 Hello, it's Waylon Chow. This is torts, introduction, and intentional torts, module 3a, part D. In this part, we'll look at the two intentional torts on our list, which are relevant to contracts, deceit, and interference with contractual relations. The tort of deceit. The requirements are the defendant made a false statement, or in other words, the defendant lied. The defendant knows the statement is untrue, or was reckless in determining the truth. It was intended to mislead the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered a loss from reasonably relying on that false statement. There's no specific special defense to deceit, but generally the defendant would try to show that one or more of the requirements of the tort has not been proven by the plaintiff. The usual remedy is to provide damages to compensate for the plaintiff's losses that they may have suffered from relying on the false statement. Let's have a look at this case, which is an example of the application of the tort of interference with contractual relations. That tort is also commonly called the tort of inducing breach of contract. This decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, called Gerard and Kojiko Cable, involved a gentleman by the name of Mr. Gerard, who was a cable and fiber optic installer. He had worked for Kojiko Cable for quite a while in the Windsor area up until 1999, when he resigned and took employment in the US. When he returned to Canada in 2001, he came back to the Windsor area and he accepted a job with a company called Mastec. Mastec was a cable industry contractor, and one of its main clients was Kojiko. When Kojiko found out that Mastec had hired Gerard, Kojiko told Mastec that they would not allow Gerard to work on any of its projects. Then Mastec told Mr. Gerard, you know, we can't have you working on Kojiko projects. The only option is to allow is to get you to work on other projects farther away in London or Kitchener. Mr. Gerard, you know, could not, because of his family commitments, could not accept that alternative assignment. And that employment offer was revoked. Then several months later, Mastec hired Mr. Gerard again and assigned him again to a project involving Kojiko. And again, Kojiko told Mastec that they wouldn't allow Mr. Gerard to work on any of its equipment. And that caused Mastec to terminate Mr. Gerard's employment. Because of this situation, Mr. Gerard was unable to obtain any employment with any other Windsor cable industry contractor due to all the rumors that swirled arising from this incident with Kojiko. The legal issue that we'll focus on in this case has to do with whether or not Kojiko induced Mastec to breach its employment contract with Gerard. In other words, did Kojiko commit the tort of interference with contractual relations? Please note that the court also considered another legal issue, which was whether or not Kojiko committed the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations. We will focus only on the part of the judgment that discusses the tort of inducing breach of contract, also known as interference with contractual relations. The court set out the requirements for the tort of inducing breach of contract, which is also called again the tort of interference with contractual relations. So to prove that tort, the court said that the four elements had to be proven. First, Mr. Gerard had a valid and enforceable contract with Mastec. Second, Kojiko was aware of the existence of that contract. Third requirement was Kojiko intended to and did procure the breach of the contract. And lastly, the fourth requirement as a result of the breach of contract, Mr. Gerard suffered damages. In applying those legal requirements to the facts of this case, the court with respect to the first requirement said that there's no dispute that Mr. Gerard was hired in May of 2001 and did have a valid and enforceable employment contract with Mastec. So that first requirement of having an actual contract is met. The second requirement Kojiko had acknowledged that it was aware of the contract between Mastec and Gerard. So that satisfies the second requirement that Kojiko actually knew of the contract between Mastec and Gerard. So moving on to the third requirement, the third requirement is that Kojiko must have intended to cause the breach of contract between Mastec and Mr. Gerard. In coming to the conclusion that Kojiko did intend to cause the breach of contract, the court looked at the findings, the factual findings from the trial. So there's a whole list of six different facts that were found at trial, which the appeal court used to support the conclusion that there was an intention to cause a breach of contract. The last element is that Mr. Gerard must have suffered damages arising from the breach of contract. And the appeal court here accepted the trial court's conclusion that Mr. Gerard did suffer damages. Specifically, he wasn't able to find a job in his field of expertise in the Windsor area and he had to accept other lower paying employment. Let's recap the legal requirements for the tort of interference with contractual relations. So the first requirement has to do with knowledge. The defendant had to actually know about the existence of a contract between the plaintiff and a third party. The second requirement has to do with intention. The defendant intended to cause the third party to breach the contract. The third requirement is cause. The defendant actually caused the third party to breach the contract. And the fourth requirement is loss. The plaintiff suffered a loss from the breach of contract. So this tort typically arises when one company is trying to lure away employees or customers of another company. In this part, we'll look at the two intentional torts on our list which are relevant to contracts, deceit and interference with contractual relations. The tort of deceit. The requirements are the defendant made a false statement or in other words the defendant lied. The defendant knows the statement is untrue or was reckless in determining the truth. It was intended to mislead the plaintiff and the plaintiff suffered a loss from reasonably relying on that false statement. There's no specific special defense to deceit but generally the defendant would try to show that one or more of the requirements of the tort has not been proven by the plaintiff. The usual remedy is to provide damages to compensate for the plaintiff's losses that they may have suffered from relying on the false statement. An interesting case involving the tort of deceit is the Ontario Superior Court decision in Abramovitz and Lee. This case involves a clarinetist, a deceitful girlfriend and misguided love. The facts of the case are that the clarinetists, oh by the way those pictures are just stock pictures, they're not pictures of the actual people involved here. The clarinetist was named Eric Abramovitz. He was a gifted musician. He was attending McGill University pursuing his music degree there. But his dream was to study with the best clarinet teacher in the world which was Galad or Yehuda Galad at the Colburn Music Conservatory in Los Angeles, California. So he applied for admission to Colburn and applied for a full scholarship program that would have paid for all of his expenses to study at Colburn. And it's very difficult to get into Colburn to study with Mr. Galad. He only accepted two new students each year. So Eric had a girlfriend. Her name was Jennifer. So they were both music students at McGill and they had been in an intimate relationship and they were considered to be a couple. And they trusted each other especially Mr. Abramovitz, trusted Jennifer. He gave her use of his laptop computer as well as his passwords including his password to his email account. So Colburn, the Colburn Academy did get back to Eric by email and said the email said that they were accepting him into their program and offered him a full scholarship. However, that email from Colburn was intercepted by Jennifer. So she saw that, she intercepted that email before Eric got to see it. And she decided that she wanted Eric to stay in Montreal instead of going down to study in LA. So she responded in Eric's name to that email from Colburn that offered the spot and the scholarship. And the email declined the offer to Colburn and then she deleted that acceptance email so that Eric wouldn't see it. And then she created a false email address to pretend that she was sending an email from Mr. Galad at Colburn. And she put together an email purportedly from Mr. Galad and sent that to Eric and advising Eric that he had not been accepted into Colburn. So Eric was completely taken in by that deception. He truly thought that he had been rejected and had not been accepted into the Colburn program to study with Mr. Galad. So he stayed in Montreal at McGill and completed his music degree. So eventually Eric did find out about this deception and he sued Jennifer. And the court did not set out the applicable law for a deceit but did find that there was a tort, a deceit in this case. The court said that Jennifer had impersonated Eric to send a false rejection letter to Colburn and she impersonated Mr. Galad to create an email account in his name and to send a false rejection letter to Eric. And she affected these steps by deleting the acceptance letter from Colburn to Eric with the intention of misleading Eric. She apparently did these things so that Eric would not leave Montreal and instead would stay in Montreal and remain in his relationship with her. So since the court found that Jennifer did commit the tort of deceit, the court then had to decide what were the appropriate remedies. The court said that Eric had lost a unique and prestigious educational opportunity, one that would have advanced his career as a professional clarinetist. And the court awarded Eric $300,000 in general damages to compensate for the economic loss that he suffered by not being able to go down to study at Colburn with Mr. Galad. And they also awarded him punitive and aggravated damages, $25,000 in punitive damages to address the reprehensible betrayal of trust by Jennifer, aptly described by Mr. Galad as an quote, unthinkable, immoral act, unquote. And the court also awarded the $25,000 in aggravated damages representing the incompensible personal loss suffered by Eric by having a closely held personal dream snatched from him by a person he trusted. Let's have a look at this case, which is an example of the application of the tort of interference with contractual relations. That tort is also commonly called the tort of inducing breach of contract. This decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal called Juard and Kojiko Cable involved a gentleman by the name of Mr. Juard who was a cable and fiber optic installer. He had worked for Kojiko Cable for quite a while in the Windsor area up until 1999 when he resigned and took employment in the U.S. When he returned to Canada in 2001, he came back to the Windsor area and he accepted a job with a company called Mastec. Mastec was a cable industry contractor and one of its main clients was Kojiko. When Kojiko found out that Mastec had hired Juard, Kojiko told Mastec that they would not allow Juard to work on any of its projects. Then Mastec told Mr. Juard, you know, we can't have you working on Kojiko projects. The only option is to allow is to get you to work on other projects farther away in London or Kitchener. Mr. Juard, you know, could not, because of his family commitments, could not accept that alternative assignment and that employment offer was revoked. Then several months later, Mastec hired Mr. Juard again and assigned him again to a project involving Kojiko. And again, Kojiko told Mastec that they wouldn't allow Mr. Juard to work on any of its equipment and that caused Mastec to terminate Mr. Juard's employment. Because of this situation, Mr. Juard was unable to obtain any employment with any other Windsor cable industry contractor due to all the rumors that swirled arising from this incident. The legal issue that we'll focus on in this case has to do with whether or not Kojiko induced Mastec to breach its employment contract with Juard. In other words, did Kojiko commit the tort of interference with contractual relations? Please note that the court also considered another legal issue, which was whether or not Kojiko committed the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations. We will focus only on the part of the judgment that discusses the tort of inducing breach of contract, also known as interference with contractual relations. The court set out the requirements for the tort of inducing breach of contract, which is also called again the tort of interference with contractual relations. So to prove that tort, the court said that the four elements had to be proven. First, Mr. Juard had a valid and enforceable contract with Mastec. Second, Kojiko was aware of the existence of that contract. Third requirement was Kojiko intended to and did procure the breach of the contract. And lastly, the fourth requirement as a result of the breach of contract, Mr. Juard suffered damages. In applying those legal requirements to the facts of this case, the court with respect to the first requirement said that there's no dispute that Mr. Juard was hired in May of 2001 and did have a valid and enforceable employment contract with Mastec. So that first requirement of having an actual contract is met. The second requirement Kojiko had acknowledged that it was aware of the contract between Mastec and Juard. So that satisfies the second requirement that Kojiko actually knew of the contract between Mastec and Juard. So moving on to the third requirement, the third requirement is that Kojiko must have intended to cause the breach of contract between Mastec and Mr. Juard. In coming to the conclusion that Kojiko did intend to cause the breach of contract, the court looked at the findings, the factual findings from the trial. So there's a whole list of six different facts that were found at trial, which the appeal court used to support the conclusion that there was an intention to cause a breach of contract. The last element is that Mr. Juard must have suffered damages arising from the breach of contract. And the appeal court here accepted the trial court's conclusion that Mr. Juard did suffer damages. Specifically, he wasn't able to find a job in his field of expertise in the Windsor area and he had to accept other lower paying employment. Let's recap the legal requirements for the tort of interference with contractual relations. So the first requirement has to do with knowledge. The defendant had to actually know about the existence of a contract between the plaintiff and a third party. The second requirement has to do with intention. The defendant intended to cause the third party to breach the contract. The third requirement is cause. The defendant actually caused the third party to breach the contract. And the fourth requirement is loss. The plaintiff suffered a loss from the breach of contract. So this tort typically arises when one company is trying to lure away employees or customers of another company.