final review law of tort.docx

4 Pages
Unlock Document

Western University
Management and Organizational Studies
Management and Organizational Studies 2275A/B
Milford Green

Malette vs. Shulman - Jehovah's Witness Blood Transfusion • Battery: intentionally touching someone without their consent • Important to her that the conduct of the doctor be given judicial judgement Fortey vs. Canada - Police Didn't Bring Teen to Hospital • Guardian ad Litem: litigation on behalf of a minor • Fortey sued for negligent omission - not fulfilling the duty of care - and won Hill vs. Church of Scientology of Toronto - Defamation • Bigger case is that CRA wanted to claim tax money from the Church, who claimed they were merely donations to a religion and therefore tax exempt • Manning claimed that Hill lied to the court, submitted fake affidavits, and committed perjury o A lawyer's highest fiduciary duty is to the court, and then to their client o All the allegations were false - Hill sued Manning and the Church for defamation • Manning's arguments: o Infringement of his Charter right to free speech by the government • Hill wasn't acting as capacity as government when he sued - acted as an individual o Infringement of his common law right to freedom of expression • The right a person's protection of their reputation trumps the right to make false statements destroying that reputation o New York Times vs. Sullivan precedent in the United States Supreme Court (persuasive) • Canadian Supreme Court did not adopt the precedent in Canada • Law of defamation is broader, free speech is narrower o Enjoys qualified privilege: in certain circumstance, people can make defamatory statements without being charged with defamation (lawyer acting in the best interest of the client) • Absolute privilege: members of parliament can say whatever they want to say without the threat of being sued • Manning wasn't acting in the interest of his client; he attacked the character of Hill with malice o Attempt to decrease the amount of punitive damages • Test for calculation of punitive damages was shown and it was deemed reasonable • There are multiple ratios here: o In these circumstances, the Charter did not apply to Hill o There is a balance to achieve between freedom speech and right to maintain reputation o New York vs. Sullivan doesn't not represent good law in Canada o Manning did not have qualified privilege o In this case, with these facts, punitive damages were appropriate Hodgeson vs. Canadian Newspapers Co. Ltd - Defamation • In a trial court, it's plaintiff versus defendant o Plaintiff submits a statement of claim o Defendant submits a statement of defense • Can also file a counterclaim: against the plaintiff • Can also file a cross-claim: against a third party • In court of appeal, the one launching the appeal is the appellant, and the other is the respondent o Appeals are either dismissed (rejected) or allowed • Punitive damages were awarded at trial court, and the OCA reversed that that decision o The Supreme Court of Canada refused the hear the appeal against the reversal The Quiz •
More Less

Related notes for Management and Organizational Studies 2275A/B

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.