EMPL 2302: Employment Law, Quiz 3

What is a tort?

1) A non-intentional wrong committed by one person against another that results in loss

2) A wrong committed by one person against another that results in loss, whether intentional or otherwise

3) A wrong committed by one person against another where there is no loss

4) An intentional wrong committed by one person against where there is no loss

Which of the following elements do NOT comprise the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering?

1) The defendant's conduct was flagrant and outrageous

2) The defendant's conduct was calculated to harm the plaintiff

3) The defendant's conduct causes the plaintiff to suffer a visible and provable harm

4) The defendant's conduct was outrageous

What element is NOT required to be proved in the tort of harassment?

1) Proof of injury

2) Outrageous conduct

3) Severe emotional distress

4) Extreme emotional distress

Lenny is driving to work. He changes lanes and unintentionally cuts in front of the car behind him. The driver of the car drives up to Lenny at the next stop sign and shakes his fist at him while shouting, "I am going to beat you to a pulp, idiot!" What tort did the driver commit?

1) Defamation

2) Assault

3) Battery

4) Trespass

Jenny hired a paralegal for her landlord and tenant matter. She was not happy with the service and told her friends that the paralegal was stupid and did not know what he was doing. As a result of Jenny's statements, two of her friends did not hire this paralegal. What tort could Jenny be liable for?

1) Slander

2) Libel

3) Battery

4) Trespass

Alexis is an employer. She owns a clothing boutique and needs to hire an experienced sales person. She knows that Linda is a very experienced and excellent sales person who works for a clothing store in the same plaza. Alexis knows that Linda has six months left on her employment contract, but she approaches Linda and offers her a job in her boutique with higher pay and better benefits than Linda has with her current employer. Linda leaves and her employer experiences a loss of profits. What can Linda's employer do?

1) Sue Alexis for inducing breach of contract

2) Sue Linda for defamation

3) Sue Alexis for intrusion upon seclusion

4) Sue Linda for intentional interference with economic relations

What element is NOT present in the tort of inducing breach of contract?

1) Knowledge by defendant of a contract between the plaintiff and third party

2) The defendant's conduct caused the third party to breach the contract

3) The defendant intended to harm the plaintiff

4) The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach

Which of the following is NOT an element of the tort of intimidation?

1) Threat by the defendant to commit an unlawful act

2) Submission to the threat by the plaintiff

3) Actual damage suffered by the plaintiff

4) Malice on the part of the defendant

Which type of tort has a component of a legally recognized duty of care owed by one party to another, not to engage in any careless or negligent behavior that may cause harm?

1) Unintentional Tort

2) Tort of Defamation

3) Tort of Malicious Prosecution

4) Intentional Tort

Joanne is an employer. During the hiring process she told Fiona that despite an hour lunch, employees usually take more time than one hour, and it is acceptable by the company. After starting work, Fiona, based on the information provided by Joanne, took a two-hour lunch every other day for one week. Fiona was given a warning not to do this again. What tort may Joanne be liable for?

1) Defamation

2) Negligent Misrepresentation

3) Intimidation

4) Inducing Breach of Contract

An executive search firm advised Leon that the employer increases employee pay by 30% every year. Leon later found out that this was not true, and the pay increase was only 10%. Would the employer be liable for the executive search firm's statement?

1) Yes, since employers are legally bound by statements made by executive search firms

2) No, since the executive search firm made the statement and the employer was not present during the discussion

3) Yes, since the employer is a first cousin of the executive search firm's owner

4) No, since the employer did not authorize the executive search firm to provide this information

Jennifer was repeatedly contacted by CBA Corp asking her to leave her current job and come work for CBA Corp. Jennifer was promised an increase in pay, one month's vacation, and flexible hours. Jennifer left her employer and went to work for CBA Corp. She quickly found out that the promises made were not true. She did not receive any of the promised benefits, and the work was not something she had done before. Jennifer was dismissed as she was not able to perform her new job to the satisfaction of the employer. For which tort will the new employer be liable?

1) Inducement

2) Negligent Misrepresentation

3) Intentional Interference with Economic Relations

4) Inducing Breach of Contract

What is the easiest way to calculate special damages?

1) By obtaining reports from specialists

2) By obtaining reports from valuators

3) By obtaining receipts from service providers

4) By obtaining receipts from medical and therapy providers

Mike was constantly embarrassed by his employer. During lunch, his employer would make comments in front of other employees about Mike's clothing, his eating habits, and the types of food Mike brought for lunch. Mike developed depression as a result of his employer's behavior. His self-esteem was greatly affected, and he eventually could not come to work. What damages would Mike's employer be liable for if Mike was successful in a claim against his employer?

1) Special damages

2) General damages

3) Punitive damages

4) Aggravated damages

In Tort Law what is the standard of proof?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Proof on the balance of probabilities

Establishing a prima facie case

Being equally likely - ties go to the Plaintiff

In KJA v. Soberman the court considered whether Soberman breached his fiduciary duties after he was approached by a former client and tendered a proposal when asked. Did Soberman breach his fiduciary duties?

No, because Soberman did not resign in order to take over the project

No, because Soberman did not approach the former client but was invited to make a proposal so he didn't solicit the work directly

Yes, because Soberman took the project away because of his familiarity with the project that he obtained solely from his position with the former employer

Yes, because Soberman had no right to set up a competing elevator consulting business

In the Correia case we examined the elements of the tort of Intentional Interference in Economic Relations. Which of the following is NOT an essential element of the tort

Negligence in causing harm to the plaintiff

Intention to harm the plaintiff

The use of unlawful means to cause harm

Actually causing harm

Which of these is NOT an implied duty for Employers.

Duty to pay for work done

Duty to provide work opportunities

Duty to provide a safe work environment

duty to reward the best workers with promotions

Duty to maintain confidentiality

Which pair of torts are BOTH Intentional Torts

Assault, Negligent Misrepresentation

Inducing breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation

Harassment, luring

Intimidation, defamation

In Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. We saw an instance of the tort of Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering. Which of these is NOT a necessary component of that tort?

Defendant's conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer a visible and provable illness

Wrongful dismissal of the employee

Conduct calculated to harm the Plaintiff

Defendant's conduct was flagrant and outrageous

Which of these elements is NOT a requirement to find the tort of Inducing Breach of Contract?

The defendant had knowledge of a contract between the plaintiff and a third party

The defendant also had a contract with the third party

The defendant's conduct was intended to cause the third party to breach the contract

The defendant's conduct did cause the third party to breach the contract

The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach

Harassment and the Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering are closely related torts. Which of the following is necessary to find harassment but not enough to find intentional Infliction of Mental suffering

Visible and provable illness

Reckless disregard for causing emotional stress

Flagrant and outrageous

Conduct conduct calculated to harm the plaintiff

An "Entire Agreement" clause is intended

To allow the addition of considerations accidentally left out of the entire agreement

To incorporate any representations not in the written agreement

To prevent claims that oral representations were part of the contract

To allow for negotiations about what was agreed before the contract was written down

Probationary Employees

Must be given notice or pay in lieu of notice on termination

Must be given an explanation of the reasons for dismissal

Can only be dismissed for cause

Can be dismissed if the employer carries out a good faith assessment of their suitability

A non-competition clause will not be enforced if what would suffice to properly protect the employer's interests?

A more restrictive non-competition clause

A non-solicitation clause

A non-disclosure clause

A larger termination payment

Which of these is NOT a defining characteristic of a fiduciary (although it may be present in some fiduciaries)

The scope for the exercise of some power

The fiduciary can unilaterally exercise tht power to affect the beneficiary's interests

The fiduciary controls the finances of the beneficiary

The fiduciary controls the finances of the beneficiary the beneficiary is peculiarly vulnerable to the fiduciary's discretion or power

A client comes to your office with her 14 year old son, who speaks English (the client does not). He explains that his mother has been fired from her job as an office cleaner where she did the same tasks for the last five years working for an agency for the minimum wage. The agency paid all the other workers $40.00 per hour and charged clients $95 an hour for cleaning offices. The agency knew she couldn't get independent legal advice or talk to the other workers, who didn't speak her language and she couldn't understand the contract she signed for a 60 hour work-week. On what basis would you attack the contract (which did say it will conform to all the provisions of the ESA)?

The agreement is obsolescent

The agreement is void for lack of consideration

The employer could not show cause

The agreement is unconscionable

Which of these is NOT implied by the implied duty of honest performance (according to Cromwell J in Bhasin)

Intentions of the parties

Not lying

Not knowingly misleading

Acting honestly

If at the end of the trial the judge says it is a tie - both the Plaintiff's and the Defendant's positions are equally likely. Who wins?

The Plaintiff since the Defendant has not fulfilled their burden of proof.

Neither - it is a mistrial

Both - they split the difference on the award

The Defendant since the Plaintiff has not proven their case.

Neither but the matter automatically goes to Appeal

In an employment contract, an ambiguous notice provision

Can rebut the common law presumption in favour of reasonable notice

Will cause the notice provision to be read as the minimum standards in the Employment Standards Act, 2000

Cannot rebut the common law presumption in favour of reasonable notice

Will be interpreted in favour of the employer

Allan is suing his employer for intentional infliction of mental suffering

The onus of proof is on the Plaintiff (Allan)

Both parties bear the onus of proof

The onus of proof is on the Defendant (Employer)

The onus may vary, depending on the case

In the Freudenberg case we saw the cardinal presumption of interpretation is

The court must look behind the words to determine the parties' intentions

The parties don't always mean what the bare words say

The parties intend what the agreement says

The parties' intentions can only be interpreted within the context of the words Question 40 1 / 1 point

In interpreting Restrictive Covenants the Courts have to decide what is "reasonable" Why do they tend to assist employees?

Because they recognize a power imbalance between the company and the employee

Because the workers never have independent legal advice

Because the companies always try to exploit the workers

Because the workers are the defendants

Unlock and Upgrade

Remove all limits from your Quizzes

EMPL 2302: Employment Law, Quiz 3

More Quizzes