The rights and freedoms protected under the Charter are not absolute. Individual’s rights should be absolute and by this I mean they should be considered on their own relative to other individuals as members of the general public. The charters fundamental rights and freedoms serve as a moral code because they are innate and ageless principals of life.
I think it is important to point out the notwithstanding clause of the charter. Section one identifies that Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute, meaning there is an opportunity they may be violated. Section one that states, Charter rights are subject only to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in ...view middle of the document...
The vouchers came with an expiry date, which has been alleged to be an unfair practice and that it was illegal contrary to the provincial consumer protection legislation. This lawsuit claims that this practice is in breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the consumer protection legislation an unjust enrichment.
The case was settled in February, 2013 and found in favor of the plaintiff. The approved settlement fund totals $535,000. This money will be used to pay for legal fees, administrative fees and the members of the law suit.
(To view details please copy and paste the link into your browser)
In accordance with the law, Joe had a liquor license from the provincial liquor licensing authority that limits the seating capacity in the bar to 30. By having in restaurant at two times the capacity he was guilty of the tort primary liability which arises due to a person own personal wrong doing and negligent acts. Joe was liable to anyone who came into his business, he was responsible for keeping his property safe so that people coming to his restaurant would not be injured; he is guilty of occupiers liability.
Joe is also guilty of the tort of passing off, by using the name “The Finny Friends” after a restaurant that Joe he had visited in Toronto several years ago. Joe was stealing by using another businesses intellectual property without permission.
Lack of business ethics is the foundation for all of Joe’s current business related issues. Joe has not conducted himself in a morally honest and ethical manner when establishing and conducting his business activities. It is clearly apparent Joe did not understand his obligations and responsibilities as a business owner. He did not have a working knowledge of the regulations for the industry he was operating In. Having a well-constructed risk management plan that could mitigate the legal risks involved in operating a business would have served him well.
Unable to identify the risks associated with his restaurant and because Joe did not take the time to contact a professional or build a strategic business plan, Joe needs to have a reactive approach to dealing with these issues when he should have had a proactive approach to managing his business from the beginning. Joe’s unethical and illegal business practices have negatively impacted the lives others, examples include; recent reports of food- poisoning, the closure of his business for 30 days and the potential court order to destroy all of his marketing materials. It is not a surprise that Joe is going through what he is. Preventing these torts should have been one of Joe’s top priorities from the start.
While the case of R. v. Banks, 2007 illustrates a Charter issue and how the common law interacts with statute law. The final decision relied heavily on practical considerations because this was a test case and there was no other similar case before it. Under...