This article was last updated on April 16, 2022
Canada: 
Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
USA: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
A Supreme Court ruling announced this morning that judges are allowed to include material that they didn’t write themselves directly into their judgments, in case it applies diligently to the issues in the case. The highest Canadian court partially upheld the $4-million award in a medical malpractice lawsuit, declaring that the trial judge was not at fault in reasoning only by including large portions of the plaintiff’s written arguments into his judgment.
At the same time, the court did found that some of the judge’s precise conclusions were faulty, including the liability of various doctors and nurses present at a birthing emergency that resulted in serious injuries to a newborn. The highly scandalous case gathered an insistent response to a fundamentally arguable issue in the legal world, i.e. copying of the material from another source into the decisions. The lead lawyer for the Cojocaru family, Dan Shugerman, mentioned after the ruling was announced on Friday that the concept of plagiarism in judicial writing doesn’t exist. He alleged that “the chief justice of our Supreme Court of Canada this morning said in that decision that what you could discern from this judgment was that Justice Groves did in fact exercise independent thought.”
Mother of the victim in the case, Monica Cojocar, mentioned after hearing the decision that “seeing him suffering and seeing him having so many troubles at school trying to make friends — in every aspect of the life he suffered and every time a child suffers, I think the mother suffers 100 times more.”
Be the first to comment