Ameera is a human resources manager at Canadian Resorts Inc. Canadian Resorts owns and operates several resorts throughout Canada. In response to its advertisement for several housekeeping positions, Ameera has received more than 100 employment applications, and she has to select 20 applicants for interviews. Ameera does not believe that she can choose 20 applicants to interview, given the sparse information on the resort's employment application form, so she searches various social networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) for additional information about each of the applicants.

Question 1: What legal problems may arise from Ameera accessing social networks for more information on the applicants? Question 2: What procedure or approach could Ameera have adopted to minimize any legal problems from the search of social networks? The Rocky Mountain Resort Corporation owns and operates a luxury hotel in Banff, Alberta. In response to complaints about patrons bringing their dogs and cats into the hotel, the resort has introduced a policy that animals are not permitted on the premisesin any of the hotel rooms, the lobby, restaurants, or the lounge. The notice is on the resort website and at the registration desk. Safia and Madelaine have arrived at the hotel for a weekend visit. As Safia has limited vision, she has her CNIB Guide Dog, Rufus, with her. When they tried to register at the hotel, the clerk at the front desk informed Safia that Rufus could not stay with her. She spoke to the manager and asked whether there was an exception for Guide Dogs. The answer was no; for health reasons, animals were not permitted in the hotel. Question 1: Can Safia, sue the resort? If yes, What is the legal claim that Safia can bring against the Rocky Mountain Resort Corporation? Question 2: What are the arguments for and against Safia's claim? In answering this question, apply the applicable legal test. In July 2020, a brawl involving approximately 12 adults took place in the hotel lobby of the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Florida.6 Although unproved at the time of writing, it is alleged that the fight arose as a result of a toxic mixture of alcohol and oxycodone, combined with differences between individuals and groups. The fight involved both males and females, and it lasted close to 3 minutes before the property's security intervened. Charges for disorderly conduct and possession of oxycodone have been laid against three of the individuals involved. Question: Is the property at fault for the occurrence of this incident? Why or why not? An elderly lawyer advertised the sale of his practice, including the house from which he conducted the practice. The defendant lawyer entered into negotiations with the elderly lawyer, during which he was told that the law practice brought in 300 per annum, when in fact it brought in only 200 per annum. The elderly lawyer showed him summaries that came to a 200 per annum average income and said that the rest of the 300 figure was borne out by other papers in the office that he could check. The documents did not show any extra business and the defendant lawyer did not bother to inspect them. Soon after signing the contract he realized that the documents did not support the claim that the law practice brought in 300 per annum and refused to go through with the contract. The elderly lawyer sued for specific performance of the contract, and the defendant lawyer counterclaimed for fraudulent misrepresentation. Question: Was the elderly lawyer liable for the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation? In response to a canvass for donations to the Dalhousie Campaign Fund, Arthur Boutilier pledged $5,000. After he signed the pledge form, he suffered severe financial problems that prevented him from honouring the pledge. In responding to a request from the college that he make the payment, he said, "In reply I desire to advise you that I have kept my promise to you in mind. As you are probably aware, since making my promise I suffered some rather severe reverses, but I expect before too long to be able to redeem my pledge." As a consequence of the funds pledged in the campaign, the college expended large sums of money on the various projects mentioned in the campaign. Unfortunately, Mr Boutilier died before his pledge could be redeemed, and the college commenced action against his estate for $5,000 for breach of contract. Question 1: Is the estate liable for breach of contract for the failure of Arthur Boutilier to honour his $5,000 pledge to the college? Question 2: What if the college in the terms of the subscription stipulated that those who pledged at least $5,000 would have their name memorialized on a plaque mounted on the wall at the entrance of the newly constructed building? Question 3: Would the promised donation be enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel? Explain, what is promissory estoppel?