Case 1: Dhingra v. Dhingra, 2012 ONCA 261 (CanLII)
1. Dhingra, 2012 ONCA 261 (CanLII) Dhingra was the beneficiary of his wife's life insurance policy. He was charged with murdering her but was found not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder. He applied to have the insi:'ance proceeds paid to him. The Court refused his application because of the public policy rule that prohibits a person from benefiting from his criminal acts.
Should the public policy rule apply when the person who has committed the crime is found not criminally responsible for the crime"?
2. Teleflex Inc. v. I.M.P. Group Ltd., (1996), 149 N.S.R. (2d) 355 (NS CA); 1996 CanLII 5603
Teleflex Inc., an American company manufacturing aircraft components, knew that I.M.P. Group Ltd. was negotiating with the Brazilian government to carry out a program for the turbinization of itsTracker aircraft fleet. Teleflex offered to supply necessary parts, to which proposal I.M.P. responded with a purchase order for 13 quadrant assembly sets at $27500 each. The shipping schedule was to commence in March 1990. Included was a provision whereby I.M.P could order a suspension of the work with a reasonable price adjustment, and a further provision whereby I.M.P. could terminate the order with payment to Teleflex for both completed and uncompleted work, according to a formula that factored in lost profits. Thereafter, Teieflex commenced manufacturing the quadrant assembly units.
In September 1989, Teleflex received the first of a series of notices from I.M.R requesting PostPonernerit of delivery of the units. Teleflex acknowledged receipt of these stop-work letters, advising that n the event of termination its termination liability schedule "attached to our original proposal will apply." I.M.P continued to experience difficulties in closing the deal with the Brazilian government and finally, in 1994, indicated it would not be requiring fulfillment of the purchase order.
Teleflex treated this as a termination notice arid advised I.M.P that it would submit' termination claim based on work performed to date. The claim amounted to US$229576 for materials, overhead, and profit. I.M.P. countered that no monies were payable because the contract had been frustrated by the Brazilian government, and further, assembly units were ever delivered by Teleflex. no quadrant assembly units were ever delivered by Teleflex.
Based on these facts, was the contract frustrated? Is any money payable to Teleflex? What factors affect your conclusion?
3. Royal Bank of Canada v. Gill (1988), 47 D.L.R. (4th) 466 (B.C.C•A.); 1988 CanLII 2970 (BC CA) The younger Mr. Gill was fluent in English and a sophisticated businessperson. He had worked in a credit union for a number of years and had managed his father's berry farm. To take advantage of a business opportunity, he arranged with the Royal Bank to borrow $87000. During the negotiations, it became clear that he could get a more favourable rate of interest if his father guaranteed the loan. In fact, the son had done a considerable amount of banking on behalf of his father, who was also a customer of the same bank. The elder Gill could not read, write, or speak English and relied on his son in all his busi-ness dealings.The documents were prepared, and the son brought his father to the bank F to sign. At no time did he explain to his father that he was signing a personal guarantee, and the evidence is clear that the father had no idea what he was signing other than that it was a document associated with a loan transaction. Gill, Sr., had implicit faith in his son's handling of his business affairs. Gill, Jr., on the other hand, was so excited about the deal that he apparently never explained the nature of the documents to his father- It is clear in this situation that at no time was there any misrepresentation to the father of the son on the part of the bank. When the son defaulted on the loan, the bank turned 5° the father for payment. Should Gill, Sr., be held responsible for this debt? What precautions should the bank " taken?
Identify the best arguments of the ban, kav_ke advance? 'her. What arguments should the bar'
4. Chopra v. Eaton (T.) Co. (1999), 240 A.R. 201 (Q.B.); 1999 ABQB 201 (CanLII) Chopra went to Eaton's department store seeking a refund. An argument ensued. Frauenfeld (from security) told Chopra that he would have to leave; Frauenfeld took Chopra's elbow and started to escort him out of the store. Near the doors, Chopra pushed Frauenfeld away, presumably wishing to go through the doors unassisted. Frauenfeld reacted quickly and violently, putting Chopra into a headlock. Chopra's glasses were knocked off and his lip was cut; he was handcuffed, detained in the security office, and subjected to racial slurs. Chopra asked to leave, asked to call his wife, and asked Frauen-feld to call the police; all of these requests were refused. After Chopra had been detained for four hours or more, the police arrived and charged Chopra with assaulting Frauenfeld and causing a disturbance. All charges were later dismissed.
Identify what causes of action are available to Chopra to address the wrongs done to him.
Based on these facts, was the contract frustrated? Is any money payable to Teleflex? What factors affect your conclusion?
5. R. v. Spratt, 2008 BCCA 340 (CanLII); application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed June 18, 2009 Spratt and Watson were charged under sections 2(11(a) and 2(1 )(b) of the provincial Access to Abortion Services Act as a result of their activities outside of a Vancouver health clinic. Signs stating "You shall not murder" and "Unborn Persons Have the Right to Live" were waved within a "bubble" or access zone outside the abortion clinic. The law aims to protect women from interference in this zone. The accused argued that the law violates their freedom of expression.
Whose rights should be paramount in cases such as this?
Case 1: Dhingra v. Dhingra, 2012 ONCA 261 (CanLII)
The present article comprises of the relevant acts that can followed in regard to certain specific cases. The summaries of the five different cases are followed so as to be able to understand the particular course of action for the cases.
Case 1: Dhingra v. Dhingra, 2012 ONCA 261 (CanLII)
Should the public policy rule apply when the person who has committed the crime is found not criminally responsible for the crime?
- Yes, the public policy rule must apply if the person who have committed the crime is even found not to be criminally responsible for the crime. As per the public policy rule, a beneficiary is prevented from the collection of the sum of money for the life insurance policy if the death of the insured person is caused by the beneficiary. In this case the criminal was not found criminally responsible because of his suffering from a mental disorder (Lexology.com, 2018). But that in any case does not change the fact that he have actually committed a murder and prevent that act of crime committed by him. The court also found that there was specifically no judicial support for such cases due to the fact that the criminal have physically committed a crime although due to the reason of suffering from a mental disorder he was not declared as the convict, but again he was disentitled for receiving the claims of the insurance policy (Miller Thomson LLP, 2018).
Case 2: Teleflex Inc. v. I.M.P. Group Ltd., (1996), 149 N.S.R. (2d) 355 (NS CA); 1996 CanLII 5603
Based on these facts, was the contract frustrated? Is any money payable to Teleflex? What factors affect your conclusion?
- The facts in the given study concerning the conflict of Teleflex Inc. v. I.M.P. Group Ltd. suggests the fact that there was a frustration that was involved in between the two parties who have been into the contract. Even in this situation, the money is payable to Teleflex Inc. due to the very nature of the frustration and that was indeed self-induced. Neither of the parties however have foreseen the fact that the contract between the Brazilian government and the I.M.P. Group Ltd. would find a failure to carry out. On getting account of the fact that, in the contract both the parties kept a provision that suggested that there remained a probability of the temporary or conditional suspension of the shipment of the products and also there was a termination clause, it suggests that both the parties understood that there remained a risk of failure of the contract (Short Essays (Economics, Politics, Law and Business), 2018). Thus the clauses of the contract ensures that the parties may claim upon the failure of the fulfilment of the contractual duties. Another flaw from the end of I.M.P. Group Ltd. was that it never reached for any agreement or signed any contract with the Brazilian government and the same reveals that I.M.P. Group Ltd. went for a contract with the Teleflex Inc. to receive the aircraft products for a project that never had an existence in the reality. This sort of a self-induced frustration may be treated as a breach of contract. I.M.P. Group Ltd. could have prevented this self-induced frustration by waiting till a relevant agreement was signed with the Brazilian government or could have even made a provision in the contract with the Teleflex Inc., the work could only begin upon the signing of the contract with the Brazilian government (Canliiconnects.org, 2018). In this case it was found that one of the party have either contributed or have failed to prevent the act of frustration, and that was a refusal from the end of I.M.P. Group Ltd. to abide the terms mentioned in the contract signed with Teleflex Inc. and that was simply a breach of contract and thus the money is payable to the Teleflex.
Case 2: Teleflex Inc. v. I.M.P. Group Ltd., (1996), 149 N.S.R. (2d) 355 (NS CA); 1996 CanLII 5603
Case 3: Royal Bank of Canada v. Gill (1998), 47 D.L.R. (4th) 466 (B.C.C.A.); 1998 CanLII 2970 (BC CA)
Should Gill, Sr., be held responsible for this debt? What precautions should the bank have taken? Identify the best arguments of the father. What arguments should the bank advance?
- Mr. Gill, Sr. may be certainly held responsible for this debt. The entire incident that happened was due to the mere carelessness of both Mr. Gill senior and Mr. Gill junior. The fault of Mr. Gill, Sr., was that he even did not find it important to ask his son that what was the purpose of the document that he was signing before he decided to sign it. Again when we look at the part of Mr. Gill, Jr., then we find that he was excited regarding the new deal to such an extent that he even did not explain the facts in the document that was indeed a personal guarantee document for availing a reduced interest rate.
Now Mr. Gill, Sr., could defend by claiming that he did not have a proper education and also could not speak, read or write English. But that in any case does not support the fact that he can sign on anything even without knowing or having an idea of the content in the document. As a customer of the bank and as a responsible citizen he should have asked for assistance from either his son or some other person regarding the understanding of the documents that he was signing.
Also, Mr. Gill, Jr., who worked with a credit union must be very much aware of the general terms and conditions of a loan and should also have read the contract before making his father sign the contract with the bank (prezi.com, 2018).
From the end of the bank they were very much transparent regarding the contract and added to that there were no misinterpretation or pieces of wrong information provided by the bank officials, the bank has also clearly shown the contents of the contract to both of them and there were false statement in the contract. Apart from that, everything other than that was not a responsibility of the bank as both the person concerned with this contract were adults. So it was very right and appropriate to claim the debts from Mr. Gill, Sr.(Cranston, 2018).
Case 4: Chopra v. Eaton (T.) Co. (1999), 240 A.R. 201(Q.B.); 1999 ABQB 201 (CanLII)
Identify what causes of action are available to Chopra to address the wrongs done to him.
- Chopra could take the actions for battery (tort), assault, damages for personal injury, defamation, malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment against both Eaton's and Frauenfeld (vLex, 2018). For the reason that Chopra had injured himself due to the acts of both Eaton's and Frauenfeld without any fault so Chopra was very much likely to claim for the actions of battery (tort), assault, personal injury and false imprisonment against the Eaton's and Frauenfeld. Along with that Chopra may also claim penalties for the general and penal damages.
Case 5: R. v. Spratt, 2008 BCCA 340 (CanLII); application for leave for appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed June 18, 2009
Whose right should be paramount in cases such as this?
- In a dispute that involves abortion clinic protesters and Access to Abortion Services Act, the rights of the patients should be considered to be as paramount. As the women had the right to take decisions regarding themselves and also had the dignity to be informed regarding the decisions that they are making, so they have the freedom of thinking and expressing their opinion (Cpsa-acsp.ca, 2018). On that ground their right must be taken to be as paramount in such delicate cases.
Reference List
Lexology.com. (2018). Dhingra v. Dhingra Estate | Lexology. [online] Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8de415c8-5d77-4863-b96e-625bad885b59 [Accessed 14 Jun. 2018].
Miller Thomson LLP. (2018). Ontario Court of Appeal Rules Husband Found Not Criminally Responsible for Wife’s Death Entitled to Life Insurance Proceeds - Miller Thomson LLP. [online] Available at: https://www.millerthomson.com/en/blog/mt-insurance-law-blog/ontario-court-of-appeal-rules-that-husband/ [Accessed 14 Jun. 2018].
Short Essays (Economics, Politics, Law and Business). (2018). Frustration and Contract Law. [online] Available at: https://jennadoucet.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/frustration-and-contract-law/ [Accessed 14 Jun. 2018].
Canliiconnects.org. (2018). CanLII Connects. [online] Available at: https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/19806 [Accessed 14 Jun. 2018].
prezi.com. (2018). Royal Bank of Canada v. Gill. [online] Available at: https://prezi.com/szvszejd2ccv/royal-bank-of-canada-v-gill/ [Accessed 14 Jun. 2018].
Cranston, R., 2018. Principles of banking law. Oxford university press.
vLex. (2018). Chopra v. T. Eaton Co. Ltd., 70 Alta LR (3d) 90. [online] Available at: https://ca.vlex.com/vid/chopra-v-eaton-co-680579785 [Accessed 14 Jun. 2018].
Cpsa-acsp.ca. (2018). [online] Available at: https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2011/Minnett.Watchel.pdf [Accessed 14 Jun. 2018].
