LE/ENG 3000 Professional Engineering Practice Franz Newland (PSE 134)

Legal system in Canada Based on English common-law Laws come from Legal precedence (judges define this in ruling on cases – “judge-made” law) Legislation (government writes this) “codified” in statutes Regulations can be made in accordance with statutes and also constitute a law

Law topics Definitions Case questions Learn these “Tort law” – plaintiff “wronged” and was “owed a duty of care” Contract law – process of tendering, legality of purpose, mistakes, breach of contract, “equitable estoppel” Equity – employment equity, human rights, harassment Environmental law Other – controlled goods, space law, classified information, RSSSA, privacy laws

Contracts What was the last contract you entered into?

Concept of a contract Legally enforceable agreement between two parties. Requires 5 elements: Offer made and accepted Mutual intent to enter into the contract Consideration (e.g. money) Capacity to contract Lawful purpose Can be written or oral (e.g. the coffee I bought this morning) Will revisit this later

Law question structure Introduction This case deals with <legal concept> History of the legal concept, including key elements (such as conditions for a contract or conditions for proving tort) Analysis Parties to the law case Have the conditions been proven? Liability What liability exists under the legal concept? Decision Summary regarding what a court would likely decide and why Damages that might be recoverable Overall Clear connection between case and law, clear analysis and decision

Tort law To compensate a party that has suffered damages as a result of “intentional or unintentional” wrongdoing Intentional: nuisance, defamation (libel – written, slander – verbal), “occupier’s liability” Unintentional: negligence 3 Key principles:

Tort law To compensate a party that has suffered damages as a result of “intentional or unintentional” wrongdoing Intentional: nuisance, defamation (libel – written, slander – verbal), “occupier’s liability” Unintentional: negligence 3 Key principles, to be proven “on a simple balance of probabilities” (not beyond reasonable doubt): Defendant owed the plaintiff a “duty of care” Defendant breached that duty by his/her conduct Defendant’s conduct caused injury to the plaintiff No need for a contractual relationship

Legal precedence for Tort law Donoghue vs. Stevenson Manufacturer responsible to ensure ginger beer free from defect Hedley Byrne Bank would have been responsible due to reliance on their “special skill”, but bank advice came with clear disclaimer, so no claim. Wolverine Tube vs. Noranda and Arthur Little. Arthur Little did not owe Wolverine Tube a duty of care due to the disclaimer that this could not be relied on for third parties Canama Constructor was relying on engineer’s “special skill” even though there was no consideration and the engineer did not realize he was being relied upon – the engineer needed to add a disclaimer. Winnipeg Condos Note the doctrine of “caveat emptor” – the person entering into a contract needs to satisfy themselves of the terms. This deals with the fact a contractor is responsible to “subsequent purchasers” where a failure to take reasonable care in construction would create defects that pose a substantial danger to the health and safety of the occupants. Supported in Vargo v. Canmore where the defects may not have materialized yet but could in future, and could then lead to real and substantial danger.

Tort case format Introduction Analysis Liability Decision What does Tort law address? Need for contractual relationship? Three key principles Analysis Who were the parties involved (plaintiff, defendants)? Were the three principles met? Liability We’ll come back to this Decision Decide whether the plaintiff’s damages are recoverable from the defendant(s)

Admin Office mixes – watch them! Challenges? Audio issues? Lifelong learning tab now available on learn.lassonde Inspiration for some of you Some of you have already submitted – autonomy over submission time You can choose to resubmit as often as you want up to the 29th. Navigating the learn.lassonde site

Tort law What is the test?

Tort law What is the test? “Owed a duty of care” Failure in that duty of care Caused injury to the plaintiff

Tort law What are they key legal precedents?

Tort law What are they key legal precedents? Donoghue vs. Stevenson Hedley Byrne Wolverine Tube Canama v Huffman Winnipeg condos

Tort law What are they key legal precedents? Donoghue vs. Stevenson – snail in ginger beer. No contractual relationship needed Hedley Byrne – bankrupt customer. “Special skill”, and clear disclaimer Wolverine tube vs. Noranda and Arthur Little – environmental survey. Reinforcing the ability of a disclaimer to avoid duty of care Canama Contracting vs. Huffman – barn on manure pit. Engineering advice can be relied upon unless covered by a disclaimer Winnipeg Condos vs. Bird Construction – condo cladding falling. Overruling of “caveat emptor” in the case of health and safety Vargo v Canmore -> the fault does not to have to be causing real and substantial danger yet

Case

Contract law What are the 5 things required for a contract?

Contract law – “Equitable estoppel” Test? Case history?

Equitable estoppel 2 parties in a contract Terms change – both parties act as if terms changed, one party relying on the changed terms But note – inaction does not meet this criterion Second party can be estopped from reverting to original terms Conwest – exploration rights Owen Sound public library – payment terms Burrows – late payments

Legality of purpose Test Cases

Legality of purpose Test Cases Reasonable in time and geography? Proprietary interest to protect? Is a non-solicitation clause sufficient? Cases Elsley v. Collins – Niagara Falls Lyons v. Multari - Dentists

Misrepresentation Test? Precedent?

Misrepresentation A false representation or statement made by the defendant; Which was knowingly false; Which was made with the intention to deceive the plaintiff; And which materially induced the plaintiff to act; and Which caused the plaintiff damage. Derry v Peek 1889 – steam-tram vs. horse-drawn system