LSO Barrister Tort Law 3

Question 1

In Jones v Tsige 2012 ONCA 32, the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. Which of the following correctly states its elements?

Accepted Answer

Intentional or reckless invasion of the plaintiff's private affairs without lawful justification, where a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive, without requiring proof of actual damage

Answer

Jones v Tsige established three elements: (1) intentional or reckless conduct; (2) invasion of private affairs without lawful justification; (3) a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive — proof of actual damages is not required.

Question 2

In defamation law, the defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest (recognized in Grant v Torstar Corp 2009 SCC 61) requires the defendant to prove:

Accepted Answer

The publication concerned a matter of public interest and the defendant was diligent in verifying the information

Answer

The Grant v Torstar defence requires the defendant to show the publication concerned a matter of public interest and that the communication was responsible — i.e., the defendant was diligent in trying to verify the information.

Question 3

Which of the following correctly sets out the elements of the tort of negligent misrepresentation as established in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd?

Accepted Answer

A special relationship giving rise to a duty of care regarding statements, a negligent misrepresentation, reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting damage

Answer

Hedley Byrne established that negligent misrepresentation requires: a special relationship creating a duty of care for statements, a representation that was inaccurate, reliance by the plaintiff, and resulting loss — without requiring intent to deceive.

Question 4

In Ontario tort law, which of the following activities by a municipality would most likely attract immunity from negligence liability under the operational/policy distinction?

Accepted Answer

A bona fide policy decision not to install guardrails on rural roads due to budget constraints

Answer

Courts distinguish between policy decisions (immune) and operational implementation of those decisions (not immune); a genuine policy choice about resource allocation, such as deciding where to spend the road repair budget, attracts immunity.

Question 5

In the tort of battery, which of the following must the plaintiff prove?

Accepted Answer

Intentional, direct, harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff without consent

Answer

Battery requires proof of intentional, direct, harmful or offensive contact without the plaintiff's consent; actual physical injury is not required, and the defendant need only intend the contact itself, not any resulting harm.

Ontario Bar Barrister Practice Test

Ontario Bar Barrister Practice Test

LSO Barrister Tort Law 3