic like “Don’t Be a Clumsy Hippo” to remember the elements of a tort in Canadian law—”Duty, Breach, Causation, Harm”—makes the information more vivid and easier to recall.
STEP FOUR: INTEGRATE CASE LAW, MEMORABLY.
Humor enhances memory retention by grabbing attention, eliciting emotional engagement, and cutting through the stress of learning. It adds a layer of novelty and encourages social sharing, both of which reinforce memory.
For instance,
- Donoghue v Stevenson: Mnemonic – “Don’t you neg me steve, I need someone who cares”. This case established the modern concept of negligence, emphasizing the duty of care. Imagine a very lame attempt by someone named steve to pick someone up and Steve gets rejected.
- Hedley Byrne v Heller: Mnemonic – “Hedley Lamar cares about money”. This case expanded the concept of duty of care to include financial and economic loss. Imagine Heldey Lamar, the antagonist from Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles, chasing the protagonist with bags of money.
- Rankin v JJ: Mnemonic – “That butt is rank“. This case is foundational for the “but-for” test in causation. Imagine a… very stinky behind.
- Childs v Desormeaux: Mnemonic – “Child’s play”. This case clarified that social hosts do not owe a duty of care to third-party victims of their intoxicated guests. Imagine a dinner party where toddlers serve wine. Too cute to be held accountable.
- Mustapha v Culligan: Mnemonic – “Mufasa“. This case dealt with psychological harm and its compensability under negligence law. Imagine the Lion King protagonist Mufasa watching his father perish. Emotional damage!
Step Five:
Counterfactuals/hypotheticals
- Hypo 1: A skydiving instructor fails to properly secure a student’s parachute, leading to a fatal accident. Is the instructor negligent?
- Answer: Yes, the instructor is likely negligent. The instructor has a clear duty of care to ensure the safety of the student, and by failing to properly secure the parachute, they have breached that duty. The breach directly led to the fatal accident, satisfying the causation and harm elements of negligence.
- Hypo 2: A surgeon leaves a surgical instrument inside a patient during an operation. The patient later suffers severe complications. Is the surgeon negligent?
- Answer: Yes, the surgeon would likely be found negligent. Medical professionals have a duty of care towards their patients. Leaving a surgical instrument inside a patient is a clear breach of that duty and standard of care. The breach led to severe complications, establishing causation and harm.
- Hypo 3: A hiker hears cries for help from someone who has fallen into a ravine but decides not to assist or call for help. The person in the ravine later dies. Is the hiker negligent?
- Answer: No, under Canadian law, there is generally no legal duty to rescue strangers. While morally questionable, the hiker’s decision not to assist would likely not be considered negligent in a legal sense, unless specific circumstances created a duty to act (e.g., the hiker had special skills or had contributed to the person’s peril).
- Hypo 4: A coffee shop owner mops the floor but doesn’t put up a “Wet Floor” sign. A customer slips but doesn’t suffer any injuries. Is the owner negligent?
- Answer: This is less clear-cut. While the owner has a duty of care to provide a safe environment and arguably breached it by not putting up a sign, the lack of injury to the customer means there’s no harm. Negligence generally requires harm, so the owner might not be found negligent in this case.
STEP SIX: HIGHLIGHT AMBIGUITIES
Point out any contradictions, nuance, or minority views in the law. These areas are often tested in exams.
| Ambiguity in Negligence Law | On one hand… | …on the other hand | Example Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes a “reasonable person”? | Professional context: higher standard due to specialized skills. | Everyday context: average person’s standard. | Ter Neuzen v. Korn |
| Apportionment of liability in contributory negligence | Plaintiff’s negligence is minor, defendant bears almost all liability. | Plaintiff significantly contributes to their own harm, reducing defendant’s liability. | Snushall v. Fulsang |
| Ambiguity in Duty of Care | Social hosts generally not liable for actions of adult guests. | Social hosts may be liable if they actively create a risk or exacerbate an existing one. | Childs v. Desormeaux |
| Ambiguity in Causation | “But-for” test straightforward in single-cause scenarios. | “But-for” test complicated in multi-factorial scenarios. | Rankin v. JJ |
| Ambiguity in Harm | Physical harm easily quantifiable and compensable. | Psychological harm less clear-cut, evolving standards for what is compensable. | Mustapha v. Culligan |
Tips for Conciseness
- Use Bullet Points: They are easier to skim than long paragraphs.
- Abbreviate Common Terms: For example, use “D of C” for “Duty of Care.” See my guide to note-taking for other tips on abbreviation.
- Use Tables or Charts: For comparing cases or listing elements of a rule. For example:
| Hypothetical | Duty of Care | Breach of Duty | Causation | Harm | Is it Negligence? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skydiving Instructor | Yes, to ensure student safety | Yes, failed to secure parachute | Yes, led to fatal accident | Yes, death | Yes | Clear-cut case |
| Surgeon | Yes, to patient | Yes, left instrument inside | Yes, led to complications | Yes, severe complications | Yes | Clear-cut case |
| Hiker | No, no legal duty to rescue | N/A | N/A | Yes, death | No | No duty to act, so not negligent |
| Coffee Shop Owner | Yes, to provide safe environment | Yes, no “Wet Floor” sign | Yes, customer slipped | No, no injury | No | Lack of harm makes it less clear-cut |
Example outline
NEGLIGENCE
A. Duty of Care: The defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff.
- Donoghue v. Stevenson: Established the “neighbour principle,” which forms the basis for the duty of care in Canadian negligence law. A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the consumer.
B. Standard of Care:
- Rule:
a) The defendant must act as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances.
b) The standard may vary depending on the defendant’s profession or expertise. - Hypo: If a professional skier collides with a beginner on the slopes, would the professional skier be held to a higher standard of care? Yes, due to their expertise.
C. Causation:
- Rule:
a) The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s breach of duty directly caused the harm.
b) “But for” test is commonly used. - Case: Clements v. Clements: Established the “material contribution test” as an exception to the “but for” test in cases where multiple factors could have caused the harm.
D. Damages:
- Rule:
a) The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm or loss.
b) Damages must be foreseeable. - Case: Mustapha v. Culligan: Mental distress damages must be foreseeable and must meet a certain threshold of seriousness.
E. Defences:
- Contributory Negligence:
a) The plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to their harm. - Voluntary Assumption of Risk:
a) The plaintiff knowingly assumed the risks involved. Hypo: If a rock climber ignores clear warning signs and gets injured, can they successfully sue the park for negligence? Likely no, due to the voluntary assumption of risk.
F. Ambiguities:
- What constitutes a “reasonable person” in varying contexts?
- How to apportion liability in cases of contributory negligence?
- The threshold for mental distress damages.
Study tips
You can’t avoid it: a good student STUDIES. But at least you can make a cool acrostic poem out of it.
S – Sharpen
T – Timer
U – Unpack
D – Deepen
I – Insight
E – Energize
S – Strategize
Sharpen
Before diving into your study session, make sure you’re in the right mindset. Get a good night’s sleep, eat a balanced meal, and engage in some light exercise if possible. These steps will help you focus better when you start studying.
Timer
Don’t aim for marathon study sessions; they’re counterproductive. Instead, set a timer for 45 minutes and dedicate that time solely to studying. Once the timer goes off, take a short break to recharge.
Unpack
If your outline is extensive, don’t try to tackle it all at once. Break it down into smaller sections—say, five to ten pages—and master those before moving on to the next section. This approach makes the material more manageable and less overwhelming.
Deepen
Active engagement is key. Don’t just passively read your outlines. Quiz yourself on the material, discuss it with peers, or apply it to hypothetical scenarios. This deepens your understanding and helps with retention.
Insight
Understanding the rationale behind a rule or concept can significantly aid in memorization. If you’re stuck on a particular point, don’t hesitate to seek external resources or consult with peers or tutors. The deeper your understanding, the easier it will be to remember.
Energize
Once your timer goes off, take a short break. Step away from your study space, grab a snack, or take a quick walk. These breaks give your brain a chance to process what you’ve learned and will make your next study session more effective.
Strategize
Intro
Creating a thorough, concise outline is a key skill in law school. This guide aims to provide you with a comprehensive approach to outlining Canadian case law in a concise way.
Key Principles – CRANE
- C: Continual – Keep revising and updating your outline as you learn more and as legal landscapes change.
- R: Relevant – Prioritize the most important rules, cases, and interpretations, avoiding unnecessary details. Don’t be redundant. Don’t be redundant.
- A: Active – Use your outline for self-quizzing, discussions, and applying to hypothetical scenarios.
- N: News – Link legal principles to current events or societal issues for better engagement and retention.
- E: Essential – Structure your outline around a framework of key legal rules and concepts rather than just listing cases.
Build your outline with a CRANE
| Principle | Outline Application | Example Case |
|---|---|---|
| C: Continual | Update with new cases like Mustapha to reflect evolving concepts like “foreseeable harm.” | Mustapha v. Culligan |
| R: Relevant | Highlight landmark cases like Donoghue; omit or summarize lesser cases. | Donoghue v. Stevenson |
| A: Active | Use for self-quizzing and peer discussions on topics like “false imprisonment.” | Whitfield v. City of Toronto |
| N: News | Relate “duty of care” to current events, e.g., healthcare during COVID-19. | Ter Neuzen v. Korn |
| E: Essential | Structure around key principles like “Duty of Care” and “Causation,” using cases for support. | Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth; Snell v. Farrell |
CRANE for building your outline.
Step-by-Step Guide
STEP ONE: REVIEW THE SYLLABUS
Begin by understanding the course’s structure through your syllabus. This will provide you with an overarching view of the key topics. I suggest mind-mapping the basic concepts so that you have an active role in setting the outline. The way you spatially organize concepts might be different than your professor’s take. When you take ownership of the process, it becomes more meaningful and therefore easier to remember.
Here’s a few example mind map outlines*:
*shared here only to demonstrate the process of mapping an outline. Not claiming to be comprehensive or accurate.
STEP TWO: ADD RULES
For example, let’s consider the legal rule related to “Negligence” in Canadian Tort Law: A person is negligent if they owe a duty of care and breach that duty, causing harm.
STEP THREE: ANALYZE RULES
Break down the rule into its component parts:
- Owing a duty of care
- Breach of that duty
- Causation
- Harm
Using a funny mnemonic like “Don’t Be a Clumsy Hippo” to remember the elements of a tort in Canadian law—”Duty, Breach, Causation, Harm”—makes the information more vivid and easier to recall.
STEP FOUR: INTEGRATE CASE LAW, MEMORABLY.
Humor enhances memory retention by grabbing attention, eliciting emotional engagement, and cutting through the stress of learning. It adds a layer of novelty and encourages social sharing, both of which reinforce memory.
For instance,
- Donoghue v Stevenson: Mnemonic – “Don’t you neg me steve, I need someone who cares”. This case established the modern concept of negligence, emphasizing the duty of care. Imagine a very lame attempt by someone named steve to pick someone up and Steve gets rejected.
- Hedley Byrne v Heller: Mnemonic – “Hedley Lamar cares about money”. This case expanded the concept of duty of care to include financial and economic loss. Imagine Heldey Lamar, the antagonist from Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles, chasing the protagonist with bags of money.
- Rankin v JJ: Mnemonic – “That butt is rank“. This case is foundational for the “but-for” test in causation. Imagine a… very stinky behind.
- Childs v Desormeaux: Mnemonic – “Child’s play”. This case clarified that social hosts do not owe a duty of care to third-party victims of their intoxicated guests. Imagine a dinner party where toddlers serve wine. Too cute to be held accountable.
- Mustapha v Culligan: Mnemonic – “Mufasa“. This case dealt with psychological harm and its compensability under negligence law. Imagine the Lion King protagonist Mufasa watching his father perish. Emotional damage!
Step Five:
Counterfactuals/hypotheticals
- Hypo 1: A skydiving instructor fails to properly secure a student’s parachute, leading to a fatal accident. Is the instructor negligent?
- Answer: Yes, the instructor is likely negligent. The instructor has a clear duty of care to ensure the safety of the student, and by failing to properly secure the parachute, they have breached that duty. The breach directly led to the fatal accident, satisfying the causation and harm elements of negligence.
- Hypo 2: A surgeon leaves a surgical instrument inside a patient during an operation. The patient later suffers severe complications. Is the surgeon negligent?
- Answer: Yes, the surgeon would likely be found negligent. Medical professionals have a duty of care towards their patients. Leaving a surgical instrument inside a patient is a clear breach of that duty and standard of care. The breach led to severe complications, establishing causation and harm.
- Hypo 3: A hiker hears cries for help from someone who has fallen into a ravine but decides not to assist or call for help. The person in the ravine later dies. Is the hiker negligent?
- Answer: No, under Canadian law, there is generally no legal duty to rescue strangers. While morally questionable, the hiker’s decision not to assist would likely not be considered negligent in a legal sense, unless specific circumstances created a duty to act (e.g., the hiker had special skills or had contributed to the person’s peril).
- Hypo 4: A coffee shop owner mops the floor but doesn’t put up a “Wet Floor” sign. A customer slips but doesn’t suffer any injuries. Is the owner negligent?
- Answer: This is less clear-cut. While the owner has a duty of care to provide a safe environment and arguably breached it by not putting up a sign, the lack of injury to the customer means there’s no harm. Negligence generally requires harm, so the owner might not be found negligent in this case.
STEP SIX: HIGHLIGHT AMBIGUITIES
Point out any contradictions, nuance, or minority views in the law. These areas are often tested in exams.
| Ambiguity in Negligence Law | On one hand… | …on the other hand | Example Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes a “reasonable person”? | Professional context: higher standard due to specialized skills. | Everyday context: average person’s standard. | Ter Neuzen v. Korn |
| Apportionment of liability in contributory negligence | Plaintiff’s negligence is minor, defendant bears almost all liability. | Plaintiff significantly contributes to their own harm, reducing defendant’s liability. | Snushall v. Fulsang |
| Ambiguity in Duty of Care | Social hosts generally not liable for actions of adult guests. | Social hosts may be liable if they actively create a risk or exacerbate an existing one. | Childs v. Desormeaux |
| Ambiguity in Causation | “But-for” test straightforward in single-cause scenarios. | “But-for” test complicated in multi-factorial scenarios. | Rankin v. JJ |
| Ambiguity in Harm | Physical harm easily quantifiable and compensable. | Psychological harm less clear-cut, evolving standards for what is compensable. | Mustapha v. Culligan |
Tips for Conciseness
- Use Bullet Points: They are easier to skim than long paragraphs.
- Abbreviate Common Terms: For example, use “D of C” for “Duty of Care.” See my guide to note-taking for other tips on abbreviation.
- Use Tables or Charts: For comparing cases or listing elements of a rule. For example:
| Hypothetical | Duty of Care | Breach of Duty | Causation | Harm | Is it Negligence? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skydiving Instructor | Yes, to ensure student safety | Yes, failed to secure parachute | Yes, led to fatal accident | Yes, death | Yes | Clear-cut case |
| Surgeon | Yes, to patient | Yes, left instrument inside | Yes, led to complications | Yes, severe complications | Yes | Clear-cut case |
| Hiker | No, no legal duty to rescue | N/A | N/A | Yes, death | No | No duty to act, so not negligent |
| Coffee Shop Owner | Yes, to provide safe environment | Yes, no “Wet Floor” sign | Yes, customer slipped | No, no injury | No | Lack of harm makes it less clear-cut |
Example outline
NEGLIGENCE
A. Duty of Care: The defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff.
- Donoghue v. Stevenson: Established the “neighbour principle,” which forms the basis for the duty of care in Canadian negligence law. A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the consumer.
B. Standard of Care:
- Rule:
a) The defendant must act as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances.
b) The standard may vary depending on the defendant’s profession or expertise. - Hypo: If a professional skier collides with a beginner on the slopes, would the professional skier be held to a higher standard of care? Yes, due to their expertise.
C. Causation:
- Rule:
a) The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s breach of duty directly caused the harm.
b) “But for” test is commonly used. - Case: Clements v. Clements: Established the “material contribution test” as an exception to the “but for” test in cases where multiple factors could have caused the harm.
D. Damages:
- Rule:
a) The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm or loss.
b) Damages must be foreseeable. - Case: Mustapha v. Culligan: Mental distress damages must be foreseeable and must meet a certain threshold of seriousness.
E. Defences:
- Contributory Negligence:
a) The plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to their harm. - Voluntary Assumption of Risk:
a) The plaintiff knowingly assumed the risks involved. Hypo: If a rock climber ignores clear warning signs and gets injured, can they successfully sue the park for negligence? Likely no, due to the voluntary assumption of risk.
F. Ambiguities:
- What constitutes a “reasonable person” in varying contexts?
- How to apportion liability in cases of contributory negligence?
- The threshold for mental distress damages.
Study tips
You can’t avoid it: a good student STUDIES. But at least you can make a cool acrostic poem out of it.
S – Sharpen
T – Timer
U – Unpack
D – Deepen
I – Insight
E – Energize
S – Strategize
Sharpen
Before diving into your study session, make sure you’re in the right mindset. Get a good night’s sleep, eat a balanced meal, and engage in some light exercise if possible. These steps will help you focus better when you start studying.
Timer
Don’t aim for marathon study sessions; they’re counterproductive. Instead, set a timer for 45 minutes and dedicate that time solely to studying. Once the timer goes off, take a short break to recharge.
Unpack
If your outline is extensive, don’t try to tackle it all at once. Break it down into smaller sections—say, five to ten pages—and master those before moving on to the next section. This approach makes the material more manageable and less overwhelming.
Deepen
Active engagement is key. Don’t just passively read your outlines. Quiz yourself on the material, discuss it with peers, or apply it to hypothetical scenarios. This deepens your understanding and helps with retention.
Insight
Understanding the rationale behind a rule or concept can significantly aid in memorization. If you’re stuck on a particular point, don’t hesitate to seek external resources or consult with peers or tutors. The deeper your understanding, the easier it will be to remember.
Energize
Once your timer goes off, take a short break. Step away from your study space, grab a snack, or take a quick walk. These breaks give your brain a chance to process what you’ve learned and will make your next study session more effective.
Strategize
Not all material is created equal. Focus your efforts on key areas that your professor emphasized or that have been tested in the past. Also, pay attention to the gray areas of the law where there might be differing opinions or rules. This targeted approach makes your study time more efficient.
