True or false please?

Question 6 (2 marks) On March 11, 2016, an inspection report sent to Paul indicated that his land in Ottawa was contaminated with toxic products. The evidence reveals that Paul was unaware that his land was contaminated. The evidence established that the toxic products were accidentally spilled in 1999 by the engineering firm XYZ inc. Under the Limitations Act 2002, which of the following statements is true:

Question 6 options:

Paul had until March 11, 2003 to file his lawsuit against the engineering firm XYZ inc.

Paul had until March 11, 2018 to file his lawsuit against the engineering firm XYZ inc.

Paul had until March 11, 2002 to file his lawsuit against the engineering firm XYZ inc.

Paul had until March 11, 2017 to file his lawsuit against the engineering firm XYZ inc.

Today, March 19, 2022, Paul can file a lawsuit against the engineering firm XYZ inc. since his recourse is not prescribed.

Question 7 (2 points) Kayla (K), Laurent (L), Melany (M) and Nathan (N) are the only four partners and engineers of the engineering firm ABC Inc. Their partnership agreement expressly states that all partners are jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the company and some of its debts, independently of the respective shares of each partner in the company. Each partner is liable for 25% of the engineering firm's debt. Kayla bought $2,000 worth of equipment from XYZ inc. for the benefit of the engineering firm ABC inc. In the event that XYZ inc. takes legal action against the engineering firm ABC inc. for the unpaid balance by the four partners of $1,000 (interest and taxes included) and which has been due for ten months, which of the following statements is false?

Question 7 options:

XYZ inc. can legally sue Kayla for $250, Laurent for $250, Melany for $250, and Nathan for up to $250.

XYZ inc. can legally sue Kayla for the $1,000 and Kayla can sue Melany for up to $250.

XYZ inc. can legally sue Kayla for $250 and Nathan for $750. Nathan can claim a maximum of $250 from Laurent.

XYZ inc. can legally sue Kayla for the $1,000 and Kayla can sue Melany for up to $750.

XYZ inc. can legally sue Kayla for $500, Melany for $250, and Nathan for $250. Kayla can claim a maximum of $250 from Laurent.

Question 8 (2 points) In Ontario, what law or regulation defines the practice of engineering?

Question 8 options:

The Professional Engineers Act (in Ontario)

The Engineers Act (in Quebec)

Regulation 941 General Provision

Regulation 260/08 Performance Standards

Question 9 (2 points) According to patent laws, rules and procedures in Canada, which of the following conditions is not a condition of patentability?

Question 9 options:

The invention must be useful (functional and operational).

The invention must be new or improved (first in the world).

The invention must bring a high economic value.

The invention must be inventive, that is, be ingenious and not obvious to a person of average skill working in the field of your invention.

Question 10 (2 points) Which of the following statements is false?

Question 10 options:

Common law precedent is a judicial decision that serves as a guide in establishing similar and subsequent decisions with inductive reasoning.

Equity is the body of positive law and procedure which prior to 1875 was administered by the Court of Chancery and not by the common law courts.

In its early days, the Court of Chancery was made up of clergy and judges with no proper legal training who made decisions on an arbitrary and case-by-case basis, decisions according to their conscience.

The decisions of the royal courts of England gave rise to the common law.

Jurisprudence in civil law is the body of codified laws.

Question 11 (2 points) Which of the following statements best qualifies a commercial lease granted to a consulting engineering firm, the terms of which were freely negotiated between the lessor and the tenants (managing engineers of the consulting engineering firm) and the rent of which is payable monthly in 36 equal payments?

Questions 11 options:

Over-the-counter contract, bilateral, for consideration, with successive execution.

Over-the-counter contract, bilateral, for consideration, instant execution.

Adhesion contract, bilateral, for consideration, instantaneous execution.

Adhesion contract, bilateral, for consideration, with successive execution.