Question
The defendant, who was the guarantor of a debt owed by a company that was owned by her husband, claimed that the guarantee was not
The defendant, who was the guarantor of a debt owed by a company that was owned by her husband, claimed that the guarantee was not binding because the plaintiff had failed in their duty of disclosure. The BC Supreme Court held that, although the variations could be deemed material, the guarantor nevertheless had to pay the debt owed.
Answer 1Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
This case involves trademark and copyright infringement. In a judgment against the defendants, the Court ordered that any inventory of the offending goods be delivered up or destroyed and, in addition, an injunction was issued that required the defendants to stop the infringing conduct. The Court also awarded damages, punitive damages, and prejudgment interests and costs.
Answer 2Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
Initially, the plaintiff company took issue with the defendant company's logo. In a subsequent case, the plaintiffs opposed the defendant's arrangement to sell their products with a particular vendor, claiming that this arrangement breached a prior agreement in which the sale of certain goods to franchised stores was to be restricted.
Answer 3Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
This case is precedent-setting because the Supreme Court of Canada enunciated a three-part test to evaluate whether a seemingly discriminatory condition of employment is justified as a bona fide occupational requirement.
Answer 4Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
This is a case involving a homestead property in which the defendant company registered a notice against the title to the home. The issue was whether an undischarged bankrupt's right to veto a sale can be vested in the trustee and whether it has any value.
Answer 5Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
In this case, The Canada Revenue Agency argued that their claim was on the basis of "superior priority" over all other creditors, including secured creditors. The BC 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.
Answer 6Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
In this case, the Federal Court of Appeal outlined the requirements for an order that requires an innocent third party, who is not party to the action, to disclose information. The case illustrates the process of balancing the rights of privacy against the rights of a copyright holder.
Answer 7Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
The Court awarded the plaintiff $1.3 million in damages, plus $100,000 in aggravated damages for the harm to his reputation caused by his expulsion from the partnership in this case.
Answer 8Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
In this case, the issue was whether the matrimonial home, which was transferred into the name of the wife, constituted a fraudulent conveyance. The Court determined that there were several "badges of fraud" apparent in the transaction.
Answer 9Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
The issue in this case was that the plaintiff, it was determined initially, had registered a domain name in bad faith; however, a superior court held that the defendant failed to prove the three tests required to retain the domain name and so the plaintiff was permitted to use it.
Answer 10Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
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 SCC determined that the employer's behavior, although insensitive, was not deserving of punishment and set aside the award of aggravated damages.
Answer 11Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
When the plaintiffs purchased flooring from the defendant company, they made it clear what their flooring requirements were. The salesperson recommended a product, which was ultimately purchased, based on the plaintiffs' criteria. The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant company under the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Act.
Answer 12Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a dismissed employee may have to mitigate damages by returning to work for the same employer.
Answer 13Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
This is a case where a married couple owned their matrimonial home together as joint tenants. However, before his death, the husband obtained a divorce order and applied for the division of the home. Unfortunately, the husband died before the application was approved. The issue was whether the home formed part of the estate or whether it passed by survivorship to the wife.
Answer 14Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
In this case, the defendant company made a stop payment on a cheque that was used to pay for services rendered because the work had been improperly done. In the end, the Court had no choice but to find in favor of the plaintiff company and enforce the payment of the cheque because they were considered a "holder in due course".
Answer 15Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada
| The defendant, who was the guarantor of a debt owed by a company that was owned by her husband, claimed that the guarantee was not binding because the plaintiff had failed in their duty of disclosure. The BC Supreme Court held that, although the variations could be deemed material, the guarantor nevertheless had to pay the debt owed.
| Answer 1Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| This case involves trademark and copyright infringement. In a judgment against the defendants, the Court ordered that any inventory of the offending goods be delivered up or destroyed and, in addition, an injunction was issued that required the defendants to stop the infringing conduct. The Court also awarded damages, punitive damages, and prejudgment interests and costs.
| Answer 2Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| Initially, the plaintiff company took issue with the defendant company's logo. In a subsequent case, the plaintiffs opposed the defendant's arrangement to sell their products with a particular vendor, claiming that this arrangement breached a prior agreement in which the sale of certain goods to franchised stores was to be restricted.
| Answer 3Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| This case is precedent-setting because the Supreme Court of Canada enunciated a three-part test to evaluate whether a seemingly discriminatory condition of employment is justified as a bona fide occupational requirement.
| Answer 4Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| This is a case involving a homestead property in which the defendant company registered a notice against the title to the home. The issue was whether an undischarged bankrupt's right to veto a sale can be vested in the trustee and whether it has any value.
| Answer 5Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| In this case, The Canada Revenue Agency argued that their claim was on the basis of "superior priority" over all other creditors, including secured creditors. The BC 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.
| Answer 6Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| In this case, the Federal Court of Appeal outlined the requirements for an order that requires an innocent third party, who is not party to the action, to disclose information. The case illustrates the process of balancing the rights of privacy against the rights of a copyright holder.
| Answer 7Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| The Court awarded the plaintiff $1.3 million in damages, plus $100,000 in aggravated damages for the harm to his reputation caused by his expulsion from the partnership in this case.
| Answer 8Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| In this case, the issue was whether the matrimonial home, which was transferred into the name of the wife, constituted a fraudulent conveyance. The Court determined that there were several "badges of fraud" apparent in the transaction.
| Answer 9Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| The issue in this case was that the plaintiff, it was determined initially, had registered a domain name in bad faith; however, a superior court held that the defendant failed to prove the three tests required to retain the domain name and so the plaintiff was permitted to use it.
| Answer 10Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| 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 SCC determined that the employer's behavior, although insensitive, was not deserving of punishment and set aside the award of aggravated damages.
| Answer 11Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| When the plaintiffs purchased flooring from the defendant company, they made it clear what their flooring requirements were. The salesperson recommended a product, which was ultimately purchased, based on the plaintiffs' criteria. The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant company under the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Act.
| Answer 12Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a dismissed employee may have to mitigate damages by returning to work for the same employer.
| Answer 13Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| This is a case where a married couple owned their matrimonial home together as joint tenants. However, before his death, the husband obtained a divorce order and applied for the division of the home. Unfortunately, the husband died before the application was approved. The issue was whether the home formed part of the estate or whether it passed by survivorship to the wife.
| Answer 14Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
| In this case, the defendant company made a stop payment on a cheque that was used to pay for services rendered because the work had been improperly done. In the end, the Court had no choice but to find in favor of the plaintiff company and enforce the payment of the cheque because they were considered a "holder in due course".
| Answer 15Choose...Tim Ludwig Professional Corporation v. BDO Canada LLPParamount Life Insurance Co. v. HillVoltage Pictures LLC v. John DoeMitchell Jenner & Associates v. SaundersBateman v. SteedChartier v. MNP Ltd.MResch v. Canadian Tire Corporation422885 BC Ltd. (Cashplan) v. 482915 BC Ltd. (End Roll)Behiel v. Primco LimitedMeiorin CaseEvans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31Mars Canada Inc. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd.Black v. Molson CanadaDunn Estate v. DunnRivermist Holdings Ltd. v. McGregor EstateHonda Canada Inc. v. KeaysPerformance Plus Golf Academy v. Hydeaway Golf ClubLouis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc.Royal Bank of Canada v. ZukCanaDream Inc. v. Garmeco Canada |
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access with AI-Powered Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started
International Marketing And Export Management
Authors: Gerald Albaum , Alexander Josiassen , Edwin Duerr
8th Edition
1292016922, 978-1292016924
