OACETT: Torts Practice Questions with
Quality Verified Answers 2025-2026
Updated.
Wakelin v The London & SW RY Co. 1886 HL (P's husband struck by train and died. No witnesses.
P could not prove causation so cannot prove negligence.) - Answer R: In a circumstance
where there is no direct proof, and D's story is as likely as P's, D cannot be held liable.
ONUS on Plaintiff to prove breach of SOC on a balance of probabilities.
Leaman v Rea NBSC Appeal Division 1954 (Two cars driving in opposite directs collide.
Negligence on the part of one or both, can't figure out which was negligent.) - Answer R: If
one or both parties must be negligent and there is no way to distinguish, then both found
equally liable.
Videto v. Kennedy 1981 ONCA - Answer SOC for disclosure includes not only professional
standards, but also what the patient deems relevant.
Reibl v Hughes SCC [1980] 2 SCR 880 (P underwent serious surgery to remove obstruction to
artery. Following procedure suffered stroke leaving him paralyzed on right side and impotent. Dr
did not disclose all material risks to patient) - Answer R1: Battery law comes into play when
there is no consent, fraud, or treatment beyond consent.
R2: Part of SOC for Drs is to disclose all material risks, answer specific questions
R3:Modified objective test:
1) What would a reasonable person in the patients shoes have done if they had known all risks?
(taking into account particular considerations of patient)
White v Turner 1981, 31 OR (2d) 773 (H.C.) - Answer Material risk is any risk that poses a real
threat to patient's life, health or comfort. Balance of severity and likelihood.
Brenner v Gregory OHC 1973 (Ontario) (P hired lawyer D for land deal. Vendor warned P that
building was encroaching on street before closing. Lawyer did not advise a survey) - Answer
R: Breach of SOC for lawyers is that the error or ignorance was such that an ordinarily
competent solicitor would not have made or shown it.
Central Trust Co. v Rafuse 1986 SCC - Answer R: SOC for solicitor not to know all law
pertaining to particular legal service, but must have sufficient knowledge of fundamental
rules/principles applicable to work he has undertaken to enable them to perceive the need to
ascertain the law on relevant points. Must also know when you don't know something, do
research.
, Demarco v Ungaro 1979 ONHC (Lawyer did not bring up certain evidence at trial) - Answer R:
Breach SOC for trial lawyers. Conflicts with Wechsel.
Wechsel v Stutz 1980 ON - Answer R: SOC in litigation, questioning + cross-exam is up to
lawyer. Conflicts with Demarco.
Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board SCC [2007] - Answer R: Police owe
a Duty of Care to Suspects in an investigation.
Bolton & Others v. Stone HOL [1951] (Passerby hit by cricket ball, very rare occurrence with little
risk) - Answer R: SOC is based not only on the foreseeability of harm, but also on the degree
(likelihood and seriousness) of harm possible. Remedial measures should not be a factor.
Paris v. Stepney Borogh Council 1951 HL (Garage owners do not buy goggles for one-eyed
worker, loses only remaining eye. Low remedial cost, high degree of harm and risk—conflicts
with Bolton) - Answer R: SOC if large injury can be prevented with small cost, reasonable
standard is to incur small cost.
Priestman v Colangelo and Smythson 1959 SCC (car thief, car chase, police aiming at tire, hit
bump and shoot driver, swerves and kills 2 young women. Police did not breach SOC) - Answer
SOC reasonable risk can be undertaken in pursuit of a criminal. (S. 25(4) Criminal Code)
Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co. Court of Exchequer (1856) (Fire plug installed, worked for
25 years until severe frost 1855, plug damaged, resulting in flooding of p's premises) - Answer
R: SOC is reasonable and prudent measures, no breach.
Waldick v. Malcolm SCC (1991) (D does not salt driveway and P falls. D argues it is custom not to
salt) - Answer R: SOC not dictated by custom. Adhering to a custom that is unreasonable in
itself will still breach standard of care.
R. in Right of Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool SCC [1983] (Grain shipment infected with
beetle larvae. Inspectors from both agencies did not detect larvae. Canada suing for breach of
statute not negligence.) - Answer Statutory duty may inform SOC but there is no tort for
breach of statute.
Warren v City of Camrose 1989 Alta. LR (Man dives into shallow water and is injured. Says there
should have been signs, lane markers away from edge. Experts say lack of signs and placement
of lane markers both are common practices) - Answer Follows Waldick: If the custom offends
logic or common sense the court can override it.
Elcano Acceptance Ltd. v Richmond, Richmond, Stambler & Mills 1985 ONCA (Lawyer drafted
promissory notes for accountant. Drafter is a partner in firm and commercial specialist. Put a
Quality Verified Answers 2025-2026
Updated.
Wakelin v The London & SW RY Co. 1886 HL (P's husband struck by train and died. No witnesses.
P could not prove causation so cannot prove negligence.) - Answer R: In a circumstance
where there is no direct proof, and D's story is as likely as P's, D cannot be held liable.
ONUS on Plaintiff to prove breach of SOC on a balance of probabilities.
Leaman v Rea NBSC Appeal Division 1954 (Two cars driving in opposite directs collide.
Negligence on the part of one or both, can't figure out which was negligent.) - Answer R: If
one or both parties must be negligent and there is no way to distinguish, then both found
equally liable.
Videto v. Kennedy 1981 ONCA - Answer SOC for disclosure includes not only professional
standards, but also what the patient deems relevant.
Reibl v Hughes SCC [1980] 2 SCR 880 (P underwent serious surgery to remove obstruction to
artery. Following procedure suffered stroke leaving him paralyzed on right side and impotent. Dr
did not disclose all material risks to patient) - Answer R1: Battery law comes into play when
there is no consent, fraud, or treatment beyond consent.
R2: Part of SOC for Drs is to disclose all material risks, answer specific questions
R3:Modified objective test:
1) What would a reasonable person in the patients shoes have done if they had known all risks?
(taking into account particular considerations of patient)
White v Turner 1981, 31 OR (2d) 773 (H.C.) - Answer Material risk is any risk that poses a real
threat to patient's life, health or comfort. Balance of severity and likelihood.
Brenner v Gregory OHC 1973 (Ontario) (P hired lawyer D for land deal. Vendor warned P that
building was encroaching on street before closing. Lawyer did not advise a survey) - Answer
R: Breach of SOC for lawyers is that the error or ignorance was such that an ordinarily
competent solicitor would not have made or shown it.
Central Trust Co. v Rafuse 1986 SCC - Answer R: SOC for solicitor not to know all law
pertaining to particular legal service, but must have sufficient knowledge of fundamental
rules/principles applicable to work he has undertaken to enable them to perceive the need to
ascertain the law on relevant points. Must also know when you don't know something, do
research.
, Demarco v Ungaro 1979 ONHC (Lawyer did not bring up certain evidence at trial) - Answer R:
Breach SOC for trial lawyers. Conflicts with Wechsel.
Wechsel v Stutz 1980 ON - Answer R: SOC in litigation, questioning + cross-exam is up to
lawyer. Conflicts with Demarco.
Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board SCC [2007] - Answer R: Police owe
a Duty of Care to Suspects in an investigation.
Bolton & Others v. Stone HOL [1951] (Passerby hit by cricket ball, very rare occurrence with little
risk) - Answer R: SOC is based not only on the foreseeability of harm, but also on the degree
(likelihood and seriousness) of harm possible. Remedial measures should not be a factor.
Paris v. Stepney Borogh Council 1951 HL (Garage owners do not buy goggles for one-eyed
worker, loses only remaining eye. Low remedial cost, high degree of harm and risk—conflicts
with Bolton) - Answer R: SOC if large injury can be prevented with small cost, reasonable
standard is to incur small cost.
Priestman v Colangelo and Smythson 1959 SCC (car thief, car chase, police aiming at tire, hit
bump and shoot driver, swerves and kills 2 young women. Police did not breach SOC) - Answer
SOC reasonable risk can be undertaken in pursuit of a criminal. (S. 25(4) Criminal Code)
Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co. Court of Exchequer (1856) (Fire plug installed, worked for
25 years until severe frost 1855, plug damaged, resulting in flooding of p's premises) - Answer
R: SOC is reasonable and prudent measures, no breach.
Waldick v. Malcolm SCC (1991) (D does not salt driveway and P falls. D argues it is custom not to
salt) - Answer R: SOC not dictated by custom. Adhering to a custom that is unreasonable in
itself will still breach standard of care.
R. in Right of Canada v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool SCC [1983] (Grain shipment infected with
beetle larvae. Inspectors from both agencies did not detect larvae. Canada suing for breach of
statute not negligence.) - Answer Statutory duty may inform SOC but there is no tort for
breach of statute.
Warren v City of Camrose 1989 Alta. LR (Man dives into shallow water and is injured. Says there
should have been signs, lane markers away from edge. Experts say lack of signs and placement
of lane markers both are common practices) - Answer Follows Waldick: If the custom offends
logic or common sense the court can override it.
Elcano Acceptance Ltd. v Richmond, Richmond, Stambler & Mills 1985 ONCA (Lawyer drafted
promissory notes for accountant. Drafter is a partner in firm and commercial specialist. Put a
