Cases

This is a satirical website. Don't take it Seriously. It's a joke.

2059 35488 Shares

Chapter 1
Eng v. Toronto (City), 2012, (Business Use - Division of Powers)
A city is created under provincial legislature and so can have no more powers the a province under the constitution
Toronto passed a Bylaw prohibiting restaurants from serving shark fin soup
A group of businessmen successfully has the Bylaw set aside on the basis that it was ultra vires provincial power
Sharks do not naturally occur in Ontario freshwater

RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G), 2007 (CRF, Section 1, Free Speech)
Tobacco Companies have repeatedly argued that their section 2 rights to free speech are violated by laws that restrict their right to advertise their products
In 1995, the Supreme Court recognized that restrictions on advertising are a violation of companies’ free speech right
In their decisions in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada, the court ruled that given the proven serious health consequences of smoking, it is justified under section 1 to override their free speech rights and limit tobacco companies abilities to advertise these dangerous and deadly products

Irwin Toy v. Quebec, 1989, (CRF, Section 1, Free Speech)
Supreme Court ruled that a Quebec law restricting the advertisement to persons under the age of 13 was valid despite infringing on companies’ free expression rights
The court justified the law under section 1as it was considered minimal restraint free expression consistent with the important goal of protecting children against manipulation through advertising
The toy company could still advertise products by directing it to adults

Zurich Insurance Company v. Ontario (Human Rights Commision), 1992, (Discrimination)
Michael Bates challenged Zurich Insurance Company’s policy of charging higher rates for males under 25 than for females and married men
The discrimination was reasonable and bona fide within the meaning of section 21 of the Ontario Human Right Code, which stated that the right to contract without discrimination is not infringed
The court found that the insurance company operated its system in good faith, which met the test of bona fide
The issue is an individual has a right to be dealt with on his or her own merits and not on the bases of group categorization
This right must be balanced with the needs of a business to operate the business safely, efficiently, and economically
The higher premium for males under 25 was based statistical evidence compiled in Ontario since since 1920 which showed that this group had the highest number of claims, the highest loss per vehicle, and the highest average claim cost of all categories
This was a reasonable basis for its discrimination and the under 25 male-driver premium policy as upheld
Chapter 2

Dennis v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2013, (Class Action Lawsuits)
A court can refuse certification for a class if it thinks that each individual plaintiffs case is different and should be tried separately
The Ontario Court of Appeal refused to certify a class action brought on behalf of approximately 10,000 people who had severe gambling problems and wanted to sue Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
They had designated themselves for self-exclusion from casinos, but OLG encouraged them to gamble even though it knew of their designations
The group was seeking $3.5 billion in damages
The court ruled this was not an appropriate group for class certification
Several people had already filed claims that had been settled out of court for on average $167,000 per claim
The court felth the facts of each individual case be tried separately, so certification was denied

Chapter 3

Khosla v. Korea Exchange Bank of Canada, 2008 (Conversion of a Cheque)
Satwant Khosla was a solicitor who acted for clients who purchased a house
The house was sold using a fraudulent powers of attorney
The fraudster was a tenant
The purchasers purchased the house for $492,000 and had it paid into khosla’s bank account
Khosla drew a cheque in the name of the true owners of the house
One month before the house was purchased, the fraudster, using authentic identification taken from the actual owner of the house, opened a bank account in the owners name at Korea Bank
The fraudster deposited the cheque from the payment of the house in that bank account and shortly after withdrew the funds and disappeared
In the end it was the banks fault for letting the fraudster (the tenant) make a payment with the cheque using the identity of the true owner, and then allowing the fraudster to withdraw the funds
It was not khosla's fault since as a drawer, she had the right to possession
The true owners of the property were not at fault
The bank was at fault
The bank ended up paying Khosla’s the $492,000 plus interest






Jones v. Tsige, 2012, (Invasion of Privacy)
Ms. Tsige had been dating Ms. jones ex-husband
Both women worked at The Bank of Montreal
Ms. Tsige wanted to see if Mr. Jones was paying child support to his ex-wife
Ms. Tsige checked his personal bank records approximately 174 times in 4 years to see if the payments were being made
Ms. Jones became suspicious, told the bank, then Ms. Tsige confessed
The bank suspended Ms. Tsige one weeks pay and her bonus
Ms. Jones sued Ms. Tsige for $90,000
At the trial court the judge ruled there was no Charter or common law so the trial was dismissed
Ms. Jones then took it to the Court of Appeal
The court concluded there is a need to protect privacy in Canada
They created a new tort of intrusion on seclusion to protect privacy rights but it only applies under strict conditions (3 requirements)
The defendants actions must be intentional (which includes recklessness)
The defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification the plaintiffs private affairs or concerns
And that a reasonable person would regard this invasion as highly offensive
The court established that the fee would rarely be higher then $20,000
The court awarded Ms. Jones $10,000

Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd. 1989, (Misuse of Confidential Information and Inducing Breach of Confidential information)
A junior mining company made some explorations and suspected it discovered large gold deposits on land owned by an elderly lady
Knowing it did not have the resources to develop such a large find, it approached Lac Minerals (a large mining company)
Corona shared its geological information with Lac as a similar business arrangement
Lac however proceed to purchase the land from the elderly lady and claim the site exclusively
The property turned out to have almost 1 billion dollars worth of gold
Corona sued Lac claiming it was liable for misuse of confidential information
The court agreed since the info that Corona gave to Lac was not available to the public
When Corona shared this information with Lac, it created an obligation of confidence and Lac was liable for breach of confidence
By purchasing the land, Lac had clearly misused the confidential information for its own benefit
The court ruled that the appropriate remedy was to force Lac to turn over the entire mining operation to Corona along with all the money it had made, minus the costs Lac had incurred developing the site


Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Investments Ltd., 1998, (Intention Interference with Economic Relations)
Three requirements for this tort
Defendant intended to injure the plaintiff
Defendant did interfere with the plaintiff’s economic interest by illegal or unlawful means
And it's caused the plaintiff actual economic losses
Rober Sommers was the head of Canadian Tire’s automotive division
Canadian Tire bought its seats from the plaintiff’s company
Stewart Lawson of Aim Inc. offered to pay Somers 2 of all purchases made by Canadian Tire of seat covers by Aim Inc.
The briebs were paid to a corporation controlled by Sommers called Sagaz Investments Ltd.
Canadian Tire learned about this and fired Sommers but continued to deal with Aim Inc.
The plaintiff corporation sued Aim and Sommers for intentional interference with economic relations
They intentionally interfered with the plaintiff’s business by unlawful means (bribes) and caused significant losses
The court awarded damages of $2 million for loss of business plus $50,000 in punitive damages

Chapter 4

Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932, (To Whom is a Duty Owed)
Donoghue and a few friends went to a restaurant, the friend paid for the meal
Donoghue drank her ginger beer which was served in a dark-coloured bottle
Once she finished the beer, she found the decomposed remains of a snail at the bottom
She became very ill from drinking the toxic substance
Donoghue found several problems with the law when it came to suing
She did not buy the ginger beer herself so she could not sue the restaurant in contract
The restaurant would not be found negligent, as the bottle was opaque and it was impossible for the snail to be seen
It was the manufacturer who probably breached the standard of care
Donoghue sued the manufacturer
The case was eventually heard by the House of Lords in England, the country's highest court
The soft drink manufacturer had indeed failed to observe a reasonable standard of care







Douglas v. Kinger, 2008 (Policy Consideration for not Imposing Liability)
13 year old boy was hired to do part time work at a cottage for $8/ per hour
The owner told him not to use any power equipment unless supervised by an adult
The boy could not get a gas lawnmower to work, so he lit a match in the dark boat house too see
The match the gas vaporous and fire broke out and caused $285,000 in damages
The cottage owner was insured, but the insurance company then tried to sue the boy for negligence
The court ruled that under the Anns test the cottage owner had not contemplated the boy would be held liable for any losses caused, and from a policy perspective, the court did not want to impose liability on an employee
Employers bear the cost of employees’ negligence and they buy insurance as a cost of doing business
It was place an unfair burden on employees if they were held liable, especially in this case with a young boy working for menial wages

Michel v. John Doe and Insurance Corporation, 2009, (Causation)
A women was walking down a B.C. highway when a rock flew off a logging truck and hit her between the eyes and she suffered a major permanent brain injury
Witnesses saw it happen but didn't get the name of the logging company
She put in a claim to the Insurance Corporation for B.C for negligence under its no-fault plan
She claimed that if the truck driver had inspected his load properly before leaving, he would have discover the rock and removed it
The insurance argued that even with a proper inspection the rock could have been hidden among the logs and become loose only after the truck had started down the highway
The court ruled that on the balance of probabilities the plaintiff had not shown that the logging company was negligent
It was just likely the a careful inspection would have not discover the rock
Since there was no other evidence available, her claim failed

Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada, 2006, (Remoteness of Damages--Drawing the Line)
Mr. and Mrs. Mustapha saw a dead fly in their culligan water
Mrs. Mustapha threw up
Mr. Mustapha remained obsessed with the incident, he could not get the image of the dead fly out of his head, and continually worried about his family's health
The Mustaphas sued for damages of $337,000 claiming psychiatric injury
The court did recognize that Mr. Mustapha was psychiatricly injured but denied his claim since consequences and outcome were not foreseeable, as a normal person would not have this reaction



Dyck v. Manitoba snowmobile Association and Wood, 1985, (Voluntary Assumption of Risk and Waiver Clauses)
Dyck, a 19 year old, entered a snowmobile race and signed a waiver saying he can't sue
Dyck crashed and suffered permanent injuries assessed at $90,000
Dyck claimed that the association had not brought the waiver to his attention
But Dyck did sign the waiver so the court dismissed his claim

Hague v. Billings, 1993, (Commercial Host Liability)
Two men went on a drinking spree
They drank 50 bottles of beer over a 10 hour period plus a bottle of whisky and smoked some marjuana
They went into one bar and were thrown out since they were drunk
They went into the second bar 4 beers in 90 minutes
They left the second bar and drove down the wrong side of the highway and hit a car killing the mother and severely injuring the daughter
The court ruled that the first hotel was not liable since they kick them out
The second hotel was partly liable for the injuries
The trial court held the drunk driver and second hotel 50 liable each
On appeal the liability increased to 85 driver and 15 for second hotel

Prevost v. Vetter, 2002, (Social Host Liability)
Parents are held liable when teens get drunk at parties that are supervised by the parents
The parents had failed to supervise the party properly, so they were partly liable for the serious injuries to a 17 year old male who was driven home by a drunk 18 year old female who crashed her car

McDonald’s Hot Coffee, (Negligent Design - Duty to Warn)
An elderly women spilled hot coffee on herself while going through a McDonalds drive-through
She sued McDonalds for failure to warn her that the coffee was hot enough to burn
A jury awarded her $7,000,000











Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, 1997, (Professional Liability - Restricted Scope of the Duty of Care)
Ernst & Young performed the yearly audit of Hercules Management
Because of negligence of Ernst & Young, the Hercules financial statements overstated its income and assets
Shareholders who relied on those financial statements in buying shares sued Ernst & Young for their investment losses
It was admitted that the auditors had breached the relevant standard of practice
So the question is, does the company’s auditors owe a duty of care to the shareholders?
They used the test for special relationship or proximity
Would the defendants have reasonably foreseen that the plaintiffs would rely on the financial statements?
Was reliance by the plaintiffs in the particular circumstances reasonable?
Here the plaintiffs case gave yes answers to both questions
However, the plaintiffs case could not pass part two of the test, there were policy reasons to limit the scope of an auditor’s duty
The statements must be only used for the purpose of transactions, not for shareholders
So the shareholders claim for investment loss was dismissed


Hedley, Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners, Ltd., 1964, (Exemption Clauses for Professionals)
Hedley Byrne was a firm of advertising agents that sought advice from its banker about creditworthiness of a prospective client, Easipower
That bank then contacted Easipowers bank (Hedley, Byrne & Co) for the information
Easipowers bank provided the information for free and at the top of the letter was written “without responsibility on the part of this bank” and then it went on to state; Easipower was “good for its ordinary business engagements”
So based on this letter, Hedley Byrne did the advertising work
Easipower however was not not in good financial shape and was unable to the advertising bill of $50,000
Hedley Byrne sued Easipower’s bank for negligence for their losses
The case was dismissed since the bank did state on the letter, “without responsibility on the part of this bank”

Enron Case, (Accountants and Auditors Liability)
Enron's profitability was maintained by an accounting practice known as: “off balance sheet items”.
A series of subsidiary companies were formed
Many of Enron’s expenses were shown on the subsidiary's financial statements
Thus making Enron appear more profitable than it really was
Enron auditors, Arthur Andersen, approved financial statements as being prepared in accordance with accepted accounting standards, but the statements were not


Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007, (Du]]Fiduciary Duty and Conflict of Interest)
The Supreme Court held a lawyer and his law firm liable for breach of fiduciary duty
Robert Strother was a tax partner with the law firm when he acted for two competing film companies
He had a personal interest in one of the companies
He did not tell the other company about new tax laws
Strother and the law firm were liable

CHILDS v. DESORMEAUX, 2006, SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Zoe Childs in a car hit by a drunk driver on New Year’s Eve
1 killed, Zoe Childs paralyzed for life
Childs sued drunk driver & the host of the party
SCC ruled that given the facts : large party, driver brought & only drank his own alcohol, host unaware driver was drunk when he left - Host of the party was not liable
Social host owed no duty to others on the road

This is a satirical website. Don't take it Seriously. It's a joke.