using the following concepts, thoroughly explain how certain legal principles apply

• the contract of employment
• intellectual property
• sole proprietorships and partnerships
• the nature of a corporation

Caroline, a 65 year old grandmother had been a legal secretary with the largest law rm in St. Catharines for 40 years. As a result of her hard work she had earned the position of executive assistant to one of the rm's senior partners. Caroline was paid an annual salary of $50,000.00. On December 2211d after a pleasant exchange of "good mornings" Caroline's boss requested that she set up coffee service for a client meeting in the boardroom. "Not likely" said Caroline, "It's not in my job description". Caroline was immediately red. She was escorted out of the ofce by the ofce security guard and left on the street. Her request to use a telephone to call a taxi was rejected Caroline commenced an action for unjust dismissal. In addition, she has requested $100,000.00 in damages for the humiliation which she suffered and for mental distress. At the trial one of the other legal assistants testied that Caroline had taken home ofce supplies which she had given to her grandchildren to complete their school work. As well, she had typed and photocopied their assignments during working hours. Finally, it was claimed that Caroline would regularly leave early or go home sick when her boss was out of the office. Caroline acknowledged that this was all true, although she stated that she had left early on a "few" occasions and not "regularly". Caroline also claimed that the workplace had become increasingly toxic over the past few years. On a number of occasions there had been heated exchanges between the lawyers and staff and there was increased pressure to increase production and adapt to new systems. Although Caroline was not directly impacted by the new rules she said that she no longer felt \"safe\" in the work environment, and that she was unable to sleep and had been seeing a counsellor to deal with the stress. Her boss had dismissed her complaints, jokingly saying that she was getting old and probably had early onset of dementia that was creating the stress. Caroline has been unable to obtain similar employment, although a friend had offered her a retail clerking job at $35,000.00 per year. Although no potential legal employer has said why they have not offered her a position, she feels that it is likely because of her age and because of the stigma of being \"red\" from her previous employment. Reguired: Provide the judgment which would be rendered in this case with particular reference to the positions advanced by each of the parties. If Caroline is successful, what damages would she receive? Be certain to include an explanation of the applicable legal principles in your answer. Mickey's Restaurants Ltd. is a large rm that operates a chain of 200 roadhouse style restaurantftavems across Canada under the name of \"Mickey's\" and is well known nationally due to its extensive advertising campaigns. ACTG 2P4!) PAGE 3 OF 4 Mick Vern recently bought a restaurant/tavern, previously known as \"Paddy O'Lanterns\" situated in downtown St. Catharines. He formed a company under the name of Mickey V's Ltd. and renamed the restaurant \"Mickey V's\". The decor and furnishings of Mick's restaurant are not at all like those of the Mickey's chain, but the external appearance, franchise colours and sign bears some similarity. Mick plans to franchise the business in Ontario. The president of Mickey's Restaurants Ltd. is angry because she has been planning to open a anchise store in St. Catharines. She alleges that Mick is attempting to deceive the public, is trading on her company's reputation, and is benetting from its advertising. She has written to Mick, insisting that he change the name of his company and his restaurant; otherwise Mickey's Restaurants will commence legal proceedings. Mick maintains that no one is confused, that he chose the name \"Mickey V's\" deliberately to distinguish his restaurants from those of the chain, and that, since neither of the principal owners of Mickey's Restaurants Ltd. are called Mickey, they are the ones who are trading improperly. Mick comes to you for advice. He also asks if he can patent his grandmother's recipe for ied chicken (which includes 13 secret herbs and spices) and her recipe for pasta sauce. He intends to sell both from his restaurant but would like patent protection before selling his mother's inventions to the public. Reguired: Advise Mick What legal actions might be taken against him and whether or not they might succeed and the likelihood and requirements of obtaining the patents. Brad, Patrick and Andrew have established separate advertising businesses. Brad and Andrew operate as sole proprietorships. Patrick has incorporated a company, Patco Inc. to run his business. Patco was recently the successful bidder for the production of a 2 year advertising campaign for Big Beer Brewery ("BBB"). Since Patco did not have the resources to complete the campaign, he suggested to Brad and Andrew that they complete the job together. All parties agreed that they would devote their full time and attention to the contract for the next 2 years. Brad, Andrew and Patrick agreed that although the contract, as signed, was with Patco Inc., they would all contribute equal amounts of capital, staff and time and divide the profits equally, subject to a commission fee of $50,000.00 which would be payable to Patco Inc. for arranging the contract. The campaign was successful with each of the parties earning $250,000.00 each year. Shortly before the 2 year period expired, BBB told Patrick that they would not be renewing the contract with Patco. In response to Patrick's inquiries BBB revealed that it has signed an agreement with Bradco Lid., a corporation recently formed by Brad, for advertising services for the next year ACTG 2P40 PAGE 4 OF 4 at a price of $250,000.00. Andrew and Patrick come to you for advice and want to commence legal action against Bradco Ltd. and against Brad for all profits that Bradco earns from the contract, and/or an injunction to prohibit Bradco Ltd. from proceeding. Brad claims that since Bradco Lid. is a new corporation, any past dealings which Brad may have had do not apply to Bradco Ltd. and, in any event, there never was a partnership between the parties and therefore all clients were "up for grabs". Required: Advise Andrew and Patrick whether there is any basis to commence an action against Bradco Ltd. or Brad. Is Brad correct in asserting that there was no partnership? Both Andrew and Patrick insist that they were partners with respect to all dealings, past and future, with BBB. Does Brad have personal liability since it was Bradco Lid. that signed the new contract? Brad owns a large farm property in his personal name and set up Bradco Ltd. to protect the property. Be certain to explain the applicable principles as part of your answer. Would the situation be any different if Patrick was personally hired by the brewery as an in-house employee in charge of advertising? Why or why not