• Print
  • intentional tort accounts for 50 out of 811 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

340909 Ontario Ltd v Huron Steel Products Ltd (1990), 73 OR (2d) 641 (HCJ)

What constitutes unreasonable interference:
** 1. The severity of the interference, having regard to its nature and duration and effect;
** 2. The character of the locale;
** 3. The utility of the defendant’s conduct;
** 4. The sensitivity of the use interfered with.

Agar v Canning (1965), 54 WWR 302 (Man QB)

Consent does not give blanket immunity from liability. Conduct exceeding consent renders a defendant liable for injuries that result.

Aitken v Gardiner (1956) 4 DLR (2d) 119 (ON SC)

The plaintiff may recover value of chattel at time of conversion (general rule) and potentially also consequential losses caused by the conversion (to compensate the plaintiff if the thing increased in value between the time it was taken and the time of the trial).

Attorney-General (Ontario) v Orange Productions Ltd (1971), 21 DLR (3d) 257 (HC)

A public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take it on – instead, taking action becomes the responsibility of the community at large.

Austin v Rescon Construction Ltd (1984), 57 DLR (4th) 591 (BC CA)

Landowner may deny entry for any reason they choose and has no obligation to accommodate a contractor or anyone else wishing to enter.

Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd, [1978] 1 QB 479

The rights of landowners in the airspace above their land is restricted to such a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it – above that height he has not greater rights then the general public.

Bettel v Yim (1978), 20 OR (2d) 617 (Co Ct)

A person is responsible for all damage, foreseeable or not, that results from their battery.

Bird v Holbrook (1828), 4 Bing 628, 130 ER 911

Force is not justified when used for an improper purpose. (Use of force, without warning or threat of force, is not justified to prevent trespass.)

Board of Governors of the Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology v Bhadauria, [1981] 2 SCR 181

Discrimination is not a tort at common law.

Boehringer v. Montalto (1931), 254 NY Supp 276

Landowner's title to the subsoil extends only to the depth which he or she can reasonably use.

Bradford Corp v Pickles (1895), AC 587 (HL)

No one has right to water running to their property. The diversion of water by a neighbour does not constitute a nuisance.

C v Wren (1986), 35 DLR (4th) 419 (Alta CA)

Age is not a barrier to consent; all that matters is that the person is able to understand the risks and benefits of treatment.

Cadbury Schweppes Inc v FBI Foods Ltd, [1999] 1 SCR 142

Breach of confidence is a hybrid cause of action drawing on both equity and common law. Therefore judges have discretion in formulating remedies.

Caltagirone v Scozzari-Cloutier, [2007] OJ No 4003 (Sup Ct (Sm Cl))

6 questions to asks to determine whether it has been an actionable breach:
** 1. Would a reasonable person consider the information to be private?
** 2. Has the plaintiff consented to the collection of the information in some way?
** 3. Has the info been acquire for a legal process or public interest reason
** 4. Has the plaintiff consented to the disclosure or publication of that information?
** 5. If no consent, has the information been disclosed for legal or public interest reason?
** 6. Is the legal or public interest reason one that a reasonable person would consider to outweigh the interest of the individual in wanting to keep the information private

Cant v Cant (1984), 49 O.R. (2d) 25 (Co Ct)

Recovery should be possible where the defendant calculatedly acted to cause the plaintiff harm or loss.