Match the case facts, legal principle, legal concept, and/or legal test on the left withthe correctly corresponding case law from the drop-down menu on the right. Choosethe best answer and only select one case per facts/principle/concept/test.NOTE: make sure to scroll through the whole list of cases in the drop-down menubefore selecting your choice.This is a wrongful dismissal case where the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Court of Appeal ruling that awarded the plaintiff $150,000 for wrongful dismissal plus extra damages because of the manner of the dismissal. The SC determined that the employer's behavior, although insensitive, was not deserving of punishment and set aside the award of aggravated damages.2. The cases Precedent setting because the Supreme Court of Canada enunciated the three parties to make you let whether the seemingly discriminatory condition of employment is justified as a bona fide occupational requirement3. In this case the federal court of appeal outlined the requirement for the order requires an innocent third party who is not a party to the action to disclose information the case illustrates the process of Balancing in the rights of privacy against the rights of copyright holder4. The defendant who was guarantor of the debt owed by company that was owned by her husband claims that the currently was not minding because the plailuff had failed in their duty of disclosure the BC Supreme Court held that although the variations could be deemed material the guarantor never the less had to pay the debt owed5. The issue in this case was the plaintiff it was determined initially had registered a domain name in bad faith however the Superior Court held that the defendant failed to prove three test required to retain the domain name ends of the police was permitted to use it6. In this case the issue was whether the matrimonial home which was transferred into the name of the wife constituted a fraudulent convenience the court determined that there were several pages of fraud apparent in the transaction7. In this case the Supreme Court of Canada held that the dismissed employee may have to mitigate damages by returning to work for the same employer8. This case involves trademark and copyright infringement in a judgement against the defendants the court order that any inventory of the offending goods be delivered up or destroyed and in addition and injunction was issued that required the defendant to stop the differing in conduct and the court also awarded damages punitive damages and pre-judgement interest and cost8. In this case the defendant company made a stop payment on the cheque that was used to pay for services rendered because the work had been in properly done in the end the court had no choice but to find in favour of plaintiff company and enforce the payment of the cheque because they were considered holder in due course9. This is the case where a married couple on the matrimonial home together as joint tenats however this before his death the husband of tailor divorce order and apply for division of the Home unfortunately the husband died before the application was approved the issue was whether the home form part of a state or whether it is passed by survivorship of the wife10. This is the case involving a home state property which is defended company registered a notice against the title to the home the issue was whether in and discharged Bankrupts to veto a sale seal can be vested in the trustee and whether it has any value11. Initially the plaintiff company took issued with defendant company's logo in the subsequent case plaintiffs oppose the defendant arrangement to sell their products on the particular vendor claiming that this arrangement breached a prior agreement in which the sale of certain goods to franchise stores way to be restricted12. The court awarded the plaintiff dollar 1.3 million in damages plus dollar 100000 in aggravated damages for the harm to his reputation cost by his exclusion form of the partnership in this case13. In this case the Canada revenue agency argued that their claim was on the basis of superior priority over or other condition including secured creditors the basis of the Supreme Court ruled that there was no effective assignment of the rent payments and that even if there was the funds would be subject to the deemed trust 14. When the plaintiffs purchase flooring from the defendant company to made it clear what their flooring governments were the salesperson recommended a product which was ultimately purchased based on plaintive criteria the plaintive bought an action against the defendant company into the sale of goods act and consumer protection act