- •Introduction
- •1) Criminal Law and Tort Law Contrasted
- •B. The origins of canadian tort law
- •1) The Nature of the Defendant's Conduct
- •2) The Nature of the Plaintiff's Loss
- •D. The objectives of tort law
- •2) The Instrumentalist View
- •I) Specific Deterrence
- •II) General Deterrence
- •III) Market Deterrence
- •E. Personal injury, tort law, and other compensatory vehicles
- •1) Governmental Initiatives
- •2) Private Sector First-Party Insurance
- •F. The organization of tort law
- •A. Introduction
- •1) Application of the Standard of Care
- •I) Judicial Policy
- •2) Special Standards of Care
- •3) Proof of Negligence: Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
- •1) Cause-in-Fact
- •4) Market Share Liability
- •5) Loss of a Chance
- •6) Multiple Tortfeasors Causing Indivisible Damage
- •D. Damage
- •E. The duty of care
- •1) The Foreseeable Plaintiff (The First Branch of the Anns Test)
- •2) Policy Considerations (The Second Branch of the Anns Test)
- •The Supreme Court decision in Galaske V. O'Donnell [Note 123:
- •In its recent decision in Ryan V. Victoria (City) [Note 126:
- •F. Remoteness of damage
- •1) The Foreseeability Rule
- •G. Defences
- •1) Contributory Negligence
- •2) Voluntary Assumption of Risk (Volenti Non Fit Injuria)
- •3) Illegality (Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio)
- •4) Inevitable Accident
- •H. Remedies
- •1) Personal Injury
- •I) The Impact of the Trilogy
- •2) Death
- •3) Property Damage
- •A. Introduction
- •B. Products liability
- •1) Manufacturing Defects
- •2) The Duty to Warn
- •3) Reasonable Care in Design
- •1) The Duty of Care
- •2) The Standard of Care
- •D. Human reproduction
- •1) Prenatal Injuries
- •2) Wrongful Birth
- •3) Wrongful Life
- •4) Wrongful Pregnancy
- •E. Occupiers' liability
- •1) The Classical Common Law of Occupiers' Liability
- •2) The Modern Common Law of Occupiers' Liability
- •3) Legislative Reform
- •F. Breach of statutory duty
- •G. Pure economic loss
- •I) Foreseeable Reliance/Reasonable Reliance : The Prima Facie Duty of Care
- •II) Policy Concerns: The Issue of Indeterminacy
- •2) Negligent Performance of a Service
- •3) Relational Economic Loss
- •I) Contractual Relational Economic Loss
- •4) Product Quality Claims
- •H. Governmental liability
- •2) Negligence
- •In Rondel the House of Lords provided a number of reasons for the immunity. They included:
- •Intentional torts
- •A. Introduction
- •B. The meaning of intention
- •C. Intentional interference with the person
- •1) Battery
- •3) False Imprisonment
- •5) False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution
- •6) Malicious Procurement and Execution of a Search Warrant
- •7) Abuse of Process
- •9) Privacy
- •10) Discrimination
- •12) Harassment
- •13) Defences to the Intentional Interference with the Person
- •III) Defence of a Third Person
- •V) Discipline
- •VI) Necessity
- •VII) Legal Authority
- •VIII) Illegality: Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
- •II) Contributory Negligence
- •1) Elements of Liability
- •2) Defences to the Intentional Interference with Land
- •3) Remedies
- •4) Trespass to Land and Shopping Malls
- •5) Trespass to Airspace
- •E. Intentional interference with chattels
- •1) Trespass to Chattels
- •3) Conversion
- •4) The Action on the Case to Protect the Owner's Reversionary Interest
- •5) An Illustrative Case: Penfold's Wines Pty. Ltd. V. Elliott
- •6) The Recovery of Chattels
- •F. Intentional interference with economic interests
- •1) Deceptive Practices
- •II) Conspiracy to Injure by Unlawful Means
- •I) Direct Inducement to Breach a Contract
- •II) Indirect Inducement to Breach a Contract
- •Intentional Interference with the Person
- •Barry j. Reiter Melanie a. Shishler
- •1) Elements of Liability
- •2) Defences
- •Barry j. Reiter Melanie a. Shishler
- •1) The Elements of Liability
- •3) Dogs
- •4) The Scienter Action and Negligence
- •Barry j. Reiter Melanie a. Shishler
- •1) Elements of Liability
- •2) Defences
- •Barry j. Reiter Melanie a. Shishler
- •2) Principal and Agent
- •3) Statutory Vicarious Liability
- •4) Independent Contractors
- •In Lewis (Guardian ad litem of) V. British Columbia, [Note 50:
- •5) Liability of the Employee or the Agent
- •Barry j. Reiter Melanie a. Shishler
- •Chap.6 Contents
- •1) Physical Damage to Land
- •2) Interference with Enjoyment and Comfort of Land
- •7) Defences
- •8) Remedies
- •1) The Definition of a Public Nuisance
- •A. Introduction
- •2) Reference to the Plaintiff
- •3) Publication
- •E. Defences
- •2) Privilege
- •3) Fair Comment on a Matter of Public Interest
- •F. Remedies
- •H. The next challenge: political speech
- •A. Introduction
- •1) Contract Law and Tort Law
- •2) Fiduciary Law and Tort Law
- •3) Restitution and Tort Law
- •C. Public law
- •1) The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Tort Law
- •A. The centrality of the tort of negligence
- •B. The dynamism of the tort of negligence
- •C. Generalization and integration
- •D. Reform and modernization
- •E. The triumph of compensation and loss distribution policies
- •Ison, t.G., The Forensic Lottery: a Critique on Tort Liability as a System of Personal Injury Compensation (London: Staples Press, 1967)
- •Intentional conduct of a public official in abuse of her power, or knowingly beyond the scope of her jurisdiction, causing damage to the plaintiff.
- •Preface
- •Philip h. Osborne
12) Harassment
There is no conventional or clear distinction between stalking and harassment and the terms are often used interchangeably. The dichotomy drawn here is between harassing conduct that causes a person to fear for her own safety (stalking) and harassing conduct that is seriously annoying, distressing, pestering, and vexatious (harassment). Harassment may include some minor sexual harassment, harassment by creditors or governmental officials, and abusive or racist communications, all of which may be disturbing and upsetting but not frightening. Harassment, so described, may not fall within any of the traditional torts although harassing telephone calls to one's home may be a nuisance and some harassment may be a breach of privacy. In extreme circumstances, harassment may be actionable as an intentional infliction of nervous shock.
There is little authority addressing the issue of a discrete tort of harassment. [Note 65: R. v. Rollinson, [1991] 3 F.C. 70 (T.D.) (harassment by customs officials).] What there is has arisen mainly in respect of sexual harassment in the workplace. In Chapman v. 3M Canada Inc., [Note 66: (1995), 24 C.C.L.T. (2d) 304 (Ont. Gen. Div.), aff'd (1997), 37 C.C.L.T. (2d) 319 (Ont. C.A.). See also Allen v. C.F.P.L. Broadcasting Ltd. (1995), 24 C.C.L.T. (2d) 297 (Ont. Gen. Div.); and Nicholas v. Mullin (1998), 199 N.B.R. (2d) 219 (Q.B.).] an action for sexual harassment in the workplace was struck out as disclosing no cause of action. The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the lower court, which had applied the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Seneca College and held that the Ontario Human Rights Code provides an exhaustive and exclusive scheme of adjudication and redress for such claims and there is no room for the development of an independent tort of sexual harassment. A further obstacle to tort remedies for harassment in the workplace is created by the Supreme Court decision in Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [Note 67: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929.] which excludes tort actions from employment disputes arising under a collective bargaining agreement governing the parties. These disputes must be resolved under the labour arbitration process. In Lajoie v. Kelly, [Note 68: [1997] 3 W.W.R. 181 (Man. Q.B.).] however, an independent tort of sexual harassment was recognized in a workplace that was not governed by a collective agreement. The trial judge was guided by, and adopted the definition of, sexual harassment used by the Supreme Court in interpreting The Human Rights Code of Manitoba. [Note 69: 1 S.M. 1987-88, c. 45.] In Janzen v. Platy Enterprises Ltd., [Note 70: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1252. ] the Supreme Court defined sexual harassment as "any sexually oriented practice that endangered an individual's continued employment, negatively affects his/her work performance, or undermines his/her sense of personal dignity." This definition was wide enough to cover both the hostile work environment situation that arose in Lajoie and the quid pro quo situations where benefits and other advantages are tied to sexual favours.