Here is a good explanation of the difference between Common and Civil Law. It should make it a lot more clear. Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29
"Thus, the difference between civil law and common law lies less in the mere fact of codification, but in the methodological approach to codes and statutes. In civil law countries, legislation is seen as the primary source of law. By default, courts thus base their judgments on the provisions of codes and statutes, from which solutions in particular cases are to be derived. Courts thus have to reason extensively on the basis of general rules and principles of the code, often drawing analogies from statutory provisions to fill lacunae and to achieve coherence. By contrast, in the common law system, cases are the primary source of law, while statutes are only seen as incursions into the common law and thus interpreted narrowly."
I also found a very good explanation of how Common Law works, and of which is binding for Judges to follow. (It's all coming back to me now.. but instead of explaining it all myself, I will post this good article) The info below can be found at: http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Resguide/chapt2.htm
"Unlike the legislative process, which employs a systematic, formalized method of rule making, case law develops organically. The common law - judge-made law developed over a period of time - is grounded in the doctrine of stare decisis. Stare decisis requires a judge to follow the ruling of another judge of the same, or higher, court on the same issue. In this manner, new case law is often derived from existing legal principles. The requirement of stare decisis ensures a measure of security and stability in the development of the common law, since it prevents judges from making ad hoc decisions.
As a result of stare decisis , which is also known as judicial precedent, it is important for lawyers and law librarians to find "like" cases - cases from the past dealing with issues similar to the facts at hand. Ideally, a lawyer is hoping to find "like cases" which were decided in a manner that would be favourable to the lawyer's client.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis , the rulings of different courts in different jurisdictions have different precedential value. Decisions of the higher courts bind the lower courts. The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest appellate court in Canada, and its decisions bind all other courts in the nation. However, the decision of a provincial appeals court only binds the other courts in that province. Hence, an Ontario lawyer is less interested in a P.E.I. appeals decision than an Ontario appeals decision dealing with the same issues. While the P.E.I. decision - rendered, as it was, by a high-level court - has much persuasive value, it is not necessarily binding on an Ontario judge.
When researching case law you must always be sensitive to the desirability of finding court decisions from the appeals court of your province, or from the Supreme Court of Canada. However, since some provincial laws (such as securities regulations) do not differ much from province to province, decisions from other provinces may have relatively strong precedential value. This is especially true if the issue stems from a federal statute, such as the Criminal Code , since federal statutes apply across the country. Moreover, occasionally it is not possible to find case law from the desired courts. In such a case, it may be necessary to resort to case law from other provinces, or even other countries. "
And I think that is enough law for one night. 
Hope that helps Para!
