Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
Ryerson (30,000)
LAW (1,000)
LAW 122 (900)
Lecture 3

LAW 122 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Royal Opera House, Rylands V Fletcher, Crown Attorney


Department
Law and Business
Course Code
LAW 122
Professor
Peter Wilson
Lecture
3

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 11 pages of the document.
1
LAW 122 Lecture 3: Intentional Torts
Introduction:
INTENTIONAL TORT: is an action intentionally undertaken by a person that causes injury or damage to another
o For certain intentional torts, the intention must have been to injure or damage another
o For other intentional torts, the intention must have been only to act in a certain way (not necessarily to
cause injury or damage to another)
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
They are two separate offenses that revolve around the idea of unpermitted or unlawful toughing of another
o Assault is the threat to cause intentional harm on to another person; and affected feels in danger for
their safety (no one actual touched the victim or an attempt to touch the victim was made)
o Battery is the actual physical impact on to the victim and there was unconsented touching and the
victim
CASE BREIF 4.1 PG 84 (BAR FIGHT WITH BOUNCER INTENTIONAL TORT FORCE)
The plaintiff was escorted out of a bar after becoming drunk and belligerent. Once outside, he struck one of the
bouncers from behind. In retaliation, that bouncer knocked him to the ground with a kick to the head. Another
bouncer then climbed on top of the plaintiff and punched him in the face for about five minutes. The plaintiff
suffered a number of injuries and consequently sued the company that owned the bar.
The court held that the bar's employees were entitled to use reasonable force to remove the obnoxious
customer from the premises. It further held that the plaintiff was partially to blame for the disturbance because
he had struck one of the bouncers from behind.
However, the court also found that the employees used excessive force. It therefore allowed the plaintiff to
recover compensation for the losses that he suffered, minus a reduction of 30 percent to reflect the fact that he
had provoked the attack. The bouncers were held personally liable and the company that owned the bar was
held vicariously liable.
INVASION OF PRIVACY
Dramatic growth has occurred in federal, provincial, and territorial privacy legislation
There are more than 20 district privacy-related statutes
Many are subject-matter-related (health information) or address the retention and rights of access to personal
information held by government (e.g. the Privacy Act 1985)
The criminal code includes an offence to willing intercept a private communication [s.184 (1)]
The Otaio Hua Rights Code ad the Oupatioal Health ad “afet At hae iluded haasset as a
workplace-related offence
Is there a recognized tort of invasion of privacy? NOT IN THE ONTARIO LAW BUT LATER WAS BROUGHT INTO
THE ONTARIO LAW A“ THE TORT INTRU“ION UPON “ECLU“ION
CASE BREIF 4.2 pg.86 (INVASION OF PRIVACY UNAUTHROIZED ACCESS TO BANK INFO)
Facts:
The appellant (Winnie Tsige) was employed by the Bank of Montreal. Without lawful authority or permission,
she accessed the banking information of the respondent, Sandra Jones, her fellow employee, at least 174 times
over a four-year period.
Sandra Jones commenced a legal action for the tort of breach of privacy.
The otio judge disissed Ms. Joes’s atio o the gouds that Otaio la does ot eogize the tot of
breach of privacy.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

2
The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the motion judge and confirmed the existence in
Otaio of the tot of Itusio upo “elusio.
Why now? -I the ods of the judget: Reogitio of suh a ause of atio ould aout to a
incremental step that is consistent with the role of this court to develop the common law in a manner consistent
ith the hagig eeds of soiet.
TEST FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY CONT.
Constituent Elements of the Tort:
o The offedig pat’s odut ust e itetioal o ekless
o The offedig pat’s ust hae iaded the iti’s pivate affairs or concerns without lawful
justification
o A reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation, or
anguish
Proof of harm (i.e. economic loss) is not a necessary ingredient of the tort
Damages for the Tort of Intrusion upon Seclusion:
o Proven pecuniary loss suffered by the victim
o In addition, or in the absence of any proven pecuniary lass, damages for intangible harm
(embarrassment, hurt feelings, mental distress etc.)
The court indicated a ceiling of $20 000
FALSE IMPRISIONMENT
A person confined with a fixed area without justification
The detention may be psychological
Voluntary consent to the confinement is a complete defense
Legal justification or authority to the confinement negates (cancels) a sustainable claim of false imprisonment
(e.g. a police officer arresting a person reasonably believed to have committed or be in the act of committing a
crime.
TRESPASS TO LAND
This tort is improper interference with aothe pat’s lad
It does ot ilude a laful itefeee ith aothe pat’s lad e.g. the ight of the loal hdo authoit
to come onto your property to read the hydro meter)
It does not include any express or implied consent to enter anothe pat’s popet e.g. etail outlets
YOU BE THE JUDGE 4.1 PG.93 (TRESPASSING ON LAND STRUCTURE 2M OVER PROPERTY LINE)
Facts:
Vista Inc, a real estate developer, built a 20-storey apartment complex. Unfortunately, as a result of an innocent
error, a comer of the building extends two metres onto the neighbouring lot, which is owned by Paolo. Vista
admits that it committed the tort of trespass and it is willing to either pay compensatory damages or buy the
affected land from Paolo. Paolo, however, insists that he should be able to exercise complete control over his
property. He therefore wants an injunction to prevent Vista's ongoing trespass. If successful, Paolo will be able
to force Vista to tear down a substantial part of its building.
Considerations:
Whether the trespass was deliberate or unintentional
The cost of eliminating the trespass
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

3
The attitude or response of the trespassing party
The extent of the trespass
Solutions:
If the party is in a rural area then the courts may decide to award compensation for the victim rather then force
the tortfeasor to tear the building
However, if this were to have happened in a Urban setting then there is a good chance that the courts will see it
fit that the tortfeasor may have to tear their building down and rebuild within the proper property limitations
INTERFERENCE WITH CHATTELS
CHATTEL“ efes to oale popet
Torts
o Trespass to chattels
The tortfeasor interferes with a chattel in the possession of the injured party
The test of itefeee is et if the hattel is daaged, take o used  the totfeaso
o Conversion
The totfeaso’s itefeee ith aothe pat’s hattel is suffiietl egegious outstadigl
bad, shocking) to require its forced sale to the tortfeasor
Copesatio is deteied  the hattel’s aket alue
A mistake of the tortfeasor as to is right to interfere with the chattel is irrelevant. It is sufficient
for liability purposes if the tortfeasor intended to do so
FACTORS FOR FINDING CONVERSION
The extent to which the tortfeasor exercised control over the chattel
The etet to hih the totfeaso iteded to asset a ight to the hattel iosistet ith the ijued pat’s
rights
The duration of the interference
The resulting expense and inconvenience to the injured party
o Detinue
The totfeaso fails to etu the hattel to the pat etitled to its poessio ogful
detention)
For a tort to arise, the injured party is obliged to demand return of chattel (unless it is obvious
that the tortfeasor would refuse to do so)
If the chattel is returned, the injured party is entitled to damages for any loss incurred during its
detention
If the tortfeasor refuses to return the chattel upon request, the court may order that it do so
INTERFERENCE WITH CHATTELS SUMMARY
Tort
Basis of the Tort
Remedy
TRESPASS TO
CHATTELS
Totfeaso’s itefeee ith the ijued pat’s
chattel in its possession
Compensation in damages
CONVERSION
- Totfeaso itefeee ith ijued pat’s
chattel in its possession, sufficiently serious to
justify its forced sale
- trying to take ownership of an item that clearly
already belongs to someone
Forced sale of chattel to tortfeasor
DETINUE
Wogful detetio totfeaso’s failue to
return chattel to injured party
Return of chattel to injured party and/or
compensation for damages
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version