1. Intentional Interference with the Person

2. Outline Pure economic loss. Negligent misrepresentation.
Introduction to intentional torts.
Battery.
Assault.
False imprisonment.

3. Categories of liability for pure economic loss
negligent misrepresentation
independent liability of statutory public authorities
negligent performance of a service
negligent supply of shoddy goods or structures
relational economic loss

4. Applying Anns/Cooper:
Does the alleged duty of care fall within an established category?
If no, was the harm reasonably foreseeable?
If yes, was there a sufficient relationship of proximity between the parties?
If yes, a prima facie duty of care exists. Defendant must now demonstrate that there are residual policy considerations that negate or limit the duty of care.

5. Design Services Ltd. v. Canada, 2008 SCC 22
Does the alleged duty of care fall within an established category?
If no, was the harm reasonably foreseeable?
If yes, was there a sufficient relationship of proximity between the parties?
If yes, a prima facie duty of care exists. Defendant must now demonstrate that there are residual policy considerations that negate or limit the duty of care.

6. Negligent Misrepresentation
Proximity defined by a “special relationship”:
defendant must voluntarily assume responsibility for his or her words; and
the plaintiff’s reliance must be foreseeable and reasonable.

7. Elements common to all intentional torts:
Volition
Was the defendant’s act voluntary?
Intent
Did the defendant have a subjective desire to bring about the results or consequences of his or her act?

8. Intent ... Imputed intent: Transferred intent:
intent is found where the unintended consequences are certain (or substantially certain) to result from the act.
Transferred intent:
intend to commit tort against one party but commit it against a different party.
intend to commit one tort but a different tort is committed.

9. Motive
Duress
Provocation
These are relevant to the assessment of damages.

10. Mistake or Accident? Mistake: volition and intent are still present.
you intend the consequences of your act but the factual or legal significance of your act is different than you thought.
Accident:
you don’t intend the consequences of your act.

11. Battery A direct, intentional (or negligent),
physical interference that is
harmful or offensive to
the reasonable person.
There is no need to prove damage.

12. Assault The defendant intentionally creates in the mind of another,
a reasonable apprehension of
immediate physical contact (a battery).
There is no need to prove damage.

13. False imprisonment A direct, intentional, complete imprisonment
that is not lawfully justified.
There is no need to prove damage.