Part A

1. Explain a bona fide occupational requirement in the context of human rights legislation.
2. Discuss the concerns Canadians are having over the protection of their privacy given the widespread use of computers. Provide a recent example.
3. The separate existence of a corporation is said to be a legal myth. Discuss the development of this myth and its value in our society today.
4. Discuss why it is significant to find that an employment relationship exists and how such a relationship is determined.
5. Discuss how the normal rules in relation to residential tenancies have been modified in your jurisdiction by statute and discuss the effectiveness of such changes in terms of the objectives of the statutes.
6. Discuss the function of the federal Competition Act and the role it plays in consumer protection.

Part B ( Case analysis )

1. Chuck, Howard, and Ben decide to go into a business venture, developing and distributing educational software. For tax reasons, they do not incorporate. Each contributes $10,000, and Howard also contributes a truck and his programming expertise. They agree that all three will be actively involved in the day-to-day management of the business. To determine their rights and obligations, they enter into a one-page agreement that provides only that each of Chuck, Howard, and Ben is to get 33-1/3% of the profits and also specifically states that they are not to be viewed as partners. Based on these facts, explain their partnership type, situation and liabilities.
2. Three students in a business faculty created a computer program that compared various retirement plans. They decided to go into business together to offer their services directly to the public. After doing a feasibility study, they felt there were profits to be made. For tax reasons, they decided not to incorporate. Each contributed $15,000 and Wayne, one of the three, contributed a computer. In a short written agreement, they agreed that all three would be actively involved in the management of the business, that all three would work to update the program, that they would share the profits equally, and that they should not be viewed as partners. Based on these facts, explain if there are any anomalies in their agreement. How would the court of law view their agreement?
3. Jeff had worked for Sweetums Candy Shoppe for the last 12 years. His boss came in one morning and told Jeff that although he had always been a great employee, he was being let go for financial reasons. He gave Jeff only 2 weeks' notice. Jeff checked his employment contract and verified that the agreement provided that only 2 weeks' notice was required. Under the terms of the employment standards legislation, Jeff is entitled to a minimum of 8 weeks' notice. If Jeff sues for wrongful dismissal, what is the Court likely to find?
4. As the fishing season slowed down in the fall, Bob decided that it might be a good time to find a real bargain in used equipment for his boat. He found a navigation instrument for sale for $15,000, a great price. However, he only had $10,000, so he borrowed the other $5,000 from the bank. He also signed a Security Agreement on the equipment as collateral in favour of the bank, which promptly registered its interest in the Personal Property Registry. Bob made his payments for a while, but things started to go badly for him. He was unable to make any further payments, although he still owed over $3000. Desperate and not thinking too clearly, Bob sold his boat to his friend Claude for $50,000 and left for Central America with the funds. When the bank realized what Bob had done, it located the boat and demanded that Claude pay off the $3000+ or lose the navigational equipment. Claude was outraged because he had paid Bob in good faith and argued that he had never borrowed anything from the bank and therefore owed it nothing. What can the bank do in this case?
5. Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd. v. National-Oilwell Canada Ltd., 2012 FCA 333 (CanLII). Wenzel was an inventor who had patented and produced a tool containing bearings that could better handle the download in well-drilling operations. National-Oilwell manufactured an identical product, and Wenzel sued for patent infringement. Explain the appropriate remedies available to Wenzel. How would it affect your answer to know that Wenzel manufactured a tool sold to the industry that contained the bearing at the time of the patent application? Note as well that National-Oilwell also claimed that the development of the bearings was an obvious development to anyone in the industry.

long explanation with references