THE LAW OF TORTS

Question 1

tort (is harm required, what is the result, standard of proof)

Answer 1

= a wrongful act done to the property or person of another which is recognized in law
– the wrongful act must cause harm
- result is to provide compensation for harm done (not punitive)
- standard of proof: generally, a balance of probabilities (50/50)

Question 2

assault vs battery

Answer 2

assault – threat of violence
battery – actual violence

Question 3

recognized in law

Answer 3

what society thinks should be a recognized tort, changes

Question 4

strict liability vs fault based system

Answer 4

strict liability – you are at fault no matter the circumstance
fault-based system – culpable behaviour

Question 5

When does strict liability apply

Answer 5

• dog owner’s liability act (ON)
• nuisance
• the rule from Rylands v. Fletcher (a U.K. case that was adopted in Canada)

Question 6

Nuisance (public vs private)

Answer 6

public: interference with the lawful use of public lands; often quasi-criminal in nature
private: interference with an occupier’s use and enjoyment of his/her land (playing loud music)

Question 7

Intentional torts (7):

Answer 7

a) Assault
b) Battery
c) Trespass

Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress
False Imprisonment
Malicious Prosecution
Defamation

Question 8

Assault (4 elements)

Answer 8

(1) intentionally; (2) uttering a threat (makes u feel endangered); (3) that is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension of imminent physical harm; (4) against a person or an identifiable group

Question 9

Battery (3 elements):

Answer 9

(1) intentionally; (2) applying unlawful force (you don’t have a lawful reason); (3) without consent

Question 10

Trespass (3 elements)

Answer 10

1) Intentionally; 2) Entering property; 3) Without consent
- the plaintiff must prove the elements of the cause of action
- if a trespasser has caused damage to the property, then the landowner can bring an action in court

Question 10

Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress (describe)

Answer 10

• recognizable physical or psychopathological harm must occur (loosened recently)
• must have intent to cause harm (doesn’t have to be physical)

Question 11

Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp

Answer 11

Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress
(1) The Defendant’s conduct was flagrant and outrageous;
(2) The Defendant’s conduct was calculated to harm the Plaintiff; and
(3) The Defendant’s conduct caused the Plaintiff to suffer a visible and provable
illness.

Question 12

False Imprisonment (describe)

Answer 12

– unlawfully restraining or confining another person
- physical restraint or psychological
- it is not false imprisonment if the police lay charges

Question 13

Collis v. Toronto Police

Answer 13

False imprisonment
(1) Intentional; (2) Total confinement of a person against his or her will; (3) Without lawful justification.

Question 14

Malicious Prosecution (describe)

Answer 14

• reporting a person to the police when there is no good reason to believe that person committed a crime.

Question 15

Curley v. Taafe

Answer 15

Malicious Prosecution
(1) The Defendant must have initiated the proceeding. E.g.,
(1) Did the defendant knowingly withhold exculpatory information from the police?
(2) Did the defendant’s conduct undermine the independence of the police investigation?
(3) Did the defendant communicate to the police in a manner that misled the officers into not conducting an independent investigation?
(4) Did the defendant undermine the independence of the decision-making process to lay charges and prosecute?
(2) Terminated in favour of the Plaintiff;
(3) Undertaken without reasonable and probable cause to commence or continue the prosecution; and
(4) Motivated by malice or a primary purpose other than carrying the law into effect.

Question 16

Defamation (describe, slander vs libel)

Answer 16

• Making untrue statements that cause injury to the reputation of another.
  slander = spoken defamation
  libel = written defamation.
• anti-SLAPP laws

Question 17

Defamation (3 elements):

Answer 17

1) The material is defamatory in that it lowers the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person
2) The material must refer to the plaintiff
3) The material must be communicated or published to at least one
other person