1.A.V. v. IParadigms, LLC, Civ. Act. No. 07-0293 (E.D. Va., March 11, 2008)

In an American case, high school students instructed to submit assignments to the "attend to send in others work" website (owned by IParadigms) claimed that, as minors, they were not bound by the terms of the website's Usage Agreement. The students entered into the Agreement by clicking an online "I Agree" icon. The Court ruled that they were bound because they had accepted the benefits of the Agreement, namely, the ability to submit their assignments for grading. The students also sued for copyright infringement. The Court rejected this claim because IParadigms had made a permissible use of the students' assignments. The assignments were added to a non-publicly available database used only to check for "cheating" by students.

Would a Canadian court make the same decisions?

2.Graham v. Capital Cabs Ltd., 2005 NWTTC 6 (CanLII)

In July 2004, a group of people, including Graham, decided to set up a taxi cab business. Graham agreed to assist however she could in setting up the business, by doing such things as arranging telephone hookups and applying for licences. It was agreed that she would be the office manager for the business. It was also agreed that Graham would receive a share in the corporation that was to be set up in return for the work she was doing and for agreeing to work for a reduced salary for the first year the business operated. The corporation (the defendant) was incorporated on August 6, 2004. A meeting was held the next day, and it was agreed that Graham would be paid $2000 for the work she had done, and would continue to do, in setting up the business. There was also an agreement that Graham would receive a share in the corporation only if she invested $5000 in it and provided a car to be used in the business. The business opened on September 1, 2004. Graham resigned on September 3 because the working conditions had deteriorated very quickly. She sued for the $2000, for reimbursement of the expenses she had paid on behalf of the corporation, and for a share in the corporation.

What, if anything, is Graham entitled to judgment for against the Corporation?

3.Haghdust v. British Columbia Lottery Corporation, 2014 BCSC 1327 (CanLII)

BCLC's Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program allowed a person to sign a voluntary self-exclusion form. A person who presented such a form at a gaming establishment would be escorted from the establishment. TheGaming Control Actmade it an offence for a participant of the Program to be on the premises of a gaming facility, with a maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine. Despite the objectives of the Program, many of its participants did enter gaming establishments undetected, gambled, and won prizes.

This was a complicated class action lawsuit on behalf of participants in the Program who had won significant prizes (up to $42 000) at gaming establishments but were not paid the prizes. One of the issues involved illegality; should the plaintiffs receive their winnings despite their illegal conduct? Should the amount of their winnings be relevant to the Court's decision?

4.Dhingra v. Dhingra, 2012 ONCA 261 (CanLII)

[Note: Your instructor may assign this case as a Shared Writing activity.]

Dhingra was the beneficiary of his wife's life insurance policy. He was charged with murdering her but was found not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder. He applied to have the insurance proceeds paid to him. The Court refused his application because of the public policy rule that prohibits a person from benefiting from his criminal acts.

Should the public policy rule apply when the person who has committed the crime is found not criminally responsible for the crime?

5.Whitrow v. Hamilton, 2010 SKCA 7 (CanLII)

Whitrow lent Hamilton $5000 on March 13, 1991. Hamilton's brother signed a promissory note that required full payment on March 23, 1991, with interest at 10 percent per year. Hamilton was also required to pay a $500 processing fee. The money owing was not paid, so a new promissory note was signed, requiring payment of $5500 on March 31, 1991, plus interest at 8 percent per year from March 13, 1991. The debt was not paid, so Whitrow sued. The trial judge held that the processing fee resulted in a criminal rate of interest. She severed the interest portion of the loan (including the processing fee) and awarded judgment for the principal amount of $5000.

Should the Court of Appeal uphold the trial judge's decision and sever all of the interest from the debt obligation? Is there a more appropriate approach that would apply notional severance so that the contract is partially enforced and neither party enjoys a windfall?

6.IRIS The Visual Group Western Canada Inc. v. Park, 2017 BCCA 301 (CanLII)

Park, an optometrist, signed a contract to provide services for IRIS. The contract contained a non-competition clause that restricted Park from competing with IRIS, for three years, within five kilometres of the business in which she worked. The clause was very broad in indicating how Park could not compete and stipulated that she could not work for any businesses that dispense any "prescription or non-prescription optical appliances," including eye glasses and sunglasses. Park set u her own practice 3.5 kilometres from the location at which she worked. IRIS applied for an injunction to prevent her from soliciting its customers and from competing with IRIS.

Should the Court enforce the restrictive covenant contained in the contract? What factors will the Court consider in determining whether the covenant was reasonable? Does it matter if Park was an employee or an independent contractor? Will the Court enforce the covenant if it is found to be ambiguous?

7.McKnight v. Grant, 2009 NBCA 4 (CanLII)

Grant executed documents to sell her cottage to her nephew. Six months later, she commenced an action requesting that the transaction be set aside because of misrepresentation and undue influence. The nephew decided to re-convey the cottage to Grant. Her lawyer talked to her nephew a couple of times, and an agreement was made that the cottage would be conveyed if Grant repaid the nephew the deposit he had made and the legal fees he had incurred. They agreed that the lawyers were to "paper" the settlement agreement. Two days later, the nephew changed his mind and advised that he did not want to settle the action. The trial judge found that there was a binding settlement agreement. The nephew appealed on the basis that theStatute of Fraudsapplied and that the settlement agreement should therefore not be enforceable.

Was the agreement to re-convey the cottage subject to theStatute of Frauds?

8.Johal v. Nordio, 2017 BCSC 1129 (CanLII)

Johal lent Nordio $250 000. The loan was due on April 25, 2014. The debt was not paid. Nordio sent Johal an email on August 31, 2014 that promised payment of the principal and interest. The email included Nordio's name, position, and contact information. The lawsuit was started on July 24, 2016. The relevant limitation period was April 25, 2016, unless it was extended by a written acknowledgement of the liability signed by Nordio.

Did the August 31 email extend the limitation date from April 25 to August 31, so that Nordio would be liable for the loan? Was the email a written acknowledgement of the debt, signed by the debtor?