1 Where protection against discrimination on the basis of ________ has been left out of human rights legislation, the courts have shown a willingness to imply the existence of this protection.

a.sexual orientation

b.marriage

c.gender

d.publications

e.freedom of speech

2 Which of the following actions constitutes an assault?

a.A car accident where you are hit by an impaired driver

b.A bystander struck by a ball during a baseball game

c.Bumping into another in a crowded hallway

d.Pointing an unloaded gun at another who does not know whether or not the gun is loaded

e.A hearty wave from another motorist

3.The provincial government thought that the only way to make businesses competitive with those from other countries was to make more information available to them about market conditions, currencies, etc., around the world. It began a program of incentives that included a government office that would give people not only the business information but also advice on how the businesses could link up to the government's database that held the updated information. Mr. Su relied on some information given to him by Alex Chec, an employee of the government. The information was wrong due to a mistake made by an operator entering data. It was Mr. Chec's job to cross-check that information before it was released to the public. He forgot to do it. Mr. Su suffered a $100,000 loss because of the error. Which of the following is true?

a.If Mr. Su sues the government on the principle of vicarious liability, he cannot also sue the employee, or employees, at fault.

b.Mr. Su could not take any action because he had not entered into a contract with the government for this information.

c.The court must find only one party liable and that party must pay for all of the damages.

d.Mr. Su could not take any action because he suffered no physical injury. The case only deals with information.

e.The operator may be found liable for negligence if Su, the plaintiff, can prove, among other things, that he owed him a duty of care.

4.Rob bet Joe $300 that the Chicago Bears would beat the San Francisco 49ers. The day after the Bears lost, Joe went to Rob's office. He created quite a scene. He got the $300 and yelled nasty remarks about the Bears team and coach. Rob was furious. He lied to the onlookers by saying that Joe passed himself off as an accountant but that he never passed the required exams and had forged the documents. Joe lost several clients because of Rob's false statements. On these facts, which of the following is true?

a.Rob could successfully sue Joe for defamation because of the statements Joe made about the Bears team and coach.

b.Rob's statements about Joe were defamation by innuendo.

c.Joe could successfully sue Rob for defamation.

d.If Joe sues Rob for defamation, Rob would be able to use successfully the defence of qualified privilege.

e.Rob could sue Joe for nuisance.

5. Creative Farming Ltd. manufactures fertilizer from organic matter, a by-product of which is explosive methane gas. During the processing, some of this gas escaped and drifted onto the adjacent property, where it caused an explosion and extensively damaged a building owned by XYZ Co. Creative Farming Ltd. would be liable for the loss under which one of the following principles?

a.Occupiers' Liability Act

b.Strict liability

c.Product liability

d.Vicarious liability

e.Contributory negligence

6.An employee prepared an appraisal of a property for his real-estate development company. The employee had been told that the appraisal would be used by the company to attract a potential investor, Mr. Jones, for the company's client, Mr. Lee. Because the appraiser carelessly forgot to check the recent changes in the zoning by-laws, the appraisal was not accurate. Mr. Jones was misled about the value of the land and suffered a financial loss of $200,000. On these facts, which of the following is true?

a.Mr. Jones could not take any action because he had no contract with the company or the appraiser.

b.To win in an action against the appraiser, Jones must prove that the appraiser owed him a duty of care, fell below the standard of care owed, and thereby caused him a foreseeable loss because of his reliance on the information.

c.If Jones sues the appraiser, he cannot also sue the employer company.

d.The cause of action most likely to be taken by the investor is defamation.

e.A person cannot be sued for words that cause loss, only for actions that cause physical injury.

7.Paul invited several friends over to celebrate Ann's birthday. About an hour before the guests arrived, Paul bought some sparkling wine and put it in his refrigerator. When all the guests were assembled, Paul lifted the chilled bottle of wine from its gift box. Before it was completely out of the box, the bottle exploded, sending glass in all directions. The glass cut Paul's hand and also the eye of one of his guests, Joan. No one else was hurt at all. Assuming all these facts could be proved, which of the following is true?

a.All the guests, including Joan, could successfully sue the manufacturer for negligence; they need only prove that the explosion was the fault of the manufacturing process.

b.Joan could sue Paul successfully for the tort of negligence for buying and serving sparkling wine.

c.Because Joan did not buy the wine, she has no cause of action against anyone.

d.Only Joan has a right to sue in contract.

e.If Joan sued the manufacturer for negligence, the court could draw, from the circumstantial evidence of the injury, a conclusion that someone must have been negligent, leaving it to the manufacturer to produce evidence to the contrary.

8. When Joan visited her friend Clive, who was renting a small farm in Langley, she was injured by some dangerous cleaning solvent that Clive stores in very large quantities for Soapo Ltd. The solvent had leaked from one of several massive 1000-litre drums. When Joan had walked toward the side door of the farmhouse, she stepped through a puddle of what turned out to be solvent. The solvent not only ruined her shoes, but also burned her skin when some splashed onto her legs. The solvent also drained down into the fish pond on the adjacent property owned by the Nelsons. Read each of the following separately and indicate which is true.

a.If the Nelsons sue for any loss, they would not succeed against Clive because he is just the tenant of the farm, not the owner.

b.If Joan sues for any loss, she must sue the owner of the farm.

c.If the Nelsons sued on the rule inRylands v. Fletcher, they would be barred from also pleading negligence as an alternative cause of action.

d.If Joan sued Clive, she would not sue on the rule of strict liability but under theOccupiers' Liability Act.

e.If the Nelsons sued on the rule inRylands v. Fletcher, the defendant could succeed by showing that there was no intention to harm anyone and reasonable care had been taken to contain the solvent.

9.When Mr. P dropped his wife off at work, Mr. H, the driver behind him, was angered by the slight delay in traffic. Mr. H approached Mr. P's car, called him names, and then punched Mr. P in the nose and mouth area with a closed fist. Mr. H was convicted and sentenced in criminal proceedings for his actions. Given these facts, which of the following is true?

a.None of the above is true.

b.Mr. P could not take a civil action because a criminal action had taken place, and the same behaviour or action cannot be the subject matter of both types of proceedings.

c.Mr. P could also proceed in a civil action against Mr. H for the tort of battery.

d.Mr. P could ask for special damages, but not for general or punitive damages.

e.Mr. P could also proceed in a civil action against Mr. H for the tort of nuisance.

10.Taisa is a massage therapist who runs a successful business from her home. One of her long-time clients, Greg, owes her a considerable sum of money relating to unpaid massage therapy sessions. Greg is reluctant to pay because he is unhappy with the services he has received. Which of the following is true?

a.If her primary concern is the ability to appeal the decision made, Taisa should consider an alternative form of dispute resolution.

b.If her primary concern is to preserve her relationship with Greg, Taisa should consider an alternative form of dispute resolution.

c.If her primary concern is to ensure the dispute is kept private, Taisa should commence a civil action against Greg.

d.Taisa needs to commence a civil action, as alternative forms of dispute resolution are not available in commercial disputes.

e.If her primary concern is to keep costs low, Taisa should commence a civil action against Greg as soon as possible.

11.Uncle Max just immigrated to Canada and learned some things about our laws and constitution on the plane. Which of the following things he heard is true?

a.TheCharter of Rights and Freedoms, part of theConstitution Act, 1982, has been entrenched in our constitution and therefore cannot be changed.

b.TheBritish North America Actof 1867, the first document to determine which classes of subjects could be dealt with by the provinces and which by the federal government, was passed by Queen Elizabeth.

c.Our constitution provides that the provincial legislatures have exclusive jurisdiction to enact laws concerning education and property in the province.

d.Our federal parliament is supreme in enacting laws concerning municipalities.

e.There are many aspects of our constitution we have inherited from the United States.

12.InHall v. Hebert, an individual was severely injured when he allowed his intoxicated friend to drive his car. The Supreme Court of Canada had to deal with whethervolenti non fit injuriawould apply. What did the Court hold?

a.The plaintiff assumed the legal risk, but there was no indication he had assumed the physical risk as well.

b.The plaintiff assumed only the legal risk, but this is all that is required forvolenti non fit injuriato apply.

c.The plaintiff assumed the physical risk, but there was no indication he had assumed the legal risk as well.

d.The plaintiff assumed neither the physical risk nor the legal risk in the circumstances.

e.The plaintiff assumed only the physical risk, but this is all that is required forvolenti non fit injuriato apply.

13.In which one of the following situations would Joenotbe successful in his challenge of the decision of the board or tribunal?

a.Joe was applying for a government student loan and was refused because he was not registered in a recognized program. The regulations set out what constituted a recognized program, but the statute creating the loans program was silent with respect to this restriction. Joe asked the loans officer about this and was told this regulation did not have to be specifically authorized by statute.

b.Joe, a landlord, applied to the appropriate board for relief from certain restrictions under the residential tenancy act. His request was refused. To his surprise, at the beginning of the session, one of the board members declared that he was the father of one of his tenants. He did this so that the all parties would be aware of any bias he might have and not be affected by it.

c.Joe, a student, was refused a graduate research grant to study the Muslim religion by a government funding body because it was inappropriate, Joe being Jewish.

d.Joe applied for a liquor licence for his night club. His application was denied on the grounds that he did not complete the application form and pay the prescribed application fee.

e.Joe operated an art gallery and had a showing of very controversial nude photos of children. He was prosecuted and fined under a municipal bylaw that made it a crime to show pornographic material anywhere in the municipality.

14. Hank rented a new ground-floor condominium for four months before the owner offered to sell it to him. Hank accepted the offer. After Hank became the owner, he built a small patio off the living room. At a house-warming party, one of his friends caught the heel of her shoe between some patio bricks and fell, breaking her arm. It took an abnormally long time to heal because she suffered from an unusual bone disease. Hank has heard the following assertions about liability and asks you about them. Which of the following statements is true?

a.Under the governing statute, he owed a duty of care because he now owned the property; he would not have had any duty of care if he had still been renting it.

b.If found liable, he would be responsible only for the damages incurred by a normal person who had suffered from such a fall and not for the greater damages actually suffered by this guest.

c.The standard of care owed to this visitor is governed by a federal statute and is therefore the same for all provinces.

d.The standard of care set by statute is that the occupier has a duty to take reasonable care to see that any guest on the property is reasonably safe.

e.He owed no duty of care to persons who came to his place; people must take responsibility to look after themselves.

15.In January, a driver accidentally caused a snow plow to go off the road, crash into a house, and enter the living room. No one was hurt, but the incident caused extensive damage to the house. If the driver of the snow plow was charged with the crime of driving while impaired, and convicted, which of the following would be true?

a.The owners of the house would have no civil action against the driver because no one was hurt.

b.The owners of the house could also proceed in a civil action against the driver for the tort of nuisance.

c.The driver would be found liable in a civil action only if the prosecutor could prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

d.The owners of the house could not proceed in a civil action because the driver had already gone through a criminal action and he cannot be forced to go through two proceedings for the action.

e.The owners of the house could also proceed in a civil action against the driver for the tort of negligence.

16.Stella bought a cup of coffee at the drive-through window at a coffee shop. Holding the cup between her knees and attempting to take off the lid to add cream, she spilled the coffee. She suffered burns to her thighs. If this happened in Canada, which of the following would be true?

a.If Stella sues the coffee shop for negligence, she will only have to prove that the company owed her a duty of care.

b.If Stella sues the coffee shop, the company's best argument is that it didn't owe her a duty of care.

c.To succeed with the defence that she volunteered to take the risk, the coffee shop would have to prove that she deliberately spilled the coffee.

d.If the coffee shop claims there was no way to reasonably foresee that Stella would be harmed, the plaintiff's case would be dismissed even though she suffered burns.

e.If the court finds the plaintiff contributorily negligent causing 60% of her loss, she will not be compensated for the 60% by the defendant.

17.Because of theNorth American Free Trade Agreementand increasing world competition, a provincial government decided to help businesses by providing more information about market conditions, currencies, etc., around the world. It opened small offices throughout the province that provided business information retrieved from the government's database, which was frequently updated. Mr. Hill relied on some information given to him by Alex Chec, an employee of the government. The information was wrong due to Chec's mistake; it was his job to cross-check that information before it was released to the public, but he forgot to do it. Mr. Hill suffered a $15,000 loss because of the error. Which of the following is true?

a.On these facts, Mr. Hill could sue successfully on the principle of strict liability.

b.Mr. Hill could not take any action because he had not entered into a contract with the government for this information.

c.To win in an action against the government, Hill must prove that the government owed him a duty of care, fell below the standard of care owed, and thereby caused him a foreseeable loss.

d.If Mr. Hill sues the government on the principle of vicarious liability, he cannot also sue the employee at fault.

e.Mr. Hill cannot take any action because he suffered no physical injury. The case only deals with information.

18.In which of the following would the plaintiffnotsucceed in an action for negligence?

a.Nick was a willing passenger when Alex was driving at 140 km/h. He was hurt when the car slid on wet pavement and crashed. The court found Nick took the physical risk, but never took the legal risk.

b.May was made sick by drinking a contaminated cola, bottled by Black, bought for her by her friend Fred from Green.

c.Dr. Zotsky used the skill of a reasonable doctor in his field, but his patient did not respond to the treatment and lost sight in one eye.

d.A zoning officer carelessly told Mr. Lee that the lot was zoned "commercial," but it was really zoned "duplex." Lee lost $85,000 by relying on this information.

e.An accounting firm made a mistake in the audited financial statements, which caused an investor to lose $20,000. The firm knew the investor was going to rely on the statements to invest.