Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (650,000)
Ryerson (30,000)
LAW (1,000)
LAW 122 (900)
Lecture 3

LAW 122 Lecture 3: Torts part 2


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

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 8 pages of the document.
Sept. 18, 2019
Week 3 LAW 122 Torts part 2 (chapter 4 and 5)
Intro to intentional tort chapter 4
- Intentional tort is an action intentionally undertaken by a person that causes injury or
damage to another
o For some, intention must have been to injure or damage another
o For others, intention must have been only to act in certain way (not necessarily to
injure or damage)
Assault and battery
- In criminal law they fall under the same area
- In tort, they are separate
- Distinction between the two is that battery is offensive physical contact with another
person and assault is someone having reasonable apprehension that someone will commit
offensive physical contact
Invasion of privacy
- More than 20 distinct privacy related statutes
- Criminal code includes offences to wilfully intercept a private communication
- OHRC and OHS included ‘harassment’ as workplace related offence (invasion of
privacy)
- As of 2012, there was a tort of invasion of privacy
o Jones V. Tsgie (case that invented tort of invasion of privacy)
Appellant Tsgie was employed by BMO
Without lawful authority she accessed banking info of Jones, her
employee at least 174 times within 4 years
Jones commenced legal action for the tort of breach of privacy
Motion judge dismissed case because there was no such thing as the tort of
invasion of privacy
Court of appeal overturned decision of motion judge and confirmed the
existence in ON of tort of “intrusion upon seclusion”
Why? Because we need new remedies that is consistent with changing
needs of society
- Constituent elements of the tort

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Sept. 18, 2019
o Offending part’s conduct must be intentional or reckless
o Offending party must have invaded the victim’s private affairs/concerns without
lawful justification
o A reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing
distress and humiliation
- Proof of harm is not necessary for the tort to be used
- Damages of the tort
o Proven pecuniary loss suffered by victim
o In addition/in absence of any proven pecuniary loss, damages for intangible harm
(embarrassment, hurt feelings, mental distress, etc.)
False imprisonment
- Person is confined within a fixed area without justification
- Detention may be psychological
- Voluntary consent to be the confinement negates a sustainable claim of false
imprisonment (ex. police officer arresting a person reasonably believed to have
committed a crime)
Trespass to land
- Improper interference with another party’s land
- Does not include any lawful interreference with another party’s land (ex. right of the
local hydro authority to come onto one’s land and read the hydro meter)
- Doesn’t include any express/implied consent to enter another’s property (ex. stores)
Interference with Chattels
- Chattel refers to a moveable property (personal property)
o All property except land and buildings
- Torts
o Trespass to chattels
o Conversion
o Detinue
Trespass to chattels
- Tortfeasor interferes with a chattel in the possession of the injured part
- Test of “interference” is met if chattel is damaged or taken or used by tortfeasor
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Sept. 18, 2019
Conversion
- Tortfeasor’s interference with another party’s chattel is really bad that requires forced
sale to tortfeasor
- Compensation is determined by chattel’s market value
- Mistake of tortfeasor as to its right to interfere with chattel is irrelevant. It is sufficient for
liability purposes if the tortfeasor intended to do so
- Factors for finding conversion:
o Extent to which tortfeasor exercises control over chattel
o Extent to which tortfeasor intended to assert right to chattel inconsistent with
injured party’s rights
o Duration of interference
o Resulting expense and inconvenience to injured party
Detinue
- Tortfeasor fails to return chattel to party entitled to its possession (wrongful detention)
- For tort to arise, injured party is obliged to demand for return of chattel (unless obvious
that tortfeasor would refuse)
- If chattel is returned, injured party is entitled to damages for any loss incurred during its
detention
- If tortfeasor refuses to return upon request, court may order to do so
Defences to intentional torts
- Absolute/complete defences
o Consent
o Legal authority
o Self-defence
o Necessity
- Partial defences
o Provocation
o Contributory negligence
Consent
- Alleged injured party agreed to the action or behaviour to tortfeasor
- Consent may be expressed or implied (injuries in sports)
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version