Unit 1: An Introduction to the Law of Torts 3
Scott v Shepherd, [1558-1774] All E.R. 296 7
Leame v Bray (1803), 102 E.R. 724 (K.B) 7
Williams v Holland (1833), 131 E.R. 848 (C.P) 8
Holmes v Mather (1875), L.R 10 Exch. 261 8
Unit 2: Intentional Torts’ Basic Concepts 10
Smith v Stone, (1647) 82 E.R. 533 (K.B.) - NON-VOLITION CASE 11
Types of Intention: Clear, Imputed, Transferred 11
Gilbert v Stone (1648), 82 E.R. 539 (K.B.) 13
Miska v Sivec (1959), 18 D..R. (2d) 363 (Ont. C.A.) 13
Hodgkinson v Martin [1929] 1. D.L.R. 367 (B.C.C.A.) - MISTAKE CASE 14
Ranson v Kitner 31 I11.App. 241 (1889) 14
Damages: Nominal, Compensatory, Punitive & Disgorgement 16
B.(P.) v B.(W.) (1992), 11 O.R. (3d) 161 (Gen. Div) 18
Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING PUNITIVE DAMAGES 18
Macleod v Marshall, 2019 ONCA 842 19
Penarth Dock Engineering Co. Ltd. v Pounds, [1963] 1 Lloyds’ Rep. 359 (Q.B.) 19
Other Judicial Remedies: Injunction, Declaration, & Specific Restitution 20
Unit 3: Intentional Interference with Persons and Personal Interests 21
Bettel v Yim (1978), 88 D.L.R. (3d) 543 (Ont. Co. Ct. 23
Malette v Shulman (1990), 72 O.R. (pg. 64) 23
R v Ireland, [1997] 1 All E.R. 112 (C.A.) - Passive Conduct 25
Warman v Grosvenor (2008), 92 O.R. (3d) 663 (S.C.J.) - Words/Means 25
Holcombe v Whitaker, 318 So.2d 289 (Ala. S.C. 1975) - Conditional Threat 26
Police v Greaves [1964] N.Z.L.R. 295 (C.A.) 26
Bird v Jones (1845), 115 E.R. 668 (Q.B.) 28
Campbell v. S.S. Kresgre Co. (1976), 74 D.L.R. (3d) 717 (N.S.S.C. (T.D.)) 29
Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 67 (H.L.) - CONSENSUAL RESTRAINT 29
Nelles v Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170 31
Miazga v Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51 31
Wilkinson v Downton, [1897] 2 Q.B. 57 33
Radovskis v Tomm (1957), 9 D.L.R. (2d) 751 (Man. Q.B.) 34
Samms v Eccles 358 P.2d 344 (Utah S.C. 1961) 34
Rahemtulla v Vanfed Credit Union, (1984), 29 C.C.L.T. 78 (B.C.S.C.) 35
Motherwell v Motherwell (1976), 73 D.L.R. (3d) 62 (Alta. S.C. (A.D.)) 37
Jones v Tsige (2012) ONCA 32 38
Doe 464533 v N.D., 2016 ONSC 541 39
Hollingsworth v BCTV [1999] 6 W.W.R. 54 (B.C.C.A.) 39
Wright v McLean (1956), 7 D.L.R. (2d) 253 (B.C.S.C.) - Implied Consent 44
AGAR v Canning (1965), 54 W.W.R. 302 (Man. Q.B.) - Exceeding Consent 45
R v Jobidon, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 714 45
R v Paice, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 339 45
R v McDonald, 2015 ONCA 791 46
Latter v Braddell (1880), 50 L.J.Q.B. 166 (C.P) - Duress (Coercion) 47
Lane v Holloway [1968] 1 Q.B. 379 (C.A.) 47
Norberg v Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226 - Public Policy (Consent) 47
Hegarty v Shine (1878), 4 L.R. Ir. 288 (C.A.) 48
Marshall v Curry [1933] 3 D.L.R. 260 (N.S.S.C.) 49
Malette v Shulman (1987), 63 O.R. (2d) 243 (H.C.) 49
C v Wren (1986), 76 A.R. 115 (C.A.) 52
A.C. v Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 181 53
C.(L.) v Pinhas, 2002 CarswellOnt 4793 (S.C.J.) (WL Can) 53
Reibl v Hughes, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880 & Hopp v. Lepp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192 53
Wackett v Calder (1965), 51 D.L.R. (2d) 598 (B.C.C.A.) 54
R v Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852 54
Gambriell v Camparelli (1974), 54 D.L.R. (3d) 661 (Ont. Co. Ct.) 55
R v Dupperon (1984), 16 C.C.C. (3d) 453 (Sask. C.A.) 56
Koechlin v Waugh and Hamilton (1957), 11 D.L.R. (2d) 447 (Ont. C.A.) 59
Unit 4: Intentional Interference with Property 61
Murray v Toth, 2012 ONSC 5815 65
Fouldes v Willoughby (1841), 151 E.R. 1153 (Ex. Ct.) 65
Mackenzie v Scotia Lumber Co. (1913), 11 D.L.R. 729 (N.S.S.C.) 66
373409 Alberta Ltd. (Receiver of) v Bank of Montreal (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (S.C.C.) 66
Aitken v Gardiner (1956), 4 D.L.R. (2d) 119 (Ont. H.C.) 67
Gen. & Finance Facilities Ltd. v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd. [1963] 1 W.L.R. 644 (C.A.) 67
Aitken v Gardiner (1956), 4 D.L.R. (2d) 119 (Ont. H.C.) 68
Macdonald v Hees (1974), 46 D.L.R. (3d) 720 (N.S.S.C.) 71
Bird v Holbrook (1828), 130 E.R. 911 (C.P) 71
Surocco v Geary 3 Cal. 69 (Cal. S.C. 1853) 74
Vincent v Lake Erie Tpt. Co. 124 N.W. 221 (Minn. S.C. 1910) 74
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All E.R. 1237 (H.L.) - False Innuendo raised 78
Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper Ltd. [1944] A.C. 116 (H.L.) 78
Williams v Reason (1983), [1988] 1 All E.R. 262 (C.A.) 80
Dowson v The Queen (1981), 124 D.L.R. (3d) 260 (F.C.A) 81
Hung v Gardiner (2003), 227 D.L.R. (4th) 282 (B.C.C.A.) 82
Adam v Ward, [1917] A.C. 309 at 334 (H.L.) - Qualified Privilege 83
Hill v Church of Scientology [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 83
WIC Radio Ltd v Simpson, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420 84
Grant v TorStar Corp. [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640 85
Kerr v Revelstone Bldg. Materials Ltd. (1976), 71 D.L.R. (3d) 134 (Alta. S.C.) 89
340909 Ont. Ltd v Huron Steel Products (Windsor) Ltd. (1990), 73 O.R. (2d) 641 (H.C.) 90
Antrim Truck Centre Ltd v Ontario (Transportation), 2013 SCC 13 91
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd. v Emmett. [1936] 2 K.B. 468 92
A.G. Ont. v Orange Productions Ltd. (1971), 21 D.L.R. (3d) 257 (Ont. H.C.) 93
Hickey v Electricity Reduction Co. (1970), 21 D.L.R. (3d) 368 (Nfld. S.C.) 93
Tock v St. John’s Metropolitan Area Board (1989), 64 D.L.R. (4th) 620 (S.C.C.) 94
“Tort” Defined
Lecture: September 9th, 2024
Tort comes from “something that is crooked, twisted, or broken” and needs to be fixed
Can be differentiated between Public and Private wrongs
Tort law deals with private wrongs, in cases where one party has breached an obligation that was owed to an individual.
Textbook: (“Tort” Defined, pp. 1-6)
Torts vs Contracts | ||
---|---|---|
Torts | Contracts | |
Structure: | Both Torts & Contracts involve Primary & Secondary Obligations Primary Obligations: Tell people how they ought to act Secondary Obligations (remedial): Tell people how they must act after primary obligations are broken | |
Primacy: | If contract and tort come into conflict then contract has primacy over tort. EXAMPLE: Suppose that the plaintiff visited the defendant’s ski resort. The plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant’s negligence.
Given the law’s respect for personal autonomy, contract generally has primacy over tort. | |
Source of Obligations: | Obligations in tort are imposed by law on the basis of circumstances (obligation to society as a whole)
| Contractual obligations are generally created by the parties - who voluntarily agree to do so (obligation only to the other party)
|
Privity: | Tort obligations are enforced by law so they apply even if parties are strangers | Enforcement of contracts are subject to the doctrine of privity (only parties who agree to an agreement can sue/be sued) |
Compensation: | Tort obligations imposed to prevent harm & protect existing state of affairs (looks backwards to put plaintiffs back in position they would’ve been in) | Contracts based on promises pertaining to the future (looks forwards and puts person in the position they would’ve enjoyed if the agreed upon terms/obligations were performed) |
Public Wrongs
Typically addressed through criminal law, including breaching an obligation owed to society as a whole.
Only the Government of Canada or the “state” can bring the case against someone who has wronged society
Police can press charges in a criminal case, even if the victim does not want to press charges
Tort vs Criminal Law | ||
---|---|---|
Torts (Private Wrongs) | Criminal (Public Wrongs) | |
Standard of Proof: | Balance of Probabilities: Lower burden because stakes are less high | Reasonable Doubt: Higher standard due to the severity of consequences that result from conviction (restriction of mobility, freedom, stigma) |
Objectives | Hope is that the objectives of criminal and civil law are aligned: punishment, deterrence, justice | |
Legal Proceedings/Compensation | Handled in civil courts - Financial compensation for damages & wrongdoing | Prosecuted in criminal courts - Penal sanctions proportionate to the harm, focuses on punishing the offender |
Remedy: | Typically compensation (monetary or otherwise) to the victim | Punishment such as imprisonment, fines, or probation, aimed at deterrence and societal protection |
Overlap: | Assault can be a tort (if personal rights are violated) and a crime (if it breaches criminal statutes) Drinking and driving causing an accident: crime for the act, tort for the harm caused to the individual (like injury). | |
Misc. | No right to counsel (unlike criminal) - have to fund legal aid yourself | Both very litigious |
Lecture: Sept 9th & 12
Brief History of the Law of Torts: Trespass vi et armis & action on the...