Case Study Analysis of Babiuk v. Trann: Court of Appeal Decision

This case study analyzes the legal case of Babiuk v. Trann, which involves an appeal against a trial court's decision concerning an assault during a rugby match. The central issue revolves around the justification of force used to defend another person. The defendant, Trann, admitted to assaulting Babiuk but claimed he was defending a teammate who had been stepped on. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the appeal. The appellate court considered whether the defense of force should be limited to family members, concluding that it should not be, as public policy supports protecting individuals from harm. The court also addressed the argument that such a defense shouldn't apply to sports, ultimately finding no reason to differentiate players from others. The decision emphasized that the force used must be proportional to the perceived harm. The case study examines the court's reasoning, key legal principles, and the implications of the decision within the context of sports and the defense of others.

Running head: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Answer 1:
In the instant case of Babiuk v. Trann, the parties involved are Shawn Babiuk and
Cory Trann. Here in this case, the appellant is Shawn Babiuk and the respondent is Cory
Trann.
Answer 2:
The case involves an appeal against the judgment given by the trial judge who
dismissed the claim of damages made by the Babuik for injuries sustained by him due an
alleged assault by Trann in a rugby match. The issue to be decided was whether use of force
can be justified to defend other.
Answer 3:
In the instant case, the plaintiff Cory Trann instituted a suit against the defendant for
the act of assault to him in a rugby match. The defendant punched on Babuik’s face and
broke his jaw. The defendant admitted that he had assaulted the plaintiff but also defended
that he did so to defend his teammate. He said that he hit on the plaintiff’s face as he stepped
on face of his teammate with metal cleats and hence he hit to protect him from getting
injured. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff again appealed against such order.
Answer 4:
The Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan dismissed the appeal made by the plaintiff and
followed the order of the trial court. The appellate court decided the case depending upon few
considerations based upon the claims made by the plaintiff. Firstly, the plaintiff stated that the
defence of force must be limited to giving protection to the family members only. But the
court stated that it found no reason to limit the defence to protect family members only as
claimed by the plaintiff. The court emphasized on the fact that it is a public policy to protect

2
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
someone from any danger or injury caused by a third party. It falls under a public policy to
prevent anyone from inflicting any harm or injury in an unlawful manner (Evans 2016).
However, the court also stated that in this type of situation, the parties must be over cautious
as compared to cases of self defence because in such situation, the person giving protection is
not in the position of the endangered person and so will not be able to understand the effect of
the injury or harm and the ways to avoid it.
Secondly, the plaintiff also argued that this defence of using force must not be
allowed to the sportspersons in any organized sport match (Simon 2018). He also added that
if this defence is allowed, every time a player is on ground if allowed to use this defence, then
an indirect permission will be given to commit assault offence to the players (Pert 2017). But
the court did not give regard to this defence as it did not find any cause to differentiate the
players from other persons. The court held that using such defence must be allowed in
situations like the one in the case as the match referee had not seen that Souldre had been
stepped on, so failed to protect. Thus considering all these, the appellate court decided that
the trial judge had decided the case rightly.
Answer 5:
The decision given by the appellate court of Saskatchewan is absolutely perfect. The
appellate court decided the case depending upon few considerations based upon the claims
made by the plaintiff. Firstly, court stated that it found no reason to limit the defence to
protect family members only as claimed by the plaintiff. The court emphasized on the fact
that it is a public policy to protect someone from any danger or injury caused by a third party
(Evans 2016). However, the court also stated that in this type of situation, the parties must be
over cautious as compared to cases of self defence because in such situation, the person

3
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
giving protection is not in the position of the endangered person and so will not be able to
understand the effect of the injury or harm and the ways to avoid it.
Secondly, the plaintiff Babuik also argued that this defence of using force must not be
allowed to the sportspersons in any organized sport match. But the court did not give regard
to this defence as it did not find any cause to differentiate the players from other persons. But
the court made it very clear that while using this defence, the person must be careful such that
that the amount of force used should be proportional to the harm or loss apprehended and
should not surpass it.

4
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
References:
Babiuk v. Trann (2005), 257 Sask.R. 92 (CA); 342 W.A.C. 92
Evans, G., 2016. The responsibility to protect. In The APPSMO Advantage: Strategic
Opportunities: Evolving Defence Diplomacy with the Asia Pacific Programme for Senior
Military Officers (pp. 89-99).
Pert, A., 2017. Proportionality in Self-Defence–Proportionate to What?. Pandoras Box, 24,
pp.65-78.
Simon, R.L., 2018. Fair play: The ethics of sport. Routledge.