(A) Fact Scenario One

1.Everett and Jordan are avid fishermen. Each year they take an extended fishing trip to northern Canada. This year they purchased an all-inclusive trip to the Lake Athabasca Lodge. The description of the lodge and its many amenities included their accommodation in a pine-panelled cabin with a view of the lake; transportation for fishing by a classic de Havilland Beaver airplane, docked in front of the lodge; "first class" dining; use of a spa, Finnish sauna, and hot tub; access to a well-stocked bar; and the provision of complimentary fishing equipment and experienced guides.

Upon arrival at the lodge, however, Everett and Jordan discovered that the spa, sauna and hot tub were not working, the de Havilland Beaver airplane was under repair, and the guides were not always available. After their return, the two men sued Lake Athabasca Lodge, Inc., for breach of contract. The owners of the lodge denied liability and, in particular, referred Matthew and Tariq to the following disclaimer clause found in a document appended to the online application form they completed for the fishing trip. The words, in all caps-"IMPORTANT INFORMATION PLEASE CLICK" -appeared after the signature block at the end of the application form. When a person clicked on these words, the following disclaimer clause in bold print appeared on the screen:

"Lake Athabasca Lodge, Inc., assumes no liability for any loss, costs or damages arising out of the all-inclusive fishing trip selected by the customer, including any failure of the customer to receive any advertised benefit, advantage or other amenity."

Everett and Jordan acknowledged seeing the words "IMPORTANT INFORMATION PLEASE CLICK" after the signature block, but said that they completed and submitted the application form without bothering to click on the link.

Briefly explain the arguments in favour of Everett and Jordan's claim that Lake Athabasca Lodge, Inc., was in breach of contract. [4 marks]

______________________________________________________________________________

A breach of contract can occur if the promise of a future performance is not fulfilled. In this case, Everett and Jordan purchased an all-inclusive trip to Lake Athabasca Lodge due to the promise by The Lake Athabasca Lodge that they would have access to spa, sauna and a hot tub. Additionally, they were promised transportation for fishing by an airplane. Under the Occupiers Liability Act, Section 6, this is can be taken as negligent misrepresentation as the statement was false and made in unreasonable and careless manner. The disclaimer clause will not stand under the act since it is will be taken as deceit whereby the statement was false and made intentionally and recklessly.The disclaimer should have been clear and placed in where the clients could see it clearly rather than hiding it requiring the clients to click on the link.

___________________________________________________________________________

Briefly explain the arguments against Everett and Jordan's claim that Lake Athabasca Lodge, Inc., was in breach of contract. [4 marks]

______________________________________________________________________________

Lake Athabasca Lodge was not in breach of the contract since they had written the disclaimer clause. Under the Occupiers Liability Act, Section 6, exclusion clause establish that if the language is clear, liability was excluded and the issue (disclaimer) was brought to the party's attention reasonably, the contract has not been breached. Therefore, it is the negligence of Everett and Jordan not clicking the link and reading about the disclaimer clause. If they had read it, they would have an informed decision whether to go for the trip r not. Additionally, they would not have expected everything to work as stated due to the disclaimer clause.

______________________________________________________________________________

B) Fact Scenario Two

2.Minh and Jenani booked a weekend with their two young children, Adam, 5, and Nishara, 3, at the Cambrian Shield Resort. After checking into their room, Nishara immediately wanted to go to the wading pool, and so without unpacking all their clothes, Jenani put on Nishara's bathing suit and they all went to the wading pool. Upon returning to their room they were shocked to find that their door was unlocked and Jenani's purse, which had been left on the bed, was gone. She had not put it in the room safe. It was later determined that hotel staff brought fresh towels to their room while they were at the wading pool and forgot to lock the door to their room when they left. On the wall of the office of the resort, as well as on the walls of all of the public rooms and bedrooms, including their room, was a complete nd accurate reproduction, in plain print, of Section 4 of the Innkeepers Act.

Briefly explain the arguments for and against the liability of the Cambrian Shield Resort for the loss of Jenani's purse.

[5 marks]

______________________________________________________________________________

In the Section 4 of the Innkeepers Act, the Cambrian Shield Resort is not responsible for the loss of Jenani's purse. Section 4 (2) states the condition of liability, whereby the guests are required to deposit their goods in a box or other receptacle fastened and sealed by the person depositing the goods. Since the family did not deposit their goods, the resort is not liable for the loss of goods.

However, one can also argue that the Cambrian Shield resort is liable for the loss of Jenani's purse based on Section 4 of the Innkeepers Act. Section 4 (1) provides that if goods have been stolen through neglect of the innkeeper or the innkeeper's employee, the inn is liable for the loss of goods. In the case, the employee left the bedroom open and as a result, the goods were stolen. Therefore, the Cambrian Shield Resort is fully liable to the loss of goods.

______________________________________________________________________

(C) Indicate by circling your answer whether the following statements are true or false and briefly explain your answers:

3.Matthew looked forward to his brief vacation in Niagara-on-the-Lake. He enjoyed seeing plays at the Shaw Festival and generally relaxing in the village. He arrived late at night at the Fort George Lodge, and was looking forward to a restful sleep. He woke in the middle of the night, however, violently ill. He called the front desk and the clerk contacted a doctor. After a brief examination, the doctor concluded that the cause of his illness was the complimentary chocolates on the table in the room, which were found to be contaminated. The hotel, while very regretful that Matthew had been sick, stated that they were not responsible for the quality of the chocolates that they purchased for their guests.

The Fort George Lodge is not legally responsible for the contaminated chocolates.

True / False [1 mark]

Briefly explain your answer. [3 marks]

______________________________________________________________________________

This is considered liability in the accommodation sector. Despite the fact that the chocolates were not owned by Fort George Lodge, the duty of care to the public is still applicable. The Lodge is legally responsible for the contaminated chocolates under Occupier's Duty of Care [s. 3]. Occupier's Duty of Care [s. 3] states that "An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises"; The duty of care . . . applies whether the danger is caused by the condition of the premises or by an activity carried on the premises"; [s. 3 (2)]. As such, Fort George Lodge should have ensured that the chocolates were safe for the guests.

_____________________________________________________________________________

4.Mesbah and Louise are friends and have wanted to go into business together for many years. On July 1, 2018, they attended a promotional event for Monika's Chocolatier, a Vancouver-based company looking to expand into the GTA by offering franchises to interested parties. At that event they met with Monika, the owner, and were greatly impressed by her and the company. Mesbah and Louise immediately signed the standard Monika's Chocolatier franchise agreement, granting them exclusive rights to operate a Monika's Chocolatier retail store in downtown Toronto.The next day, they both received the "disclosure documents" prescribed under the Arthur Wishart Act. Soon thereafter, however, Mesbah and Louise reconsidered their decision. They decided that they were not ready for the risk and responsibility of operating their own business, so one week after signing the franchise agreement, Mesbah and Louise informed Monika that they were terminating the agreement.

Mesbah and Louise cannot terminate their franchise agreement without any legal liability to Monika's Chocolatier.

True / False [1 mark]

Briefly explain your answer. [3 marks]

______________________________________________________________________________

Under Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, Mesbah and Louise will be held legally liable to Monika's Chocolatier due to the way they terminated their franchise agreement. Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 [s. 6] (1) states that " A franchisee may withdraw...within 60 days of the...receipt of the disclosure document if the disclosure document was not provided at least 14 days before the earlier ofi) date the franchisee signed the agreement and ii) date the franchisee paid any money to the franchisor". Since Mesbah and Louise terminated their contracts even though the disclosure document was provided within the 14 days of franchise agreement being signed, they are legally liable to Monika's Chocolatier.

______________________________________________________________________________

(D) Fact Scenario Three

5.Nour is a human resources manager for Digital Frontier Technologies. She is responsible for all human resource matters in the company's Toronto and Ottawa offices. Every other Sunday for the past 10 years she takes the train from Toronto's Union Station to visit the Digital Frontier offices in Ottawa. Late one Sunday evening in January, after having had a couple of drinks in the bar car of the train, Nour slips on a patch of ice on the last step of the stairs descending from the train and injures herself on the platform at the Ottawa Station. There is a notice prominently displayed on the ticket window at Union Station where she purchased her ticket stating that the railway company is not responsible for any loss or damage incurred by passengers during any trip by rail. As well, the railway company has contracted responsibility for the maintenance and repair of its station platforms to the Ontario Train Stations' Repair and Maintenance Company.

Briefly explain the arguments for a successful legal action by Nour against the railway company for her injury. [4 marks]

______________________________________________________________________________

The railway company is liable for the injury caused to the passenger. Under the Occupiers Liability Act Section 1, it stipulates that "Occupier" is any person having possession of or control over and responsibility for premises or activities on premises'. This means that in order for one to be identified as an occupier, one must exercise control over the place, which in this case the Union Station was exercising.Occupiers' Duty of Care [s. 3] states that "An occupier of premises owes a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises, and the property brought on the premises by those persons are reasonably safe while on the premises"; The duty of care . . . applies whether the danger is caused by the condition of the premises or by an activity carried on the premises"; [s.3 (2)]. The Union Station knows that the snow is a hazard during every winter. Since the Union Station maintains control over the region, it is their duty to ensure that the place is not slippery at all times.If the occupier should avoid such liabilities, there should be a system of a reasonable system rather than depending on a third party to carry out the maintenance. The union Station should always ensure a reasonable safe premise and not depend on third parties if the arrangement is not clear between the two parties.

______________________________________________________________________________

Briefly explain the arguments against a successful legal action by Nour against the railway company for her injury. [4 marks]

______________________________________________________________________________

The Union Station is not liable for the injury since the station has distanced itself with injuries outside the trip. At the ticket window, there is a notice stating that the railway company is not responsible for any loss or damage incurred by passengers during any trip by rail. The Injury did not happen during the trip but rather happened before the trip or rather outside the train itself. The people that should be responsible are the third parties who were tasked with maintain the platform. Union Station work is merely selling the ticket at the platform and ensuring the trip is safe for the passengers.

______________________________________________________________________________

(E) Fact Scenario Four

6.Jamairia is a member of a book club. The members of the club meet once a month at the home of one of the members. This month it is Jamairia's turn to host the book club at her home. There are five other members in the book club, four of them arrive 7 pm. Jamairia provides the food as well as the beer and wine. Kamia, the 5^th member, arrives after 9 pm, profusely apologizing for being late. She explained that she had been delayed by a client reception at work.

Jamairia noticed that Kamia appeared to have been drinking and asked if she would like to lie down for a while. Kamia said that she was a little tired and lay down on the couch for about an hour. She soon became restless and watched the others while they discussed their latest book while having a couple of beers she took from the fridge. Kamia left before the others at around 11 pm saying she wasn't feeling well.On the way out, Jamairia told her to drive careful. On the way home, Kamia crossed the centre line and struck another vehicle, seriously injuring the driver. It was determined that Kamia was legally impaired when she struck the other vehicle.

Briefly describe the arguments for and against the liability of Jamairia for the injuries to the driver of the other vehicle. [6 marks]