This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

#19802 - New Fall 2024 Tort Long Summary 2 - Intentional Torts

Notice: PDF Preview
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Intentional Torts Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting.
See Original

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

Cook v Lewis [1952] 1 D.L.R. 1 (S.C.C) 9

Purpose and Function of the Law of Torts in Canada 9

Unit 2: Intentional Torts’ Basic Concepts 10

Volition & Intention 11

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

1. Nominate Torts 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

2. Innominate Torts 30

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

IN CLASS - Ottawa woman awarded $4100 in damages after a film crew shooting video for new condo recorded her jogging without her consent 37

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

Defences 40

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

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76 57

Koechlin v Waugh and Hamilton (1957), 11 D.L.R. (2d) 447 (Ont. C.A.) 59

R. v Caslake [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51 60

Eccles v Bourque [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739 61

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

Defences 70

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

Unit 6: Defamation 75

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

Defences to Defamation 79

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

Jones v Brooks (1974), 45 D.L.R. (3d) 413 (Sask. Q.B.) 86

Hill v Church, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 87

Unit 5: Nuisance 88

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

Defences 94

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.

  • In tort law, the plaintiff is prima facie entitled to recover damages from the defendant. The result will be different, however, if the parties had previously entered into a contract that contains an exclusion clause that prevents the plaintiff from suing in tort.

  • Tort law says liability; contract law says no liability. Unless an exception applies, the contract will prevail.

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)

  • “Default rules”

Contractual obligations are generally created by the parties - who voluntarily agree to do so (obligation only to the other party)

  • “Voluntarily undertaken”

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...

Unlock the full document,
purchase it now!
Intentional Torts
Target a first in law with Oxbridge

More Intentional Torts Samples