LAW 122

Practice Test

Examination Rules

 The test is 60 minutes long.

 The test is open book, including student notes and class presentations.
 You can answer the questions using your laptops or on a sheet of paper.
 This is a practice test and not part of your assessment for Law 122.

1
1. Eric owns and operates the Cozy Corner restaurant. The restaurant has a take-out service for
customers to phone in orders and have them delivered to their homes. Ian is employed by Eric to
deliver the meals. In his haste to deliver a meal, Ian failed to stop at a stop sign and crashed into
a car driven by Jennie, causing considerable damage.

What is the legal claim that Jennie may bring for the damage to her car? [1 mark]
The Tort of Negligence

Jennie may hold Eric legally liable for the damage caused by Ian crashing the delivery van into
her car.

True / False [1 mark]

Briefly explain your answer using IRAC rule and relevant case law. [3 marks]

The issue here is whether Eric can be vicariously liable to Jennie for the negligent acts of
Ian. The legal test or requirements for vicarious liability is that the employee, in the course
of his/her employment is engaged in acts authorized by the employer or acts closely
connected to the employment relationship. In this case, Ian was carrying out his duty of
meal delivery, which was an action deemed to be in the course of his employment and
authorized by his employer Eric. Therefore, Eric will likely be held vicariously liable for
negligent actions of Ian’s, i.e., failing to stop at a stop sign and crashed into Jennie’s car,
causing considerable damage. The decision in Bazley v. Curry is instructive here where the
Supreme Court of Canada held a charitable organization liable for the action of Curry,
who sexually assaulted children in the charitable home on the grounds that Curry’s action
were closely connected to his employment.

Based on the facts of this case at hand and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bazley v.
Curry, Eric will most likely be vicariously liable to Jennie for negligent acts of the Ian.

2. Ten-year-old James lives with his older brother Frank, who is 28 years old. Gerry (9 years old)
visited his friend James. Gerry and James were in Frank’s room for a while playing video game.
While they were there, Frank came into his room and asked Gerry if he saw a $100 bill on the
table, Gerry answered no. Frank got furious and yelled at Gerry to give up the $100 bill he had
stolen from his room. Gerry emptied his pockets and told Frank he did not see or take any money
and emphasized he was telling the truth. Frank ordered his brother James out of the room, Gerry
tried to leave Frank’s room as well but Frank blocked his way and shut the door and locked it
with the key and took the key. James was already in the living room by this time. Frank left the
house and said to James his younger brother, that should teach your friend a lesson and make
him confess. Gerry was locked in the room alone with no way to get out. Though the window
was open, and Gerry could easily pass through the window, it was the third floor of the house – it
would be unreasonable and unsafe to pass through the window and risk as fatal. There was no

2
safe way out of the room except through the door, which was locked. Gerry was distressed, his
friend James tried to calm him down but he started crying and was emotionally distraught. Three
(3) hours later, Frank showed up, he opened the door and said to Gerry, you are lucky I found my
money, it was in my backpack, I realized I put it in there, you are free to leave. When Gerry’s
parents learnt about this, they vowed to make Frank pay.

What legal action can be brought against Frank? [1 mark]

Tort of False Imprisonment

Briefly explain your answer using IRAC rule. [4 marks]

The issue in this case is whether an action for the tort of false imprisonment can be
instituted against Frank. The legal test to sustain action for false imprisonment is that 1)
the offended party must have been held in a confined space with no other route to escape,
2) the injured party must have been held against their will, 3) the offended party must have
been held without any legal justification or authority.
In this case, Frank locked up Gerry in a room, which is a confined space because they were
no safe means to escape. Escaping through the window would expose Gerry to the risk of
falling, which could be fatal. Additionally, Frank did not have any legal justification or
authority to detain Gerry in his room; moreover, it turned out that Frank actually found
the money he had wrongly accused Gerry of stealing.
Based on the analysis above, the requirements for false imprisonment appear to have been
met when Gerry was locked up by Frank. Consequently, an action for false imprisonment
against Frank is most likely going to succeed.
3. Residents of the entertainment district in the city of Toronto are concerned about the
increasing violence caused by people leaving the local bars and nightclubs after midnight. They
have submitted a petition to City Council demanding action. In response, City Council has
drafted a by-law making it a criminal offence for anyone to be on the street in the entertainment
district after 12 midnight.

This bylaw, if passed by City Council, is enforceable.

True / False [1 mark]

Briefly explain your answer using IRAC rule. [4 marks]
The relevant issue is constitutional division of powers. The relevant principle is that under
the Constitutional Act of 1982, s.91 gives exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government to
legislate on criminal law. The province of Ontario or any other province or territory in
Canada does not have the constitutional authority to legislate on criminal law. Therefore,
the attempt by the City of Toronto to legislate on criminal law by making it a criminal
offence for anyone to be on the street in the entertainment district after 12 midnight is
Ultra Vires it constitutional powers and the purported law will be unenforceable.

3
Based on the analysis above, and pursuant to the provisions in s.91 of the Constitution Act
of 1982, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law in Canada.
Therefore, the purported by-law by the City of Toronto is unenforceable because it does
not have the constitutional authority to do so.