Written Communication and Grammar Flashcards

A sergeant reviews a constable's use-of-force report containing this sentence: 'Neither the subject's verbal threats nor his aggressive posturing were sufficient, in and of themselves, to justify the level of force that was ultimately applied.' Which grammatical element makes this sentence the most defensible in a legal context?

Answer: The parenthetical phrase 'in and of themselves' functions as a concessive qualifier that limits the evidentiary scope of each factor individually without negating their cumulative weight

The phrase 'in and of themselves' is a concessive qualifier that legally distinguishes between the isolated weight of each factor and their combined evidentiary value. This is critical in use-of-force documentation because it allows testimony that neither factor alone met the threshold while preserving the argument that together they did. The other options contain errors: the verb should agree with the nearer subject (singular 'posturing' → 'was'), passive voice in police reports is generally discouraged for accountability, and 'sufficient' is an absolute adjective, not comparative.

An officer writes: 'The complainant alleged that the respondent had threatened her on three separate occasions, each of which she had documented contemporaneously.' A Crown attorney flags the sentence for a latent ambiguity. What is the most precise identification of that ambiguity?

Answer: The word 'contemporaneously' is ambiguous as to whether the documentation occurred simultaneously with the threats or merely during the same general time period

'Contemporaneously' technically means 'at the same time,' but in evidentiary contexts it is sometimes used loosely to mean 'shortly afterward' or 'during the same period.' This creates a latent ambiguity: if 'contemporaneous' is interpreted strictly, it means the complainant documented events as they happened (real-time notes), which carries higher evidentiary weight. If interpreted loosely, it may only mean she wrote things down during the same general timeframe, which is less probative. A Crown attorney would need to clarify this distinction for a voir dire on the admissibility of those records. The pronoun 'which' unambiguously refers to 'occasions' (the nearest appropriate antecedent), the past perfect is correctly used here, and 'separate' adds non-redundant clarification.

Which of the following sentences from an officer's occurrence report contains a dangling modifier that could materially undermine its evidentiary value?

Answer: 'Fleeing eastbound on King Street, the suspect's jacket was observed to be dark blue with a white hood.'

In option A, the participial phrase 'Fleeing eastbound on King Street' is a dangling modifier because the subject of the main clause is 'the suspect's jacket,' not the suspect. Grammatically, the sentence states that the jacket was fleeing. This is legally problematic because defence counsel could argue the sentence fails to establish that a human subject was observed in flight, or could challenge the officer's identification testimony on the grounds that the report conflates the jacket with its wearer. Options B, C, and D all correctly place the logical actor (officers, the investigating officer, the tenant) as the subject of the clause immediately following the introductory phrase.

A detective submits a warrant application containing this passage: 'It is believed that the accused, who has prior convictions for fraud and who was positively identified by two independent witnesses, is presently concealing proceeds of crime at the aforementioned address.' The reviewing justice flags a structural issue that weakens the evidentiary nexus. What is it?

Answer: The phrase 'It is believed' is an agentless passive that fails to attribute the belief to an identified deponent, potentially rendering the grounds hearsay

In Information to Obtain (ITO) documents, 'It is believed' without an identified believer creates an agentless belief statement. A warrant application must demonstrate that a specific person with identified grounds (the deponent/affiant) holds a belief based on identified sources. An unattributed belief statement may be treated as inadmissible hearsay or as lacking the reasonable and probable grounds required under s. 487 of the Criminal Code. While option A raises a legitimate style point, non-restrictive clauses are not inherently fatal to evidentiary weight. Option C misunderstands how 'presently' functions in legal drafting, and option D is incorrect because the compound relative clause syntax unambiguously modifies only 'the accused.'

An officer intends to write that a witness 'could not remember' an event but instead writes that the witness 'could not recall the event that may or may not have occurred.' Beyond wordiness, what is the most precise technical writing flaw in the revised phrasing?

Answer: The phrase 'may or may not have occurred' introduces epistemic hedging that contradicts the established fact that an event prompted the witness interview

The phrase 'may or may not have occurred' introduces doubt about whether the event being investigated actually took place. Since the officer is writing an occurrence report documenting a reported incident, inserting this hedge retroactively undermines the evidentiary foundation of the entire report — it could be read as the officer's own doubt about whether the event occurred, not merely the witness's failure of memory. This is a substantive epistemic error, not just stylistic. Option C is superficially appealing (a tautology argument) but tautologies are not 'technical writing flaws' — they are logical ones. Option B is factually incorrect; 'recall' and 'remember' are treated as synonymous in legal writing. Option D raises a real ambiguity with 'could' but it is secondary to the evidentiary contamination in option A.

A police services board policy memo states: 'Officers are prohibited from disclosing information except where disclosure is required by law, is authorized by the Chief, or is otherwise in the public interest.' A constable is later disciplined for disclosing information to a journalist, citing the 'public interest' exception. The reviewing tribunal finds the disclosure was not justified. Which interpretive principle most directly supports the tribunal's finding that 'public interest' in this sentence is narrower than the constable believed?

Answer: The noscitur a sociis canon — 'public interest' must be read in light of the surrounding terms ('required by law,' 'authorized by the Chief'), both of which require formal authorization, implying 'public interest' also requires a formal process

The noscitur a sociis canon ('a word is known by its associates') holds that ambiguous terms should be interpreted in light of surrounding words in the same list or provision. Here, both 'required by law' and 'authorized by the Chief' involve formal, institutional authorization processes. Applying noscitur a sociis, 'public interest' should also require some form of formal authorization or recognized legal standard — not unilateral officer judgment. Ejusdem generis (option A) applies when a general term follows specific terms of the same class, but here the three items are not an enumerated class followed by a catch-all. Contra proferentem (option B) applies in contract disputes and is not a standard canon for interpreting employer policies in discipline proceedings. Option D (rule against surplusage) is a plausible secondary argument but requires 'public interest' to be entirely subsumed by the first two exceptions, which is an overreach.