<aside> ‼️ This is still work-in-progress!

</aside>

All the cases in this document are fundamentally based on real cases. This means that there is a genuinely "right" answer for most of them.

Every case here either (1) presents an interesting question of law that you should know the resolution for or (2) is funny. Note that we only care about the question of law and not of fact: assume that there is sufficient evidence to show that the facts are all true, then apply the law.

Names of parties and the exact scenarios are changed for humour. Any resemblance to previous or future examinations is purely coincidental.

Special thanks to Imaad Mian and his companion Quizlet that goes along with this casebook. This casebook is hereby released, like my other study materials, as CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (if you make your own study materials from it: share them publicly, make them free, and give credit).

Torts

Strict Liability Torts

• Auto Parts Manufacturers Association v Boak et al (Ontario Superior Court 2022) ****Tyler blocked the roads leading to the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor in protest of vaccine mandates. The AMPA is a lobbying group that represents Canada's automotive industry, which has lost $600 million to traffic disruption. The AMPA sues.
• Li v Barber et al (Ontario Superior Court 2022) Jimmy is a resident of Ottawa. Defendants are Freedom Convoy truckers. Trucks were honking well into the night, disrupting Jimmy's sleep and his ability to cram his CO 250 assignment. Jimmy sues.

Intentional Torts

• Fitzpatrick v Orwin (Ontario Superior Court 2012) ****Arthur and Vivek are neighbours who can't agree on where their property boundaries are. Vivek hires a surveyor to place posts along the actual property line. Arthur disagrees with the surveyor and removes the posts to mow what he thinks is his lawn. Vivek and Arthur have an argument later that night. In the morning, as Vivek leaves for class, he finds a dead coyote on his windshield with blood dripping out of its mouth. He reports this to the police and tells them to arrest Arthur, which they do. Later, the police decide they cannot prove Arthur guilty for a lack of evidence and release him. In fact, there is no direct evidence attaching Arthur to the act because Vivek's Ring camera lost power due to a cut wire. Arthur and Vivek sue and countersue for a variety of claims.
• Hustler Magazine v Falwell (United States Supreme Court 1988) ****Ben Shapiro is a conservative political commentator. mathNEWS, a periodical published by Imaad, runs an article titled "Ben Shapiro's First Time" that purports to describe how Ben lost his virginity with his mother in a very embarrassing story and using crude language. Ben sues Imaad for defamation.
• California v Ashford University (California Superior Court 2021) ****The Ivey School of Business, a for-profit business school, had salespeople tell prospective students that they have career prospects as teachers in Ontario. However, Ivey's teaching program is not recognized by Ontario's teacher licensing board. This is laid out in the standard form disclaimer waivers that students sign. Students graduate with worthless degrees from the program. Ontario sues on the behalf of students.

Special Torts

• Hozaima v Perry et al (Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench 2008) ****Moe failed BU 231 and was unable to progress to third year BBA. He was then kicked out of Laurier after his appeals to Desmond and the dean were denied. Specifically, he asked to write a makeup exam next term but Desmond did not want to offer another exam. Moe claims that Desmond and the university breached a fiduciary duty because Desmond did not teach properly and the university did not let him adjust his progression to retake the exam.
• ThedaCare v Ascension (Wisconsin Circuit Court 2022) ****Phineas Hospital and Ferb Hospital are hospitals. Phineas's radiology and cardiovascular team were offered better jobs at Ferb with better pay and work-life balance, so every member quit on the same day to accept jobs at Ferb. Phineas is now deprived of a radiology team and cannot treat its patients. Phineas sues.

Negligence

• Waldick v Malcolm (Supreme Court of Canada 1991) Arthur👩‍🌾 has a very long driveway to his farm, which he rents. He did not salt the driveway, leading to a visible buildup of ice. Howard, who was not dressed for the cold, slipped and fell on the ice while crossing the driveway and cracked his skull. Arthur claims that the rural area in which he lives does not have the same custom of salting driveways as the city. Howard sues for negligence.

Duty of Care