Question 1

Shauna Sullivan's son Simon, age nine, has been bullied at school because he has dyslexia. It all started when a supply teacher asked him to read a passage aloud in class. Since that time, Simon's classmate Matthew Maloney has been mocking Simon in front of the other kids. At recesses he follows Simon around, calling him "Simple Simon" and other nasty names. Simon started hiding out in the bathroom or the library to avoid going outside at lunch and recess. Simon came home for lunch one day, burst into tears, and told his mother all about the bullying. Shauna decided to attend the parent council meeting scheduled for that afternoon knowing that the treasurer, Matthew Maloney's mother Monica, would be present.

When the meeting was over, Shauna quietly beckoned Monica aside and, when Monica came over to talk to her, Shauna told her what was going on between Matthew and Simon. Monica's immediate response was, "That does not sound like Matthew at all. I think you should talk to your son about lying. Maybe if he wasn't an only child, he wouldn't always need to be the center of attention." Shauna was furious, but she saw that there was no point in talking to Monica about the problem and decided to make an appointment with the principal the next day. She left the school by the main entrance and walked to her car.

While Shauna was scraping snow and ice off her car's windshield Monica walked over, stopped beside Shauna, and said, "It's such a busy parking lot; I'd hate for something to happen to one of the children. For that matter, all the roads leading to the school are busy in the morning. Doesn't Simon walk to school alone? I think he sometimes crosses the road right in front of my car when I'm driving Matthew and Marsha to school." Shauna responds by hitting Monica with the ice scraper and saying, "If you know what's good for you, you'll steer clear of my son."

Applying the relevant and correct principle(s) of intentional tort discuss the following questions:

Whether Monica have grounds for a civil action against Shauna?

Whether Shauna have grounds for a civil action against Monica?

Provide reasons for your answer by testing the elements of the tort, with reference to the fact situation and the law.

TMS Lighting Ltd manufactured high end commercial lighting fixtures on a prestigious industrial/commercial area of Brampton, Ontario. TMS purchased this location because it required clean premises for its lighting fixture manufacturing facility. KJS Transport Inc., which operated a long-haul trucking service, moved in next door some time later. Unfortunately for TMS, KJS's operations interfered with its manufacturing operations. KJS did not pave its parking lot. As a result, over the next four years, dust particles raised by KJS trucks driving on its unpaved parking lot caused damage as dust blew into TMS's factory and settled on lighting products manufactured on site. Even if TMS closed all its windows and doors, factory fans would draw in dust. And the heat inside the factory created intolerable working conditions. Production would then have to slow down or halt altogether. When KJS failed to remedy the situation, and TMS is considering a legal action.

Applying the relevant and correct principle(s) of intentional tort discuss the following questions:

Identify the applicable intentional tort outlining and discussing the elements. Discuss whether TMS will succeed in their legal action.

Note: Application means you have to identify the correct legal concept, define it, enumerate the elements, and then apply it to the fact scenario before drawing conclusion.

Question 2

Joseph an accountant prepared financial statements for Pentagon Ltd pursuant to a review engagement, which is an intermediate form of financial reporting, less onerous than an audit and more onerous than a compilation engagement, requiring the accountant to make inquiries of management and perform certain analytical procedures to determine if the financial information contained in the client's records is plausible. Pentagon Ltd. failed to remit over $1 million in provincial retail sales tax during the period December 1985 to December 1991. Notices of assessment were issued by the Ministry of Revenue demanding payment of the unremitted tax plus interest and a 25 per cent penalty. The unremitted sales tax was treated by Joseph as revenue of Pentagon Ltd, which resulted in an overpayment of income tax in the amount of approximately $220,000. Eighty per cent of that amount was eventually recovered.

Pentagon Ltd sued Joseph in court.

Note - "The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants ("CICA") Handbook requires that the accountant has sufficient knowledge of the business to make intelligent inquiries and that the accountant possess an appreciation of matters that could have a significant effect on the information being reported on."

The CICA Handbook sets out the professional standards that apply to accountants in conducting a review engagement. The CICA Handbook explains that a review engagement consists "primarily of enquiry, analytical procedures and discussion related to information supplied to the public accountant by the enterprise with the limited objective of assessing whether the information being reported on is plausible within the framework of appropriate criteria". "Plausible" is defined as "appearing to be worthy of belief based on the information obtained by the public accountant in connection with the review".

The CICA Handbook also stipulates that an accountant must apply "analytical procedures such as comparing the current and prior period information and considering the reasonableness of financial and other inter-relationship..."

Applying the relevant and correct principle(s) of law discuss the following questions:

a) Identify and explain the most applicable legal concept. With particular attention to the details of the scenario above, test the elements of the legal concept identified against the scenario above to determine whether an action in court is likely to succeed. Provide reasons for your answer, with proper reference to the fact situation and the law.

b) Discuss the remedy(s) if any, available to any of the parties. Ensure to name the party to whom the remedy(s) outlined applies to. (

Note: Application means you have to identify the correct legal concept, define it, enumerate the elements, and then apply it to the fact scenario before drawing conclusion.

Question 3

Amritha Singh is a middle manager with Coaster Plus Ltd (Coasters), a company that designs and manufactures roller coasters for amusement parks across North America. She has been appointed one of the project managers for the design and delivery of a special roller coaster for the Ultimate Park Ltd, an American customer. A major component of the project is the steel tracking, and one possible source is Trackers Canada Ltd (Trackers). Amritha's supervisor has asked her to negotiate the necessary contract. Amritha began negotiations with Jason Hughes. Jason is a representative of Trackers, the steel tracking manufacturer willing to supply tracking to Coasters, Amritha's employer. Amritha provided Jason with the plans and specifications for the roller coaster, and they negotiated a number of points, including price, delivery dates, and tracking quality. A short time later, Jason offered to sell Coasters a total of 900 metres of track in accordance with the plans and specifications provided. Jason's offer contained, among other matter, the purchase price ($1.5 million), delivery date, terms of payment, insurance obligations concerning the track, and a series of warranties related to the quality and performance of the tracking to be supplied. There was also a clause, inserted at Amritha's express request, which required Trackers to pay $5000 to Coasters for every day it was late in delivering the tracking.

After renewing the offer several days, Amritha for several days, Amritha contacted Jason and said, "You drive a hard bargain, and there are aspects of your offer that I'm not entirely happy with. However, I accept your offer on behalf of my company. I'm looking forward to doing business with you."

Within a month, Trackers faced a 20% increase in manufacturing costs owing to an unexpected shortage in steel. Jason contacted Amritha to explain this development and worried aloud that without an agreement from Coasters to pay 20% more for the tracking, Trackers would be unable to make its delivery date. Amritha received instructions from her supervisor to agree to the increased purchase price in order to ensure timely delivery. Amritha communicated this news to Jason, who thanked her profusely for being so cooperative and understanding.

Jason kept his word, and the tracking was delivered on time. However, Coasters has now determined that its profit margin on the American deal is lower than expected, and it is looking for ways to cut costs Amritha is told by her boss to let Jason know that Coasters will not be paying the 20% price increase and will remit payment only in the amount set out in the contract. Jason and Trackers are stunned by this development.

Applying the relevant principle(s) of contract law under the relevant chapter discuss the following questions:

a) Discuss whether the initial negotiations between Jason and Amritha have legal consequences. (

b) Discuss specific applicable ways by which each party mentioned above could have avoided the contract as well as the implications of each way identified. (

c) Discuss the consequences of the instruction of Amritha's boss to the effect that Coasters will not be paying the 20% price increase and will remit payment only in the amount set out in the contract. (

Note: Application means you have to identify the correct legal concept, define it, enumerate the elements, and then apply it to the fact scenario before drawing conclusion.