LAW 2101 Final Exam Questions and Answers Latest Update 2025-2026
Peters v. Peters - Answers Parents gave kids a joint ownership of a cabin on their will. Kids
fought a ton about it and so it was brought to court. Court ordered them to sell the cabin and
divide the proceeds equally (property)
Lockmac Holdings Ltd. v. Earle - Answers Plaintiff is asking a court to say that there is no
restrictive covenant running with the house about small fences. Defendant is opposing the order
by the plaintiff because he is worried if the RC is invalid then his property will lose value. RC can
only be deemed to run with the land if: (1) it is expressly stated to run for the benefit of the land
or (2) land is part of common building scheme where all properties are held to it. Held: land is
not benefiting from RC so application granted (property)
Semelhago v. Paramadevan - Answers Plaintiff agreed to buy house from defendant for
$205,000. Before sale defendant refused to sell and this is the buyer suing for breach of
contract. When property went to trial, house was worth $325,000 and plaintiff wants specific
performance or damages in lieu of. Plaintiff got damages for the difference in value of houses
(120,000). Then P appealed saying he also benefited from the appreciation in value of his old
house so the damages were reduced (property)
Thomas v. Canada - Answers Plaintiff received $18,000 in mail by accident. Issue is who has the
proper ownership to the money when the rightful owner does not come forward and claim it.
Canada Post claimed the money, saying they mailed it so it belongs to them. Plaintiff is making
a claim saying he is the rightful owner if the actual owner doesn't want it. Crown (Canada Post)
argued Plaintiff should not be profitable from his wrong. Plaintiff has superior claim because
"the finder of the chattel has the best claim against all but the true owner" (property)
Weitzner v. Herman - Answers Mr. Weitzner hid $130,000 in a fire extinguisher then died. His
wife sold the house with money and fire extinguisher in it not knowing the money existed. New
owners (Hermans) found the money and say they have the rightful claim to it. Had to look at
contract for sale of house and it says "Purchaser accepts property in 'as is' condition". 'As is'
was not supposed to reference the money and Mrs. W did not intend to give away the money.
Held: Mrs. W is rightful owner (property).
Longley v. Mitchell Fur Co. Ltd - Answers Coat was stolen from fur storage facility of defendants.
Owner of the coat sued. Held: defendant is not liable because they took reasonable care with
coat. (property)
Samuel Smith & Sons Ltd. v. Silverman - Answers Employee borrowed company car to go to the
movies. Parked and was given a receipt limiting liability for damages to the car. Company is
suing parking company for damages. Employee says he did not read the receipt or see the signs,
but a reasonable person would have. Held: case dismissed (property)
Armando Pastor v. Roger Chen - Answers Plaintiff says he choreographs a very original brand of
, Cuban salsa called "La Rueda". He registered for a copyright of this dance. Made a
confidentiality agreement with protege (defendant) to not teach or perform his version of this
dance. Had to make sure it was not a restraint of trade or that the dance was not already in the
public domain. Held: moves are confidential by the agreement and so the claimant is entitled to
damages. (property-copyright)
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) - Answers Harvard wanted to patent a
mouse that is good for scientific research. Patent registration office said no and commissioner
of patents upheld this. In the trial division of Federal Court they agreed, but Federal CoA
overturned. At the SCC they agreed that this was a higher life form so it cannot be patented.
Obiter: you can patent a genetically modified wheat seed (property).
Blackmore v. BC (Attorney General) - Answers Blackmore participated in polygamy and has 24
wives. Both part of a certain branch of Christianity (FLDS). It was decided that Canada's laws
against polygamy (though unconstitutional) are protected by s. 1 of the charter and outweigh
the importance of religious freedom. (family)
Novia Scotia v. Walsh - Answers Constitutional challenge to the province's law and how family
property rules do not apply to unmarried couples (argued to be discrimination on base of marital
status). SCC said it was not substantive discrimination and it actually reduces freedom to make
common-law partners follow the same rules as married people when married people make the
choice to follow matrimonial property law. Held: matrimonial family law does not extend to
common law partners. (family)
Eric v. Lola - Answers Applicant is challenging the fact that there is an exclusion of common-law
partners from Quebec's civil code in regard to spousal support. Held: SCC kept all challenged
articles saying there was no discrimination (could have gone either way 4-5 split). (family)
Fisher v. Fisher - Answers Spouses for a lot of years. This was a case about the quantum and
duration of spousal support. Wife helped husband take classes so he could become a high
school teacher. He slowly moved up the ranks but there was only a substantial increase in living
standards in the last 2 years, therefore, the wife is not at a huge disadvantage due to the divorce.
Duration is 9 years. Quantum is $3000 till 2008, then $1500 till 2011. (family)
Young v. Young - Answers Custody and access decisions for children are largely exercises in
discretion. The "best interests test" allows the judge to adapt to every child's specific needs.
Parental preferences play no role. (family)
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Answers Lady had put her coffee in between her legs and
was starting to drive away. It spilled over and she got third degree burns- HUGE MEDICAL BILLS.
Held: Liebeck got $160,000 in compensatory damages (was originally higher, but plaintiff had
20% of the blame for taking the lid off). Also was awarded punitive damages of $480,000. (tort-
negligence)
Peters v. Peters - Answers Parents gave kids a joint ownership of a cabin on their will. Kids
fought a ton about it and so it was brought to court. Court ordered them to sell the cabin and
divide the proceeds equally (property)
Lockmac Holdings Ltd. v. Earle - Answers Plaintiff is asking a court to say that there is no
restrictive covenant running with the house about small fences. Defendant is opposing the order
by the plaintiff because he is worried if the RC is invalid then his property will lose value. RC can
only be deemed to run with the land if: (1) it is expressly stated to run for the benefit of the land
or (2) land is part of common building scheme where all properties are held to it. Held: land is
not benefiting from RC so application granted (property)
Semelhago v. Paramadevan - Answers Plaintiff agreed to buy house from defendant for
$205,000. Before sale defendant refused to sell and this is the buyer suing for breach of
contract. When property went to trial, house was worth $325,000 and plaintiff wants specific
performance or damages in lieu of. Plaintiff got damages for the difference in value of houses
(120,000). Then P appealed saying he also benefited from the appreciation in value of his old
house so the damages were reduced (property)
Thomas v. Canada - Answers Plaintiff received $18,000 in mail by accident. Issue is who has the
proper ownership to the money when the rightful owner does not come forward and claim it.
Canada Post claimed the money, saying they mailed it so it belongs to them. Plaintiff is making
a claim saying he is the rightful owner if the actual owner doesn't want it. Crown (Canada Post)
argued Plaintiff should not be profitable from his wrong. Plaintiff has superior claim because
"the finder of the chattel has the best claim against all but the true owner" (property)
Weitzner v. Herman - Answers Mr. Weitzner hid $130,000 in a fire extinguisher then died. His
wife sold the house with money and fire extinguisher in it not knowing the money existed. New
owners (Hermans) found the money and say they have the rightful claim to it. Had to look at
contract for sale of house and it says "Purchaser accepts property in 'as is' condition". 'As is'
was not supposed to reference the money and Mrs. W did not intend to give away the money.
Held: Mrs. W is rightful owner (property).
Longley v. Mitchell Fur Co. Ltd - Answers Coat was stolen from fur storage facility of defendants.
Owner of the coat sued. Held: defendant is not liable because they took reasonable care with
coat. (property)
Samuel Smith & Sons Ltd. v. Silverman - Answers Employee borrowed company car to go to the
movies. Parked and was given a receipt limiting liability for damages to the car. Company is
suing parking company for damages. Employee says he did not read the receipt or see the signs,
but a reasonable person would have. Held: case dismissed (property)
Armando Pastor v. Roger Chen - Answers Plaintiff says he choreographs a very original brand of
, Cuban salsa called "La Rueda". He registered for a copyright of this dance. Made a
confidentiality agreement with protege (defendant) to not teach or perform his version of this
dance. Had to make sure it was not a restraint of trade or that the dance was not already in the
public domain. Held: moves are confidential by the agreement and so the claimant is entitled to
damages. (property-copyright)
Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) - Answers Harvard wanted to patent a
mouse that is good for scientific research. Patent registration office said no and commissioner
of patents upheld this. In the trial division of Federal Court they agreed, but Federal CoA
overturned. At the SCC they agreed that this was a higher life form so it cannot be patented.
Obiter: you can patent a genetically modified wheat seed (property).
Blackmore v. BC (Attorney General) - Answers Blackmore participated in polygamy and has 24
wives. Both part of a certain branch of Christianity (FLDS). It was decided that Canada's laws
against polygamy (though unconstitutional) are protected by s. 1 of the charter and outweigh
the importance of religious freedom. (family)
Novia Scotia v. Walsh - Answers Constitutional challenge to the province's law and how family
property rules do not apply to unmarried couples (argued to be discrimination on base of marital
status). SCC said it was not substantive discrimination and it actually reduces freedom to make
common-law partners follow the same rules as married people when married people make the
choice to follow matrimonial property law. Held: matrimonial family law does not extend to
common law partners. (family)
Eric v. Lola - Answers Applicant is challenging the fact that there is an exclusion of common-law
partners from Quebec's civil code in regard to spousal support. Held: SCC kept all challenged
articles saying there was no discrimination (could have gone either way 4-5 split). (family)
Fisher v. Fisher - Answers Spouses for a lot of years. This was a case about the quantum and
duration of spousal support. Wife helped husband take classes so he could become a high
school teacher. He slowly moved up the ranks but there was only a substantial increase in living
standards in the last 2 years, therefore, the wife is not at a huge disadvantage due to the divorce.
Duration is 9 years. Quantum is $3000 till 2008, then $1500 till 2011. (family)
Young v. Young - Answers Custody and access decisions for children are largely exercises in
discretion. The "best interests test" allows the judge to adapt to every child's specific needs.
Parental preferences play no role. (family)
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Answers Lady had put her coffee in between her legs and
was starting to drive away. It spilled over and she got third degree burns- HUGE MEDICAL BILLS.
Held: Liebeck got $160,000 in compensatory damages (was originally higher, but plaintiff had
20% of the blame for taking the lid off). Also was awarded punitive damages of $480,000. (tort-
negligence)
