 1) unintentional – negligence  Already looked at many such as a bartender’s duty of care, or a homeowner with slippery stairs.  Now we focus on:  2) Intentional – key word: ‘intent!’  A) Trespass to the person  B) Trespass to land  C) Nuisance  These can be both criminal and civil matters

 1) Assault and Battery  2) Sexual Assault  3) Professional (Medical) Battery Arthur v. Wechlin (Handout)

4) False Imprisonment confining or restraining a person without their consent in a specific area The plaintiff must attempt every reasonable means of escape before they can sue for this. 5) Malicious Prosecution Abusing court process in order to torment someone without a real wrongdoing 6) Mental Suffering/Harm Mental anguish resulting in emotional stress/illness 7)Invasion of Privacy

 The act of entering or crossing another person’s land without permission or legal authority  Intent is to “go on” the land.  Innocent trespass is still trespass and they are liable  ‘Reasonable’ force may be used to remove the person from the property

Involves one person’s unreasonable use of the land that interferes with the use and enjoyment of adjoining land by others The harm must be serious and continue for some time. Public nuisance affects the use and enjoyment of public property – protesting, polluting, oil spills,

 Consent  Self-defence  Defence of others  Defence of property  Legal authority  Necessity

 This simply means that the tresspass or the nuisance was necessary to avoid a greater evil/harm.  In many instances, defence of others, or property, or public interests are the necessities.  There are exceptions that fall outside of the other parameters and are therefore deemed as ‘necessity’.  The reasonable person test would apply here in determining what is necessary.

 Defences to interference  Pg  Ensure that you have them down enough in order to apply them, know them for a test, or exam.

 A false statement that damages another person’s reputation and may cause financial loss.  Intentional or unintentional  Plaintiff must prove the following:  1) The words used by the defendant were false  2) The words referred to the plaintiff  3) The words were read or heard by a 3 rd party  4) The words caused economic loss  The meaner the remarks the more serious the tort

 Slander-defamation through spoken words, sounds, gestures, or facial expressions  Libel – when someone Is defamed in a more permanent visual or audio form (politics?) CASE: A former Toronto Liberal candidate has launched a $1.5 million defamation lawsuit against Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and the federal party's provincial co-chair, David MacNaughton. (april 2014)

 Truth - Prove that the statements were true  Absolute Privilege – society’s interests are being served through open debate – ex. Parliament, courts, coroners  Qualified Privilege – when someone is qualified to make comments – teachers, employers – letter of reference (does not work if malice is involved  Fair Comment – media critics (malice rule)

 Pg 463 Q# 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 ( knowledge & facts)  Pg Q# 9, 10, 11 (deeper thinking)  Case: WTC Radio Ltd v. Simpson (2008) p.466

 3 of 6 - Berketa v. Niagara Police  4 of 6 - F. H. v. McDougall  5 of 6 - Skobleniuk v. Eaglestar  6 of 6 – Nitsopoulos v. Wong  In class discussions:  McNeil v. Brewers  Sage v. Renner  Minet v. Kossler