Causes of Action (20:App G): Difference between revisions

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 38: Line 38:
*'''Battery''' –  Battery  is  defined  as  any  intentional  and  unwanted  touching,  including  hitting,  spitting  on  the claimant or cutting his/her hair.   
*'''Battery''' –  Battery  is  defined  as  any  intentional  and  unwanted  touching,  including  hitting,  spitting  on  the claimant or cutting his/her hair.   
**'''Defences:'''   
**'''Defences:'''   
#'''Lack  of  Intent:'''  Battery  is  an  intentional  tort  which  means  that  the  plaintiff  must  prove  the defendant  acted  with  intent  in  committing  battery. The  defendant  need not  intend  to  cause  the plaintiff harm. Rather intent refers to the desire to engage in whatever act amounts to battery. If the defendant can show that he/she did not act with intent, the claim for battery will unlikely be successful.. For example, if the physical contact was involuntary or an accident  
**#'''Lack  of  Intent:'''  Battery  is  an  intentional  tort  which  means  that  the  plaintiff  must  prove  the defendant  acted  with  intent  in  committing  battery. The  defendant  need not  intend  to  cause  the plaintiff harm. Rather intent refers to the desire to engage in whatever act amounts to battery. If the defendant can show that he/she did not act with intent, the claim for battery will unlikely be successful.. For example, if the physical contact was involuntary or an accident  
#'''Self-defence:'''  The  defendant  can  defeat  a  battery  claim  if  he/she  can  show  that  the  battery was  an  act  of  self-defence.  There  are  three  basic  elements  to  self-defence  which  the  defendant must prove:  
**#'''Self-defence:'''  The  defendant  can  defeat  a  battery  claim  if  he/she  can  show  that  the  battery was  an  act  of  self-defence.  There  are  three  basic  elements  to  self-defence  which  the  defendant must prove:  
##You  honestly  and  reasonably  believed  that  you  were  being  or  about  to  be  subject  to battery;  
##You  honestly  and  reasonably  believed  that  you  were  being  or  about  to  be  subject  to battery;  
##There was no reasonable alternative to the use of force; and  
##There was no reasonable alternative to the use of force; and  

Revision as of 03:54, 7 July 2016



Causes of Action

The cause of action is the claimant’s reason for bringing a suit against the defendant. While there must always be a cause of action, in Small Claims it is generally sufficient to cite the facts; Small Claims judges will take a liberal view of pleadings and allow litigants to assert claims in non-legalistic language. However, the judge must still be able to find a cause of action in the facts the claimant alleges. Potential claimants should therefore review the following, non-exhaustive list of causes of action to determine if they have a valid claim. Claimants may claim for more than one cause of action on a notice of claim and are advised to do so if they believe more than one cause of action applies or are not sure which one is valid; it is easier to name superfluous causes of action on the notice of claim than to get the claim amended after filing it. The following causes of action may be brought in Small Claims unless the amount claimed is over $25 000 or it states otherwise in the list. They are organized into 3 categories: 1) common; 2) rare; 3) see a lawyer

Defences

For each cause of action there are usually a number of possible defences. Both Claimants and Defendants should be aware of the defences. Below are defences to some of the more common causes of action.

1) Common causes of action

  • Breach of Contract – Contract law governs voluntary relationships between parties. It is a complicated and nuanced area of the law . To bring a claim for breach of contract, a party must demonstrate that the other party failed to perform a contractual obligation. Depending on the type of term that is breached, the other party may be able to “terminate” the contract. Termination. Terms that go to the heart of a contract are usually called “conditions”. Breach of a condition by one party entitles the other party to terminate the contract and end their obligations. Less important terms are called “warranties”. Breach of a warranty does not give the other party a right to terminate. However, the party not in breach can still sue the other party for breach of contract.
    • Defences:
  1. No consideration: In order for a promise or any other contractual obligation to be enforceable by courts, there must be consideration. Consideration is what is given in exchange for a promise that makes the promise binding. If there is no consideration for a promise, the promise will not be enforced by the courts, even if the parties have an otherwise valid contract.
  2. Void contract: A contract can be void and therefore unenforceable for several reasons, including lack of mental capacity, uncertainty of terms, illegality.
  3. Unconscionability: A contract is said to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable where the circumstances surrounding the creation of the contract gave rise to a grave inequality in bargaining power between parties. This is complicated area of contract law, and legal advice should be sought.
  4. Misrepresentation: If the other party made a statement to you before the contract came into existence that you relied on in entering the contract and that turned out to be false, you may be able to have the contract set aside.
  5. Frustration: frustration occurs when an unforeseen event renders contractual obligations impossible or radically changes the primary purpose of the contract. Frustration is also another complicated area in contract law. Legal advice should be sought.
  • Breach of Employment Contract (implied terms) – The courts cannot enforce statutory rights such as those found in the Employment Standards Act, as special adjudicative bodies have been created to rule on these types of claims and have exclusive jurisdiction over them. However, many parallel rights exist at common law and may be enforced by the courts. At common law, employment contracts contain numerous implied terms that are actionable through Small Claims, such as the requirement to give reasonable notice or payment in lieu upon termination of an employee. The fact that no written employment contract was signed does not disqualify an employee or former employee from claiming for breach of these terms. See LSLAP Manual Chapter 9 – Employment Law for more details.
    • Defences:
      • Just cause: If an employer terminates an employee for just cause the employer is not required to give the terminated employee reasonable notice or pay in lieu. The onus to prove just cause is on the employer, and the standard is generally hard to meet. See LSLAP Manual Chapter 9 – Employment Law for more details.
  • Debt – Debt claims arise where the defendant owes the complainant a specific sum of money, often for a loan or for unpaid goods or services. There may be some overlap between debt and breach of contract.
    • Defences: As there likely will be some overlap between debt and breach of contract, see the defences above under breach of contract.

2) Rare Causes of Action

  • Breach of Confidence - Breach of confidence occurs when the defendant makes an unauthorized use of information that has a quality of confidence about it and was entrusted to him/her by the claimant in circumstances giving rise to an obligation of confidence.
  • Nuisance – Nuisance may be private or public. Private nuisance is defined as interference with a landowner or occupier’ s enjoyment of his/her land that is both substantial and unreasonable. It can include obnoxious sounds or smells or escaping substances, but does not usually arise from the defendant’ s normal use of their own property. An interference with the enjoyment of land is “substantial” if it is not trivial; that is, it amounts to something more than a slight annoyance or trifling interference. Whether the interference is “unreasonable” depends on the circumstances. Factors that courts will consider (but are not bound to) in assessing reasonableness include the seriousness of the interference, the neighbourhood and surrounding area, and sensitivity of the plaintiff.
  • Public nuisance may be thought of as a nuisance that occurs on public property or one that affects a sufficient number of individuals that litigating to prevent it becomes the responsibility of the community at large.
  • Trespass to Chattels – Where the defendant interferes with the claimant’s goods without converting them to the defendant’s personal use.
  • Trespass to Land – Trespass to land is actionable even where it occurred by the defendant’s mistake. The claimant does not need to show a loss, although their award may be reduced commensurately if the trespass does not cost them anything. *Conversion – Conversion is defined as wrongful interference with the goods of another in a manner inconsistent with the owner’s right of possession. This includes theft; it also includes instances where the defendant genuinely believes the goods belong to him/her, even if (s)he purchased them innocently from a third party that stole them. It also applies when the defendant has sold the goods or otherwise disposed of them. The remedy is usually damages for the value of the goods and possibly for losses incurred by the detention of the goods. The value of the goods is assessed from the time of the conversion.
  • Unjust Enrichment – Where the defendant was enriched by committing a wrong against the claimant, the claimant suffered a corresponding loss, and there was no juristic reason for the enrichment.

3) Causes of action to see a lawyer about

  • Assault – Contrary to its criminal law equivalent, civil assault is defined as intentionally causing the claimant to have reasonable grounds to fear immediate physical harm. Mere words or verbal threats are not sufficient; there must be some sort of act or display that suggests the defendant intends to carry through with his or her threat; banging on a door or raising a fist may suffice.
  • Battery – Battery is defined as any intentional and unwanted touching, including hitting, spitting on the claimant or cutting his/her hair.
    • Defences:
      1. Lack of Intent: Battery is an intentional tort which means that the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with intent in committing battery. The defendant need not intend to cause the plaintiff harm. Rather intent refers to the desire to engage in whatever act amounts to battery. If the defendant can show that he/she did not act with intent, the claim for battery will unlikely be successful.. For example, if the physical contact was involuntary or an accident
      2. Self-defence: The defendant can defeat a battery claim if he/she can show that the battery was an act of self-defence. There are three basic elements to self-defence which the defendant must prove:
    1. You honestly and reasonably believed that you were being or about to be subject to battery;
    2. There was no reasonable alternative to the use of force; and
    3. The use of force was proportional to the actual or perceived threat.
  • Breach of Privacy – Privacy rights are governed by the Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 373. Two common law causes of action are codified under this act:
    • Intrusion upon seclusion: includes spying upon, observing or recording a person where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
    • Appropriation of likeness: where a person’s personal image, including portraits, caricatures, photos or video footage, are used for commercial gain without their consent.
Breach of privacy is outside the jurisdiction of Small Claims Court.
  • Defamation – Defamation, libel and slander are outside the jurisdiction of Small Claims.
  • Detinue – Detinue occurs when the defendant possesses goods belonging to the claimant and refuses to return them. There is some overlap between detinue and conversion, but conversion still applies where the defendant no longer has goods, while detinue generally does not. The remedy for detinue may be the return of the goods or damages for the value of the goods and possibly for losses incurred by the detention of the goods. The value of the goods is assessed at the time of the trial.
  • False Imprisonment/False Arrest – Where a person is illegally detained against their will. Peace officers have broad authority to arrest. Private citizens, including security guards, have limited authority to arrest in relation to a criminal offence or in defence of property. Usually, a party who is detained and is not convicted of the offence for which (s)he is detained has grounds for a claim in false imprisonment/arrest unless the defendant is a peace officer or was assisting a peace officer in making the arrest.
  • Negligence – Negligence is a complicated but frequently litigated area of law. Put very simply, it is based on the careless conduct of the defendant resulting in a loss to the claimant. Claims in negligence may be for personal injury or for economic loss. Claimants are advised to consult a lawyer before bringing a claim in negligence. Negligence consists of the following components:
    1. Duty of Care – the claimant must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care arising from some relationship between them. Many duties of care have been recognized, including but by no means limited to the following:
      • a. Duty towards the intoxicated
      • b. Peace officer’s duty to prevent crime and protect others
      • c. Negligent Infliction of Psychiatric Harm/Nervous Shock

20-77