QUESTION # 1 Gerry Vindictive has been the floor walker at the local Mallmart Bi

QUESTION # 1
Gerry Vindictive has been the floor walker at the local Mallmart Bigstore (located at Middle Minas, Kings
County) for five years. Prior to that he was employed by a local shoe business, Discount Shoe Sales, owned
by a well-known businessman, Bing Babdam. Bing fired Gerry for incompetence, and then Gerry sued Bing
and they settled the claim out of court. About a month after the settlement Gerry starts working for Mallmart.
Bing has a contract with Mallmart whereby he gets a commission for acting as a go-between in purchasing
wholesale shoes from eastern European markets for the Bigstore (at very low prices). The
contract/arrangement has been in place for fifteen years, but under the written terms of the contract each must
give the other party at least four months’ notice of termination for any reason.
Bing is also an avid fly fisherman, and on May 12, 2021, just before going on a big fishing trip to the Minipi
Watershed in Labrador, realizes he is short on dry fly flotant and buck tail (for making big streamers for big
trout). He goes to the Mallmart, and Gerry is on floor walking duties. Gerry, wearing his disguise (in drag with
grocery cart in tow) recognizes Bing and follows him to the recreation/fishing department. Although close
Gerry does not have a clear view of what Bing is doing. Bing starts stuffing containers of fly flotant into his
right pants pocket and packages of buck tail into his left pants pocket. Gerry does hear Bing mutter to himself,
“I’m not paying for this crap.” Gerry then approaches Bing and announces himself, places his hand on Bing’s
shoulder, and says, “You are under arrest.” He then asks Bing to follow him to the security room in the
Bigstore and Bing agrees.
Gerry takes Bing to the security room, locks the door behind him, and starts asking him questions. Some of
the remarks and questions have nothing to do with the incident, such as, “How is the shoe business?” and
“What is it going to feel like being a criminal?” and “I see bankruptcy in your future.” After one hour of
questioning Bing has had enough and asks Gerry if he can call his lawyer, Bert Slick, and Gerry allows him
to call Bert but at the same time calls the police. When the police arrive at the Bigstore they let Bing free but
end up charging him with theft under $500. Bing is eventually acquitted of the charge at the criminal trial held
on July 3, 2021 because, according to the judge, the Crown has not proven their case beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Within a week of the police laying the charge Mallmart sends Bing an email advising him that they are giving
him one weeks’ notice of the cancellation of their above-mentioned shoe supply contract.
Before the trial (and Bing’s acquittal) Lola Orvis, a local radio personality who has a talk show on current
events, calls Bing a “petty thief and disgrace to the community” on the air during one of her weekly radio
shows, this particular show dealing with the topic of “local business problems.”
After his acquittal of the criminal charge Bing wants to sue someone and everyone for damages based on
various torts, and comes to you, the best civil litigator in Kings County, and wants you to provide an opinion
letter as to all possible legal claims and defences, and his chances of success against all possible parties and
persons. Be sure to consider all issues and arguments in writing this opinion letter.
QUESTION # 2
On October 16th and 17th, 2021, students at Acadia University were involved in a street party during homecoming
weekend festivities. Below is a link to a lengthy video of the activities of students that evening. Based on this
video only (no other knowledge you may have) please outline and discuss the various torts that may have been
committed, the potential plaintiffs (i.e., what type of person could have a damage claim based on the commission
of a tort e.g., property owners, innocent bystanders etc.), and any possible defences which may be available to
potential defendants. Also consider in what circumstances the University might be liable for the torts committed
by potential defendants.

Rowdy unsanctioned Acadia University homecoming parties net numerous charges

Bonus Question
We have discussed and you have already read the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Rankin’s Garage v. JJ
[2018] 1 SCR 587. This decision is posted on ACORN.
Assume for the purposes of this bonus question that there is a further level of appeal, beyond the Supreme Court
of Canada, to a final court of appeal called the “Super Ultra High Court of Canada” (SUHCOC).
JJ, the Plaintiff (Respondent in the appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada), after receiving the above
decision, which dismisses his action against Rankin’s Garage, comes to you, the best civil appeals lawyer in
Canada, for a legal opinion on the possibility of appealing this decision to SUHCOC regarding the liability of
Rankin’s Garage.
Please ensure that you, as JJ’s lawyer, discuss in your brief written opinion to him all possible legal issues and
arguments, and the chances of success/failure with regard to each (with supporting reasons). In other words, it is
your role to give your client the pros and cons/strengths and weaknesses of various possible grounds of appeal.
Please note that this is an appeal, so you cannot introduce new evidence or facts i.e., it is too late to call new
witnesses or change the factual findings of lower courts.