Instructions:

• You are required to thoroughly analyse the problems provided. Analysis requires you to:

• explore all possible reasons that court action might be pursued

• explore both sides of the argument(s)

• identify the proper legal principles and rules involved, and determine whether the facts support the plaintiffs arguments, the defendants arguments, both or neither

• predict a likely outcome

• provide outside sources of research on canlii to help answer each of the issues

• properly cite the cases and legislation that you refer to

• Careful attention should be paid to all the possible torts that may have been committed and who might be liable for these torts. Keep in mind that, although negligence is likely one of the torts committed, you should think about intentional torts as well as any other tort issues such as vicarious liability or occupiers liability.

• Outline must be 3-5 pages long

FACT SCENARIO #2

Maggie is an avid recycler, small-scale farmer and outdoor enthusiast. She lives on a small acreage just outside the Edmonton, Alberta city limits. She has really enjoyed her acreage, as it allows her to pursue many of her outdoor passions. The greatest among these are her beloved chickens. On her property, she has several chicken coops and approximately 50 chickens. She uses a few of the eggs they produce for her own use, but most of the bounty is sold at a local farmers market, once per week.

All was well until Fran, a new neighbor, moved on to the small acreage next door. Fran recently retired from a high stress career as a financial planner, and had been hoping to get away from the pressures of city life. But, alas, it was not to be.

Maggies chickens get up early in the morning...every morning. At about 5 am, Fran is awake listening to the sounds of cheery clucking and crowing. This would not have be so bad, if she had to be at work at 6am; but not so great for someone hoping to enjoy her retirement. Not to mention, the chickens smell terrible. When the wind blew just the right way, the smell of chicken droppings was easily detectable in both Frans yard and house.

To add insult to injury, the chickens frequently find their way out of Maggies yard, and into Frans. They dont really do any damage, but they annoy the heck out of her. Fran yells and screams to chase them out of her yard. Fran told Maggie that if she continued to let the chickens wander about, she might find that they end up in her roasting pan! Maggie replied that any attack against her chickens is an attack against her, and that should Fran try anything of the kind, shed better watch her back!

One day, as Fran was trying to herd some of the escapee chickens back to their own yard, she crossed over onto Maggies property, to ensure the birds was properly corralled in their own space. Unfortunately, in the process, she tripped over several rolls of chicken wire stacked up

near the property line. The wire was quite difficult to see, given the growth of weeds and brush surrounding it. Fran broke her ankle as a result of the fall.

Then came the last straw. A small cesspool of chicken waste on Maggies property sprang a leak, and the putrid contents flowed over onto Frans property.

1. Set out all the torts that have been committed and by whom. Explain the legal rules for each of the torts and apply them to the facts.

2. Determine the potential defendants and set out their defences by explaining the legal rules that apply and then apply them to the fact

SAMPLE OUTLINE FOR REFERENCE

OUTLINE OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE: JANE v. MEGACORP LTD. Legal Issue #1 - Did Mega Corp discriminate against Jane when she was fired for not being able to lift a 50lb box in the warehouse? Legal Principles: In order to determine if Mega Corp discriminated against Jane when firing her, one needs to consider whether or not: 1. Jane has a characteristic that is protected from discrimination by human rights legislation; 2. Jane experienced an adverse impact with respect to her employment; and 3. The protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact. According to section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act,"every person is entitled to equal treatment with respect to employment, without discrimination on the basis of race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, 5 age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status, or sexual orientation". According to Williams-Whitt, et al, the leading case to test for discrimination is Moore v British Columbia (Education) which sets out the test that is paraphrased above. Again according to Williams-Whitt, once an employee has met the test set out above, the employer must prove that firing the employee is justified. Application to Facts of Case: 1. Jane suffers from a bad back due to a car accident injury several years ago; 2. Jane has a characteristic that is protected under section 7 of the Human Rights Act as her bad back is a physical disability; Jane suffered an adverse impact as she was fired from her job for failing to lift a 50lb box; 3. Since her back injury restricts her from lifting more than 10lbs, her physical disability was a factor in why she was fired; 4. As a result, Jane was discriminated against due to the fact that she was fired because of a protected ground under the Human Rights Act. Legal Issue #2 - Can Mega Corp justify firing Jane based on her physical disability? Legal Principles: In order to justify the firing of Jane, one needs to show that: 1. The requirement to lift 50lb boxes is a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) of the job; 2. Mega Corp has attempted to accommodate Jane, but, 3. The accommodation would cause Mega Corp undue hardship. According to British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v BCGSEU, also known as the Meiorin case, in order to claim that the lifting of the boxes is a legitimate job requirement or BFOR, Mega Corp would need to show that a rational connection exists between this job duty and the requirements of the job. Also, they would have to show that they adopted this job requirement in good faith, and it would be impossible to accommodate Jane because it would cause undue hardship on Mega Corp. Application to Facts of Case: 1. Although Jane has lifted some boxes in the past, most of her job duties entail checking the boxes and ensuring someone else moves them to or off of shelving; 2. Given that it may not be an actual requirement of her job, Mega Corp may have a hard time proving that lifting the 50lb boxes is a BFOR; 3. If Mega Corp is successful in claiming that lifting the boxes is an essential requirement of the job, then Mega Corp still needs to prove that it attempted to accommodate Jane; 4. Several other employees are able to lift 50lbs and Jane has asked them to help in the past 6 but her employer did not want this to continue; 5. Although accommodation was available, by having other employees do the lifting, Mega Corp did not continue to pursue this so failed to accommodate Jane; 6. The only way that Mega Corp could justify discrimination is if they were able to prove having other employees do the lifting would cause them undue hardship. In this case, since other employees were willing to help, it would not be undue hardship and Mega Corp discriminated against Jane. Reference Sheet 2. Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5 3. Williams-Whitt, Kelly et al, Employment Law for Business and Human Resource Professionals: Alberta and British Columbia (3rd ed., 2017) Toronto, ON: Emond Montgomery Publications 4. Moore v British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 5. British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v BCGSEU, [1999] 3 SC