7. Joe sued Katya for damages resulting from a personal injury. The case was heard by a judge alone in Ontario in the Provincial Trial Court. The judge ruled in favour of Katya on the basis that Joe did not prove the fact that he had an injury. Joe wants to appeal on the grounds that the evidence he presented proved an injury. What is likely to happen?

a) The Provincial Trial Court will hear the case with a judge and jury for the jury to decide the question of fact.

b) The Court of Appeal will not hear the case, as it concerns a question of fact.

c) The Provincial Superior Court will hear the appeal, as it was already heard by an inferior court.

d) The Federal Court of Appeal will hear the appeal, as it was already heard by a provincial court.

8. Giancarlo hired Hometown Handyman (HH) to renovate his home. Due to the extremely careless actions of HH employees, there was extensive damage to the home. Giancarlo sued HH for breach of contract and negligence. Which of the following remedies is NOT designed to compensate the plaintiff for a loss?

a) Special damages

b) General damages

c) An accounting of damages

d) Exemplary damages

9. Mark works as a courier. While on his daily route, Mark delivered a package to a home and noticed a pool in the backyard similar to what he would like in his own backyard. After work, Mark returned to the home to see the pool. He rang the doorbell to ask permission to enter the backyard, but no one was home. As no one was home to disturb, he went into the backyard to take a look at the pool. The family returned home to find Mark in their yard. They felt threatened, demanded that he leave, and called the police. Which of the following statements regarding Marks situation is true?

a) The courier company would be vicariously liable because Mark first entered the property when working.

b) Mark would be guilty of trespass to chattels because he was there to see the pool.

c) Mark could use the defence of consent because he attempted to ask for permission to enter the yard and no one refused his entry.

d) The courier company would not be vicariously liable for Marks actions.

10. Sylvia joined a private organization as a volunteer. When she joined, she was asked to provide her personal contact information in case she was injured while volunteering. A week after she joined the organization, Sylvia started to receive requests for donations from other organizations. She asked these organizations how they got her private phone number and was told that it had been shared by the organization for which she volunteers. Which of the following accurately describes Sylvias situation?

a) Sylvias privacy rights were breached under the Privacy Act.

b) Sylvias privacy rights were breached, and she can file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner, who can impose a fine.

c) Sylvias privacy rights were not breached, as she provided her personal information to the organization.

d) Sylvias privacy rights were not breached, as the information was not shared by a government organization.

I answered as follows: B, C, B, B but would love to see someone else's opinion and why. Thanks!