Transcript: U B The Judge | May 18, 2000

(music plays)

The opening sequence shows a wooden table with a small lit candle as several words fly by: Nutrition, medicine, prevention, treatment, health.

Fast clips show different sets of hands performing activities on the table such as pulling petals from a daisy, drawing a big red heart, tuning a violin, flipping through the pages of a book, cooking, and pouring a glass of red wine.

In animation, the title appears inside the shape of a house: “More to life.”

Maureen Taylor sits in a studio with yellow walls and a small TV set in the background, which reads “More to life.”



Maureen is in her late thirties, with wavy blond hair in a bob. She’s wearing a beige blazer over an orange shirt.

She says HELLO.
I'M MAUREEN TAYLOR.
WELCOME TO “MORE TO LIFE.”
COURT IS OFFICIALLY IN SESSION,
AND YOU'RE THE JUDGE.
WE'VE SELECTED SOME REAL CASES,
AND YOU HAVE TO TELL US
WHETHER THE JUDGE RULED IN
FAVOUR OF THE PLANT I HAVE OR
THE DEFENDANT.
IF YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU COULD WIN
A COPY OF “DANCING WITH
LAWYERS: HOW TO GET BETTER
RESULTS FOR LESS MONEY.”

A book appears on screen with the title “Dancing with Lawyers: How to Get Better Results for Less Money.”

She continues TO EXPLAIN THE RULINGS IS
LAWYER PHIL EPSTEIN.
HE PRACTICES FAMILY LAW AND
CIVIL LITIGATION IN TORONTO.

Phil is in his late forties, clean-shaven, with short brown hair. He’s wearing glasses and a suit with a colourful tie.

She continues IF YOU'RE READY TO BE THE
JUDGE, GIVE US A CALL.

A caption appears on screen showing two phone numbers.

She continues IN TORONTO DIAL 416-484-2727.

CALL LONG DISTANCE TOLL-FREE TO 1-888-411-1234. AND I GUESS WE WON'T DO E-MAIL, YOU CAN'T
PLAY BY E-MAIL.
GIVE US A CALL AND PLAY ALONG.
NICE TO HAVE YOU BACK.

Phil says NICE TO SEE
YOU AGAIN, MAUREEN.

Maureen says IT MAY NOT BE THE
BEST TIME TO BE A JUDGE NOW.
MARILYN MUSHINSKI, MPP PUT
TOGETHER A PRIVATE MEMBERS
BILL, BILL 66.

The caption changes to “Phil Epstein. Lawyer.”

Phil says JUDGES
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
THE TITLE SHOULD TELL YOU WHAT
IT'S DIRECTED TO.
I THINK WHAT IT IS PART OF,
PART OF A LAW AND ORDER AGENDA,
AND A CONCERN THAT COURTS ARE
TOO LENIENT ON CRIMES AND
CRIMINALS, IF THEY PASS AN ACT
THE JUDGES WILL SIT UP, TAKE
NOTICE AND IMPOSE MUCH HARSHER
SENTENCES.
I THINK THAT'S THE SPIRIT
BEHIND THE BILL, AND IT'S A
VERY DANGEROUS AND VERY
ILL-CONSIDERED PIECE OF
LEGISLATION.

Maureen says WHY?

Phil says FIRST OF ALL,
IT HAS THE GOVERNMENT BRN MUCH
TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH.
THERE IS A SEPARATION OF
POWERS IN THIS COUNTRY AND HAS
BEEN FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THE
JUDICIARY REMAIN INDEPENDENT.
SECONDLY, IT'S SIMPLISTIC.
IT PRESUPPOSES IF THE JUDGE
HASN'T GIVEN THE MAXIMUM
SENTENCE, THE JUDGE HAS DONE
SOMETHING WRONG AND SHOULD BE
CALLED TO ACCOUNT.
WHENEVER A JUDGE DOES NOT
AWARD A MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR A
CRIME, IT WOULD CALL FOR OVER
A 5-YEAR PENALTY.
ALL THESE REPORTS GET TABLED
IN THE LEGISLATURE.
THE INTENT OF IT IS TO MAKE A
JUDGE THINK TWICE DEALING WITH
A SENTENCE OVER 5 YOORS AND
WHETHER HE OR SHE IMPOSE THE
MAXIMUMS AND THE JUDGE
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ACCOUNT TO
ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ACCUSED
AND PERHAPS THE VICTIMS AND
PERHAPS THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL,
BUT NOT THE GOVERNMENT BRANCH.

Maureen says WE DON'T ELECT
JUDGES.
WHETHER THEY ALLOW THEMSELVES
TO BE INFLUENCED OR NOT,
WHAT'S THE REAL REPERCUSSION
IF THEY MAKE DECISIONS THE WAY
THEY ALWAYS DID.

Phil says SENTENCING IS
A COMPLEX MATTER.
MAXIMUM SENTENCES ARE FOR THE
WORST OFFENDER.
BECAUSE THE JUDGE DOESN'T
IMPOSE THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE
DOESN'T MEAN THE JUDGE DID
SOMETHING WRONG.
WE HAVE A COURT OF APPEAL AND
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, BOTH
OF WHOM CAN DEAL APPROPRIATELY
WITH THE SENTENCE AND THE
JUDGE.
AND IF THE JUDGE IS OUT OF
LINE, THAT IS IMPROPER, THE
CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL CAN
DEAL WITH THE JUDGE.
IT'S NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO
IMPOSE ITSELF HOW JUDGES MAKE
LAW AND CARRY OUT THEIR TASKS.

Maureen says WHAT THE PREMIER
SAID ABOUT THE BILL, ALTHOUGH
HE SAID HE DIDN'T SUPPORT IT,
HE LIKES THE IDEALS.
HE SAYS THERE IS
INCONSISTENCY.

Phil says THERE'S
INCONSISTENCY IN CANADA AND
EVERYWHERE.
YOU HAVE DIFFERENT ACCUSED
WITH DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS,
DIFFERENT MOTIVATIONS,
DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT
MITIGATE AGAINST A DIFFERENT
SENTENCE.
IF A GOVERNMENT WANTS MORE
CONSISTENCY, IT'S UP TO THE
GOVERNMENT TO ENACT SENTENCING
GUIDELINES.
THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER WAY TO
DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM RATHER
THAN PUBLICLY INTIMIDATE
JUDGES OR PUT THEM UNDER SOME
KIND OF GOVERNMENT SCRUTINY TO
MAKE THEM FALL INTO LINE.

Maureen says YOU MADE ME THINK
OF LET THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE
CRIME OR IN CANADA TO WE MAKE
THE PUNISHMENT MAKE IT FIT THE
CRIMINAL.

Phil says WE LET THEM FIT THE CRIME
AND THE CRIMINAL.
THE REHABILITATION, RECORD OF
THE ACCUSED, THE KIND OF CRIME
THAT WAS COMMITTED, THE
CHANCES THE ACCUSED WILL
COMMIT AGAIN, CHANCES OF
REHABILITATION.
THERE ARE ALL OF THOSE.
AND TO HAVE A 4-LINE REPORT
TABLED IN PARLIAMENT IS NOT
GOING TO HELP THE PUBLIC
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE JUDGE IS
DOING.

Maureen says LET'S MOVE AWAY
FROM BILL 66 IN A MOMENT AND
WE WILL GET TO REAL CASES THAT
HAD REAL DECISIONS FROM REAL
JUDGES.
LAWYER PHIL EPSTEIN WILL HELP
US GUIDE THROUGH YOU BE THE
JUDGE.
YOU HAVE TO CALL.
GIVE US A CALL.
WE'LL READ THE EXAMPLES TO YOU
AND YOU TELL US HOW THE JUDGE
RULED IN THE CASE.
IF 2 CALLERS IN A ROW STRIKE
OUT, OR IF YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU
WIN “DANCING WITH LAWYERS.”
OKAY WE'VE GOT JASMINE ON THE LINE IN TORONTO. YOU READY TO PLAY?

Jasmine says YES.

Maureen says HERE'S THE FIRST
CASE.

A text reads “Case 1. 2 city workers, Bill and Joe, were digging a trench by the side of the road when a streetcar came by. A student made a rude gesture to Bill and Joe. Both responded instantly by picking up a small rock and throwing it at the open window at the student. One rock hit the student in the eye, blinding him and the other rock broke the window above the student. The student sued Bill and Joe. Both took the position that they threw the rock that hit the window and did not cause the damage to the student. The student was unable to say which one threw the rock which actually injured him. What will happen to the student's claim?”

Jasmine says I THINK THE STUDENT
WOULD BE AWARDED DAMAGES.

Maureen says SO YOU THINK THE
STUDENT WILL WIN HIS SUIT?

Jasmine says YES, I DO.

Maureen says OKAY.
CAN YOU TELL US WHY YOU THINK
THAT?

Jasmine says WELL, BECAUSE EVEN
THOUGH IT APPEARS HE INITIATED
THE INCIDENT, THEY ESCALATED
IT TO A PHYSICAL ASSAULT, EVEN
THOUGH IF THEY DIDN'T INTEND
TO BLIND HIM.
OR IN OTHER WORDS BECAUSE HE
SAID SOMETHING TO THEM DOESN'T
MEAN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO
LASH OUT PHYSICALLY AT HIM.
IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHICH
ONE THREW THE ROCK, BECAUSE
EITHER ONE OF THEM COULD HAVE
DAMAGED THEM PHYSICALLY.

Phil says THAT'S A
REALLY GOOD ANSWER.
GOT MOST OF THE PARTS RIGHT
BUT NOT THE CORRECT ANSWER,
UNFORTUNATELY.

Maureen says NOT THE CORRECT
ANSWER?

Phil says IT WAS A VERY
IMPRESSIVE ANSWER.
HAD MOST THINGS RIGHT, BUT NOT THE CORRECT
ANSWER.

Maureen says LET ME GIVE THIS
ONE TO PATRICIA.

Patricia says HI.
I THINK THE STUDENT MIGHT HAVE
LOST HIS CASE BECAUSE HE
INSTIGATED THE SITUATION.
ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK IT'S
RIGHT THEY DID DO DAMAGE TO
THE STUDENT.
SINCE HE INSTIGATED THE
SITUATION, MAYBE IT MIGHT BE
IN THE WORKERS' FAVOUR.

Phil says THE FIRST
ANSWER WAS BETTER THAN
PATRICIA'S ANSWER BUT PATRICIA
HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER FOR THE
WRONG REASON.
BILL AND JOE -- THIS IS NOT
ABOUT WHETHER THE STUDENT
INSTIGATED THE PROBLEM,
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A CASE
ABOUT SELF-DEFENCE.
BECAUSE THE STUDENT INSTIGATED
THE MATTER, THAT DOESN'T
EXCUSE BILL AND JOE.
THE PROBLEM IS BILL AND JOE
DID NOT ACT IN CONCERT.
THIS WASN'T A JOINT VENTURE BY
THEM.
EACH PICKED UP A STONE
INDEPENDENTLY AND THREW IT.
SHE'S GOT TO IDENTIFY WHICH
ONE DID IT.
IF SHE CAN'T PROVE ON THE
BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES WHICH
ONE OF THEM THREW THE STONE
THAT INJURED THE STUDENT, THE
STUDENT UNFORTUNATELY LOSES.

Maureen says THAT SURPRISES ME
BECAUSE BY THROWING A ROCK AT
AN OPEN BUS WINDOW AT THE
STUDENT, IT SEEMS TO ME THEY
SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THEY COULD
HAVE HARMED SOMEBODY WITH THAT
ACTION.

Phil says THAT'S
CORRECT.
IT WASN'T THE THROWING OF THE
ROCK AT THE BUS WINDOW, IT WAS
THE THROWING OF THE STONE THAT
HIT THE STUDENT IN THE EYE
THAT CAUSED THE DAMAGE.
ONLY ONE OF THEM DID THAT.
THE OTHER BROKE THE WINDOW.
IF THEY WERE ACTING IN CONCERT,
THEN THERE WOULD BE NO DOUBT
THAT ONE OF THEM WOULD BE
LIABLE.
THE MISTAKE IS THE STUDENT
SHOULD HAVE SUED THE EMPLOYER.
AND THEN THEY WERE ACTING IN
THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF THEIR
DUTIES IN WORKING ON THE ROAD.
THEY THREW A STONE.
THE SPLOIR WAS LIABLE THEN IT
DIDN'T MATTER WHICH ONE.
THEY CHOSE THE WRONG TACTIC.
THEY SHOULD HAVE SUED THE
TRANSIT COMMISSION OR WHOEVER
EMPLOYED THEM, AND THEY
DIDN'T.
THERE WAS A SIMILAR CRIMINAL
CASE LIKE THIS AS WELL FOR
ASSAULT.
AGAIN THE ACCUSED WERE
DISCHARGED BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO
PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT WHO DID IT.

Maureen says OKAY.
THANKS, PATRICIA, FOR PLAYING.
WENDY IS CALLING FROM
THORNHILL.

Wendy says HELLO THERE.

Maureen says I HAVE YOUR CASE
FOR YOU.
ALL READY?
ALL ALL I'LL TRY.

A text reads “Case 2. Howard was a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology and worked in a medical centre in St. Catharines. At the time he was employed, he entered into an agreement that in the event of the termination of his employment for any reason, he would not engage in the practice of medicine or surgery within the city of within a radius of 5 miles for a period of 5 years thereafter. After 4 years of a very successful practice, Howard left the centre and established his own practice in the city. The medical centre brought an application to the Court for an injunction to restrain him from carrying on his practice for 5 years and for damages for breach of contract. Who won and why?”

Wendy says WELL, I WOULD THINK
THE MEDICAL CENTRE WOULD WIN,
BECAUSE HE SIGNED THE CONTRACT
STATING THAT HE WOULDN'T
ESTABLISH A PRACTICE IN THE
CITY, AND HE DID.

Phil says OF COURSE A
CONTRACT IS A CONTRACT.

Wendy says YES, I WOULD SAY
SO.

Phil says NORMALLY IT
IS, BUT NOT IN THIS CASE.

Maureen says IN THIS CASE, NO?
THANKS FOR PLAYING, WENDY.

Wendy says THANKS.

Maureen says THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN MY GUESS.
LET'S GO TO O'NEIL IN WINDSOR.

O'Neil says I WOULD HAVE
THOUGHT THE SAME THING AS
WELL.

Maureen says BUT?

O'Neil says I'M SORT OF STUMPED
ON THAT I GUESS.
I IMAGINE SINCE IT WAS A
CONTRACT AND HE HAD SIGNED IT,
IT WAS LEGALLY BINDING.
OTHER THAN THAT, I SUPPOSE --
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING
ADDITIONAL TO ADD TO THAT.

Maureen says LET ME TAKE A STAB
AT THIS ONE.
I HAVE A FEELING THE CONTRACT
ITSELF WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE I
DON'T THINK YOU CAN SIGN AWAY
YOUR RIGHT TO MAKE A LIVING?

Phil says WELL, THIS IS
ALL VERY RE-ASSURING.
IF NOBODY CAN ANSWER THE
QUESTION, PEOPLE NEED LAWYERS.
THAT'S VERY CLOSE, ACTUALLY.
THIS IS CALLED -- A COVENANT
IN RESTRICTION OF TRADE ARE
ILLEGAL UNLESS THEY'RE
REASONABLE.
THAT MEANS BOTH IN TERMS OF
TIME AND SCOPE.
THERE'S ANOTHER CATCH.
A CONTRACT IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE THAT INJURIES THE PUBLIC
BY CONTROLLING MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS IS CONTRARY TO
PUBLIC POLICY AND IS VOID.
BECAUSE HOWARD IS IN THE
MEDICAL FIELD AND PEOPLE NEED
TO BE ABLE TO GO TO DOCTORS,
CERTAIN PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE
TO GO TO OBSTETRICIANS AND
GYNAECOLOGISTS, YOU CAN'T
RESTRAIN HOWARD BOTH IN TIME
AND SCOPE.
ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT IT'S
VOID.
THE CLINIC CANNOT SUE AND
HOWARD IS FREE TO BREACH THE
CONTRACT.

Maureen says I WONDER IF HOWARD
KNEW THIS WHEN HE SIGNED.

Phil says THAT MIGHT
DEPEND HOW MANY OBSTETRICIANS
AND GYNAECOLOGISTS.
RESTRAINING DENTISTS WAS
UPHELD AND IN OLDEN GAYS
G.P.s.
NOW THERE'S A SHORTAGE OF
DOCTORS EVERYWHERE, A
RESTRAINING DOCTOR'S CONTRACT
MIGHT WOULDN'T APPLY.
A DENTIST MIGHT AND A LAWYER
DEFINITELY WOULD.
CONTRACTS OF RESTRAINT OF
TRADE ARE VOID UNLESS
REASONABLE IN TIME AND SCOPE.

Maureen says I WAS PRETTY
CLOSE.

Phil says YOU WOULD BE
ALLOWED TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE
AND BE A TELEVISION HOST.

Maureen says WHY?

Phil says IF YOU GAVE
UP THAT RIGHT, THEY COULD STOP
YOU.
IF IT WAS TO STOP YOU TO GO TO
CALIFORNIA, THAT WOULD BE TOO
FAR.
IF IT WAS FOR TEN YEARS, IT
WOULD BE TOO LONG.
THEY CAN RESTRICT YOU TO THE
TORONTO AREA, SOUTHERN ONTARIO
A COUPLE OF YEARS.

Maureen says INTERESTING. LET'S
GO TO LEE FOR THE NEXT ONE.

Lee says HI.

Maureen says HERE YOU GO, CASE
NUMBER 3.

A text reads “Case 3. John and Susan married a year ago and it was a happy occasion with about 100 guests. The guests consisted of family from both sides and numerous friends. John and Susan received a significant number of wedding gifts. Unfortunately, John and Susan's marriage was not a success and after a year they decided to separate. Because they had little to fight about, they decided to fight about the wedding gifts. John took the position that all of the gifts given by his friends and his family belonged to him and all of the gifts given to Susan by her family and friends belonged to her. In the rare case where a gift was given by mutual friends, John though that the property should be sold and the proceeds divided. Unfortunately the parties could not agree and a judge was required to resolve the issue of who gets which gift. How would the judge rule on this case?”

Lee says I WOULD THINK THE
JUDGE WOULD RULE THAT
EVERYTHING BE DIVIDED EQUALLY.

Phil says THAT'S A
REALLY GOOD ANSWER, AND IF YOU
ARE, I SUPPOSE, SITTING AS
SOLOMON, THAT WOULD BE THE
APPROACH.
AND IT HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF
BEING SENSIBLE AND
EXPEDITIOUS.
THE LAW ISN'T ALWAYS SENSIBLE
AND EXPEDITIOUS.
THAT'S NOT THE RESULT IN THIS
CASE.

Maureen says SORRY, LEE.
THANKS FOR PLAYING.
GIVE THIS TO TINA IN HAMILTON.

Tina says HI.

Maureen says WHAT WAS THE
JUDGMENT AND WHY?

Tina says I WOULD THINK THEY
WOULD TOTAL THE GUFTS GIVEN AS
FAR AS MONEY-WISE, ASSETS AND
EVERYTHING AND SPLIT IT THAT
WAY, NOT THE PARTICULAR GIFTS.
NOT THAT SHE GETS THE TOASTER
AND HE GETS THE TV.
THEY WOULD PERHAPS MAKE THEM
SELL EVERYTHING OR COMBINE THE
TOTAL AND DIVIDE IT THAT WAY.

Phil says THAT'S NOT
THE RIGHT LEGAL ANSWER.
I MUST SAY WHEN THIS HAPPENS
AND JUDGES ARE IN THE MIDDLE
OF A TRIAL OR PRETRIAL AND
PARTIES START TO FIGHT ABOUT
CONTENTS, IT'S VERY COMMON FOR
THE JUDGES TO CALL THE PARTIES
IN WITH THEIR LAWYERS AND SAY
THIS IS A RIDICULOUS SQUABBLE
AND IF YOU DO NOT RESPOND IT,
I WILL ORDER THE SHERIFF TO
PICK UP EVERYTHING, SELL IT
ALL AT A FIRE SALE AND YOU
WILL GET A TENTH OF WHAT IT'S
WORTH AND YOU WON'T GET ANY OF
THE ITEMS.
TECHNICALLY, THAT'S NOT LEGAL.
THE LAW ON THIS IS A BIT
COMPLEX, BUT HERE IT GOES.
IF A GIFT WAS GIVEN TO JOHN,
IT REMAINS JOHN'S.
IF A GIFT WAS GIVEN TO SUSAN,
IT REMAINS SUSAN'S.
IF IT'S GIVEN TO BOTH OF THEM,
IT'S JOINT PROPERTY AND HAS TO
BE SOLD AND THE PROCEEDS
DIVIDED.
HOW DO WE KNOW A GIFT WAS
GIVEN TO JOHN OR SUSAN?
SOMETIMES YOU CAN TELL.
YOUR GREAT-AUNT MAKES THE
CHECK OUT TO JOHN.
IF THE CHEQUE IS MADE OUT TO
JOHN, IT'S JOHN'S GIFT.
IF IT'S MADE OUT TO JOHN AND
SUSAN, IT'S A JOINT GIFT.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE GIVE GIFTS TO
ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, GIFTS ARE
USUALLY JOINT AT A WEDDING.
SOMETIMES THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL.
SO THE REAL ANSWER TO THIS
QUESTION IS YOU HAVE TO GO
BACK AND LOOK AT WHERE THE
GIFTS CAME FROM AND HOW THEY
CAME.
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MESSAGE
OR WORDS, THEY'RE PROBABLY
JOINT PROPERTY.
BUT IF THERE ARE CHEQUES OR
OTHER INDYSIA OF A GIFT, THEY
GO TO THE PERSON WHO GOT THEM.

Maureen says VERY UNFAIR.
I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE OF A
CERTAIN GENERATION
AUTOMATICALLY MAKE A CHEQUE
OUT TO A MAN THINKING THE
WOMAN'S NAME ON THE BANK
ACCOUNT.

Phil says HORRORS.
INTERESTING ENOUGH WHEN I GET
A WEDDING GIFT WHICH IS MONEY,
I AM VERY CAREFUL TO MAKE IT
TO Mr. AND Mrs. .

Maureen says IS THAT KOSHER AT
THE BANK IF THEY DON'T HAVE
JOINT ACCOUNTS?

Phil says THEY OUGHT TO
HAVE JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS
OTHERWISE SOMEBODY ELSE IS IN
CONTROL.
YOU CAN DEPOSIT SOMEONE'S
MONEY INTO THE ACCOUNT.
YOU JUST CAN'T TAKE IT OUT.

Maureen says SO THAT --

Phil says THAT'S A
LESSON IN LIFE.

Maureen says TINA WAS KIND OF
AROUND THERE BUT DIDN'T MAKE
NOTE OF THE FACT IF IT WAS
SPECIFICALLY FOR ONE OR THE
OTHER, THEY GET TO KEEP THAT.
OKAY.
WHO DO WE HAVE NEXT?
VI IN TIMMONS.
ALL SET?

Vi says YES.

Maureen says GOOD LUCK.

A text reads “Case 4. Jack went on a holiday to the Far East and, while there, purchased a wonderful bolt of cloth he intended to have made into a suit. He returned to Toronto and gave it to Tony, his regular tailor. Tony made up a beautiful suit, but he was having problems meeting his monthly bills. He sold it to a customer who walked in and paid Tony 1,000 dollars. When Jack came to pick up his suit, Tony confessed what he'd done and offered to fully reimburse Jack for the amount he paid for the cloth. Jack was not interested and decided to sue the innocent purchaser. Jack simply wants his suit back. When the innocent purchaser received the Statement of Claim, he wrote to his lawyer because he wanted to keep the suit. Who wins and why?”

Vi says OKAY.
I THINK IT WOULD BE THE
PURCHASER WHO WOULD WIN THE
CASE, BECAUSE THE SUIT -- HE
ALREADY SOLD THE SUIT FOR
1,000 DOLLARS PROVIDING THE PERSON
WHO BOUGHT THE SUIT FROM HIM
WOULD HAVE GIVEN A RECEIPT
SHOWING THAT THE SUIT WAS PAID
FOR.

Phil says BECAUSE HE
BOUGHT THE SUIT IN GOOD FAITH.

Vi says YES.
SO ONCE THAT IS DONE, IT'S
LEGAL AND BINDING.
SO YOU CAN'T -- A PERSON CAN'T
TURN AROUND AND ASK FOR THE
SUIT BACK BECAUSE ONCE IT'S
BEEN SOLD, THAT'S IT,
ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE THE
RECEIPT THAT SHOWS HE
PURCHASED IT.

Phil says I PROVIDED
ABOUT A HUNDRED CASES TO THE
PRODUCER AND PICKED THE ONES
THAT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE THE
MOST TROUBLE WITH.
THAT'S A LOGICAL ANSWER BUT
THE WRONG ANSWER.
THESE ARE ACTUALLY TOUGH
QUESTIONS.
THEY SHOW THERE IS SOME MERIT
IN A LEGAL EDUCATION, SOME.

Maureen says THAT'S TRUE.
SO HE BOUGHT IT IN GOOD FAITH.

Phil says WE'LL GIVE
THE NEXT CALLER A CHANCE --
GIVE THE NEXT CALLER A CHANCE.

Maureen says LET'S SEE WHAT STEVE SAYS. STEVE?

Steve says THE PERSON WHO
BOUGHT -- IF YOU BUY A STOLEN
CAR AND IT'S STOLEN -- THE
THAT BOUGHT THE STOLEN CAR
DOESN'T GET TO KEEP WHAT WAS
STOLEN.

Phil says ABSOLUTELY
CORRECT.
THE VIEWER HAS THE RIGHT
ANSWER FOR THE RIGHT REASON.
THIS IS THE CASE OF 2
INNOCENT PARTIES, JACK WHO
LOST HIS BOLT OF CLOTH, AND
THE PURCHASER WHO PURCHASED
IT.
AND THE COURT HAS TO WRESTLE
WITH WHICH OF 2 INNOCENT
PERSONS ARE GOING TO SUFFER.
IN THIS CASE, TONY HAS
COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF
CONVERSION.
HE CONVERTED THE GOODS TO HIS
OWN PURPOSE.
HE CANNOT PASS TITLE.
A PERSON WHO CONVERTS PROPERTY
DEPARTMENT PASS GOOD TITLE TO
THE NEXT PERSON ON.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, THE INNOCENT
PURCHASER SUFFERS.
HE'S GOT TO GIVE JACK BACK THE
SUIT, AND HE CAN GO AFTER TONY
TO BE REIMBURSED FOR HIS
THOUSAND DOLLARS.
BUT AS THE VIEWER SAYS, IF YOU
BUY A STOLEN CAR, YOU DON'T
GET TO KEEP THE STOLEN CAR
BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT YOU BOUGHT
IT IN GOOD SFAT.
YOU BUY STOLEN GOODS, THEY'RE
NOT FOR YOU TO KEEP.
THIS IS ANOTHER KIND OF THEFT.
YOU CAN'T PASS GOOD TITLE THAT
WAY.

Maureen says YOU WOULDN'T
EXPECT THE PURCHASER TO HAVE
KNOWN THE SUIT WAS MADE --

Phil says THAT'S THE
COURT'S PROBLEM.
JACK WOULDN'T EXPECT IT TO BE
STOLEN AND THE PURCHASER
WOULDN'T EXPECT IT TO BE
STOLEN.
YOU HAVE 2 INNOCENT PERSONS
WHAT DO YOU DO?
THAT'S HOW WE DEAL WITH IT.

Maureen says CONGRATULATIONS,
STEVE.
WE WILL PUT YOUR NAME IN FOR
THE DRAW.
THE PRIZE YOU CAN WIN IS THE
BOOK “DANCING WITH LAWYERS:
HOW TO GET BETTER RESULTS FOR
LESS MONEY.”
WE WILL READ A LIVE CASE TO
YOU.
YOU TELL US IF THE JUDGE
DECIDED FOR THE PLAINTIFF OR
THE DEFENDANT.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, YOU
HAVE TO TELL US WHY.
THAT'S BEEN THE PROBLEM.
AND WE'RE ONLY DOING THIS BY
PHONE TODAY.
MARY IS IN MISSISSAUGA.
HI, MARY.

Mary says HELLO.

Maureen says LET ME GET TO CASE
5.
KIND OF LONG.

A text reads “Case 5. Tom is a somewhat eccentric gentleman and, although reasonably wealthy, he dressed strangely. His hair is disheveled and his lengthy beard untrimmed. He looks like a derelict. At a major department store there exists a prominent sign that reads “We reserve the right to inspect all bags and parcels.” Tom saw the sign on his way in and proceeded to shop, buying several bulky items and paying in cash. Tom stuffed some of the paid-for items under his coat and the rest in a shopping bag and started to leave the store. He was stopped by a security guard who politely asked Tom if she could inspect his shopping bag and under his coat. Tom refused to answer and kept walking. The security guard asked again and Tom simply kept moving toward the exit. Just before he left the store, 2 guards took Tom by the arms and insisted he come with them to an investigation room. Tom was detained there for half an hour while the 2 guards carefully went through his coat and his shopping bag. The guards realised that Tom did not appear to have stolen anything and they took Tom to the exit, apologized for delaying him and let him go. Tom is outrages and has decided to sue. Can he, and if so, what for?

Mary says I'M SUPPOSED TO
ANSWER?

Maureen says THAT WOULD BE NOW
YOU WOULD ANSWER.

Mary says CAN HE SUE FOR
BEING UNLAWFULLY DETAINED?

Phil says THAT'S WHAT
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO TELL US.
CAN HE?

Mary says THAT'S WHAT I'M
SAYING, FOR BEING UNLAWFULLY
DETAINED.

Maureen says YOU THINK HE WOULD
BE SUCCESSFUL.

Mary says THEY HAD NO REAL
REASON TO DETAIN HIM.

Maureen says PHIL, WHAT DO YOU
THINK?

Phil says THAT'S BOTH
THE RIGHT ANSWER AND THE RIGHT
REASON.
NOT WITHSTANDING THE FACT THE
STORE HAD A SIGN THAT SAYS WE
RESERVE THE RIGHT TO INSPECT
ALL BAGS AND PARCELS, THAT
DOESN'T GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO
DETAIN ANYONE.
IF THE STORE DETAINS SOMEONE
TO SEARCH, THEY DO SO AT THEIR
OWN PERIL.
THE FACT TOM LOOKED DERELICT,
LOOKED LIKE A BUM, LOOKED LIKE
HE STOLE SOMETHING, THEY TAKE
A BIG CHANCE IF THEY
PHYSICALLY TAKE TOM, PUT HIM
IN A ROOM AND SEARCH HIM.
NOT ONLY CAN HE SUE THEM FOR
WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT, HE CAN
ALSO SUE THEM FOR ASSAULT.
AS SOON AS THEY PUT THEIR
HANDS ON HIM, THEY ASSAULTED
HIM.
JUST GIVING -- PUTTING UP A
SIGN DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE
RIGHT TO STOP SOMEONE.

Maureen says WHAT ABOUT THE
POLICE?

Phil says THEY ARE IN A
DIFFERENT CATEGORY.
THEY HAVE TO ACT REASONABLY.
IF THEY HAVE REASONABLE
GROUNDS FOR DETAINING YOU,
THEY CAN DETAIN YOU.
THE GROUNDS MUST BE
REASONABLE.
GIVEN HIS DISHEVELED
APPEARANCE, GIVEN THINGS
STICKING OUT FROM UNDERNEATH
HIS COAT, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
A BASIS FOR POLICE TO DO A
STOP AND SEARCH.
BUT IT'S CLOSE TO THE LINE.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH FOR
A SECURITY FORCE.

Maureen says PEOPLE OF COLOUR
COMPLAIN ALL THE TIME THEY'RE
DETAINED BY THE POLICE JUST
BECAUSE OF THE COLOUR OF THEIR
SKIN.

Phil says ABSOLUTELY.
POLICE HAVE TO ESTABLISH THEY
HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS.

Maureen says CONGRATULATIONS,
MARY.
WE WILL PUT YOUR NAME IN FOR
THE DRAW.
YOU COULD HAVE COME BACK AND
SAID WHAT ABOUT THE SIGN.

Phil says I COULD HAVE.
THERE'S HARDLY ANYONE WINNING.
I'M NOT SURE I WANT TO
PARTICIPATE GIVING AWAY A BOOK
THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO GET
BETTER RESULTS FOR LESS MONEY.
WHAT ABOUT MORE MONEY?

Maureen says DONNA IS NEXT.
YOU THERE, DONNA?
NO.
WE WILL GET ANOTHER CALLER UP.
JANINE IS IN TORONTO.

Janine says HI.

Maureen says READY TO PLAY?

Janine says SURE, WHY NOT.

A text reads “Case 6. Marilyn has been seeing Dan regularly for the past 18 months. 4 months ago, to her pleasant surprise, Dan took her to dinner and presented her with a diamond engagement ring. Dan had cleverly arranged for the ring to be inserted into the dessert. Marilyn put the ring on, kissed Dan and accepted his proposal of marriage. They discussed a wedding date and agreed on June 4. 10 days before the wedding, Dan gave Marilyn a gold wedding ring. It was very valuable and had been in his family for 3 generations. On the even of the wedding, June 3, Marilyn decided abruptly that she could not go through with it. There were a number of events that had taken place in the last month that had convinced her that the match was not a correct one and that it would be better for both parties if they called the wedding off. Marilyn called Dan and tried to explain her position and her very deep regrets. Dan was, naturally, upset and and then became angry. He had arranged for the caterer, the church and the invitations for what was to be a large wedding. The only expense that Marilyn had picked up was the dress and the flowers. Dan figured he was out at least 15,000 dollars, which he could not recover. Dan decided to sue Marilyn for the damages he incurred as a result of her failure to go through with the marriage and, in addition, Dan sued Marilyn for the return of the engagement ring and the wedding ring. Who wins and why?”

Janine says H'MM.
I WOULD THINK MARILYN COULD
KEEP THE WEDDING RINGS.
THEY WERE GIFTS THAT GIVEN
BEFORE THE WEDDING TOOK PLACE.

Phil says BOTH OF THEM?

Janine says YES.
AS FAR AS DAN GETTING THE
MONEY BACK, DAN GAVE THE MONEY
FOR THE MONEY HE SPENT TO GET
THE WEDDING READY, I WOULD
THINK SHE WOULD HAVE TO PAY
PART OF IT, YES.

Maureen says SHE PROBABLY GOT
PART OF IT --

Phil says LAW AND
COMMON SENSE DON'T ALWAYS GO
TOGETHER.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD
RESULT.
THEREFORE IT'S WRONG.

Maureen says THE WHOLE THING'S
WRONG?

Phil says SHE GOT SOME
THINGS RIGHT.
THERE WERE 3 THINGS IN
THERE.
SHE GOT ONE RIGHT.

Maureen says DOES HE GET HER TO
PAY SOME OF THE 15,000 DOLLAR COST.
DOES HE GET THE ENGAGEMENT
RING AND DOES HE GET HIS
FAMILY HEIRLOOM WEDDING RING
BACK.
WE'LL SEE WHAT JACKIE DECIDES
TO KEEP AND THROW OUT IN THE
NEXT ANSWER.

Jackie says I DON'T THINK
MARILYN SHOULD PAY ANYTHING.
THE RING WAS A GIFT, PART OF
THE WEDDING, IT WAS A GIFT.
AND THE WEDDING COSTS, THEY
WERE PAID OUT ALREADY.
HE'S ALREADY PAID THEM AND
THEY'RE FOR THE WEDDING.
EVEN THOUGH THE WEDDING DIDN'T
GO ON, THEY WERE ALREADY PAID.

Phil says MARILYN
CALLED OFF THE WEDDING AND
POOR JACK'S OUT 15,000 DOLLARS.
DON'T YOU THINK HE SHOULD GET
SOMETHING BACK?

Jackie says EVEN THOUGH HE
WOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED SHE
WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE --

Phil says IT WASN'T
MUCH OF A WEDDING WITHOUT HER.
PARTY WAS SORT OF A DRAG.

Maureen says I'VE NEVER HEARD
OF ANYBODY BEING SUED FOR
CALLING OFF -- IS THERE A
CONTRACT THERE?

Phil says THAT'S
BECAUSE YOU'RE SO YOUNG.

Maureen says THANK YOU.

Phil says THE ANSWER'S
WRONG.
BUT IN 1978 WE ABOLISHED THE
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH
OF PROMISE.
AND UP UNTIL 1978, MARILYN --
JACK WOULD HAVE HAD A VERY
GOOD CLAIM AGAINST MARILYN FOR
BREACH OF PROMISE AND COULD
HAVE GOT DAMAGES.
WE ABOLISHED THAT VERY
INTERESTING TORT IN 1978.
YOU CAN'T SUE FOR BREACH OF
PROMISE.
THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST PART
IS JACK IS OUT OF LUCK ON THE
15,000.
THAT TAKES US TO THE
ENGAGEMENT RING THAT WAS PUT
INTO THE DESSERT.
THAT WAS CLEARLY AN
UNCONDITIONAL GIFT BY JACK TO
MARILYN.
AND ONCE AN UNCONDITIONAL GIFT
IS MADE, YOU KEEP IT.
BUT THE WEDDING RING CLEARLY
WAS CONDITIONAL ON THE PARTIES
GETTING MARRIED.
IT WAS A WEDDING RING TO BE
USED FOR THE WEDDING, AND THAT
GOES BACK TO JACK.

Maureen says WHAT'S HE DOING
GIVING THAT WEDDING RING TO
HER TEN DAYS BEFORE?

Phil says THERE'S
SIZING IT.
I DON'T KNOW.
MAYBE TRYING IT ON, WHATEVER.
CLEARLY A WEDDING RING IS
GENERALLY THOUGHT TO BE
CONDITIONAL.
ENGAGEMENT RINGS ARE NOT.
SOMETIMES WHEN FAMILY
HEIRLOOMS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS
ENGAGEMENT RINGS, PEOPLE SAY
THIS IS GIVEN TO YOU IN
CONTEMPLATION OF OUR MARRIAGE,
OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.
NOBODY WOULD SAY “IN
CONTEMPLATION OF OUR
MARRIAGE.”
WHERE IT IS GIVEN IN
CONTEMPLATION OF MARRIAGE, YOU
CAN GET IT BACK.
USUALLY PEOPLE TAKE PEOPLE OUT
AND HAVE A GLAMOUROUS EVENING
AND GIVE THEM THE RING.

Maureen says IF THE ENGAGEMENT
RING WAS A FAMILY HEIRLOOM,
WOULD THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Phil says YOU CAN SAY
THIS IS AN ENGAGEMENT RING
THAT'S A FAMILY HEIRLOOM.
IF WE EVER SPLIT UP, THAT
MAKES IT CONDITIONAL.
THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU CAN
PROVE IT.
IF YOU SAY IT, IT'S HARD TO
PROVE IT LATER.
SOMETIMES BETTER TO DO IT IN
WRITING.
THAT'S MAKING THE ENGAGEMENT A
RATHER DRY AFFAIR.
IF SOMEONE GIVES YOU A RING ON
THAT BASIS, YOU SHOULD PASS
AND LOOK ELSEWHERE.
NOT THE BEST KIND OF PROPOSAL.

Maureen says IT'S MY WEDDING
ANNIVERSARY TODAY.

Phil says
CONGRATULATIONS.

Maureen says I LOST MY WEDDING
RING.

Phil says TIME FOR
ANOTHER ONE.

Maureen says I LOST THE SECOND
ONE HE BUT THE ME TOO.
ON THE CONDITION YOU WON'T
LOSE THIS ONE.
PATTY'S IN BRADFORD.
HI, PATTY.
READY TO PLAY?

Patty says SURE.

Patty says WOW.

A text reads “Case 7. Sally Jones got into her car in the driveway and began to drive downtown. She opened the glove compartment to get some loose change for the parking meter and to her horror, discovered a small package of marijuana. Because the car was also used by her 2 eldest children, she immediately became concerned that her children were using drugs. Sally stopped her car, took the drugs and put them in the truck of her car. Her intention was to drive to her friend Jane's house to ask Jane what to do. Unfortunately, Sally was so upset that she went through a stop sign and caused a traffic accident. When the police arrived, Sally appeared so distraught that they decided to search the car. They discovered the marijuana in the truck and charged Sally with possession of the drug. Is Sally guilty of possession of drugs?”

Phil says GOOD QUESTION,
ISN'T IT?

Patty says MY THOUGHT WOULD BE
NO, SHE WOULDN'T BE IN
POSSESSION.

Phil says THEY'RE IN
HER TRUNK OF HER CAR, AND
SHE'S DRIVING IT, AND SHE'S
NOT IN POSSESSION?

Patty says FOR THE CHARGE, I
DON'T THINK IT WOULD HOLD UP.
THEY'RE IN HER TRUNK BUT SHE
ALSO HAS OTHER PEOPLE THAT USE
HER CAR.
THAT'S HER OPINION.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE RIGHT
ONE.

Phil says WELL, IT'S
THE RIGHT ONE.
SALLY DID NOT INTEND TO
POSSESS DRUGS.
THE CRIMINAL -- VIRTUALLY ALL
CRIMINAL OFFENSES REQUIRE 2
ELEMENTS, THE ACTUAL
COMMITTING OF THE OFFENSE AND
THE MENTAL INTENTION TO COMMIT
THE OFFENSE.
YOU HAVE TO INTEND THE COMMIT
THE OFFENSE, AND SALLY DID NOT
INTEND TO POSSESS DRUGS.

Maureen says WHO CAN PROVE THAT
THOUGH?

Phil says ONLY SALLY.
SALLY GETS ON THE WITNESS
STAND AND TELLS HER STORY.
DON'T FORGET THE CROWN HAS TO
PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT AND THE ONUS IS ON THE
CROWN.
USUALLY FINDING DRUGS IN THE
TRUNK OF ONE'S OWN CAR IS
ENOUGH, AND THE ONUS SHIFTS TO
SALLY TO EXPLAIN TO A COURT
WHAT SHE WAS DOING.
IN THE ABSENCE OF HER
EXPLANATION, SHE HAS A
PROBLEM.
IF THE JUDGE BELIEVES HER, IT
TIPS THE SCALES AND PUTS THE
ONUS BACK ON THE CROWN.

Maureen says THE KIDS DIDN'T
HAVE THE GOODS ON THEM.

Phil says EVERYONE
WALKS ON THIS.
BUT SALLY WILL CERTAINLY HAVE
A TALK WITH HER CHILDREN WHEN
SHE GETS HOME.

Maureen says WE BELIEVE SALLY,
DO WE?

Phil says THAT'S ARE
THE -- THESE ARE THE FACTS.
THESE ARE THE FACTS.
WE BELIEVE HER.
IF SALLY'S TOLD A LIE, WE HAVE
NO WAY OF KNOWING IT.

Maureen says VERY GOOD, PATTY.
CONGRATULATIONS.
WE WILL PUT YOUR NAME IN THE
DRAW FOR THE PRIZE.
ELIZABETH IS IN RICHMOND HILL.

Elizabeth says HI.

Maureen says HERE'S YOUR CASE.

A text reads “Case 8. Susanne Goodman was looking for a small house to rent for herself and her family. She looked at a lot of ads in the newspaper in the range of 1,500 to 2,000 dollars a month. She decided she could afford 2,000 dollars a month and eventually found a suitable place in north Toronto. The landlord had advertised the home in the newspaper for 2,000 dollars per month. The landlord, as usual, drew the lease. When he drew the lease he inserted a figure of 200 dollars as the monthly by mistake. Susanne Goodman read the lease carelessly and did not catch the typographical error. She also did not catch the clause in the lease about not having pets and she moved in with her pet Chihuahua. The landlord complained about her pets, and thus Susanne went to look at the lease and found to her pleasant surprise that the rent was only 200 dollars a month. She advised the landlord that she might be prepared to give up the Chihuahua, but she only intended to pay 200 dollars a month rent thereafter because there was a clearly signed lease to that effect. The landlord sues Susanne as a result of what he says is deficiency in the rent. Who wins and why?”

Elizabeth says THAT'S A GOOD ONE.

Maureen says WE KNOW SHE'S NOT
AN ANIMAL LOVER.

Elizabeth says YEAH.
I THINK THE LANDLORD'S GOING
TO WIN IN THE LONG RUN, BUT
I'M NOT SURE WHY.
I JUST DON'T THINK SHE CAN GET
AWAY WITH THAT.

Phil says THINK ABOUT
THIS.
THERE IS A LEASE.
IT DOES SAY 200 DOLLARS.
IT IS SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES.
IT DOES SAY 200 DOLLARS A MONTH.

Elizabeth says I SAY SHE CAN DO IT
FOR ONE MONTH, AND THEN THEY'D
GIVE HER NOTICE TO MOVE OUT,
OR 2 MONTHS -- GIVE HER 2
MONTHS' NOTICE TO MOVE OUT.

Phil says THAT'S A VERY
LOGICAL ANSWER BUT
UNFORTUNATELY NOT THE RIGHT
ONE.

Maureen says HER ORIGINAL
ANSWER ABOUT THE LANDLORD
WINNING, YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S
NOT RIGHT EITHER?

Phil says WE HAVE
ANOTHER GO WITH SOMEBODY ELSE.

Maureen says THANK YOU FOR
TRYING THAT ONE.
JOHN IS IN TORONTO.

John says HI.

Maureen says WHAT DO YOU THINK?

John says LANDLORD WINS BOTH
COUNTS.

Phil says WHY?

John says BECAUSE A TYPO IS A
TYPO.
AND IT WILL BE DETERMINED THAT
IT WAS REASONABLE THAT
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR COULD BE
MADE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WORTH
200 DOLLARS.
AND SO THE WOMAN WOULD HAVE TO
PAY THE 2,000 DOLLAR RENT THAT WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.
AND, OF COURSE, SHE DIDN'T SEE
THE CLAUSE ABOUT THE DOG.

Maureen says DOG'S GOT TO GO.
THE DOG HAS TO GO?

John says DOG HAS TO GO.

Phil says THAT
CERTAINLY IS CLOSE ENOUGH.
WHAT THE VIEWER IS REALLY
SAYING IS THAT THERE WAS A
MISTAKE IN THE LEASE, BUT THE
MISTAKE WAS KNOWN TO SUSAN
WHEN SHE LOOKED AT THE LEASE.
SHE NEVER INTENDED TO LEASE IT
FOR 200 DOLLARS.
IT'S CLEARLY A MUTUAL MISTAKE
BY BOTH PARTIES, OR IT'S A
UNILATERAL MISTAKE BY THE
LANDLORD, BUT SHE KNOWS OF THE
UNILATERAL MISTAKE.
YOU CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
SOMEBODY ELSE'S MISTAKE IF YOU
KNOW ABOUT IT.

Maureen says IT DOESN'T MATTER
WHEN YOU KNOW ABOUT IT.

Phil says SHE KNEW
ABOUT IT AT THE TIME BUT IF
SHE KNEW ABOUT IT LATER, THAT
DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
THE LEASE IS FOR 2,000 DOLLARS AND
THE LEASE CAN BE RECTIFIED BY
APPLICATION BY THE LANDLORD TO
INSERT 2,000 DOLLARS WHERE 200 DOLLARS.
IF SUZANNE AS A TENANT WILL
HAVE TO SAY.

Maureen says WHAT IF THE
LANDLORD TYPED IN A THOUSAND
INSTEAD OF 2,000?

Phil says THAT GETS
INTO THE FACTUAL DISPUTE IF
YOU KNOW OR DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS
A MUTUAL MISTAKE.
IF YOU PUT IN 1500 INSTEAD OF
2,000 YOU GET INTO AN
ARGUMENT.
SUZANNE SAYS I THOUGHT IT WAS
1500.
THE LANDLORD MAY BE STUCK WITH
HIS MISTAKE.
YOU DO NOT GET RELIEVED OF A
UNILATERAL MISTAKE.
IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE IN A
DOCUMENT THE OTHER SIDE
DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT, YOU'RE
STUCK WITH IT.
YOU'RE BOTH MISTAKEN ABOUT THE
SAME THING, THE COURT CAN
INTERVENE.

Maureen says SO JOHN, THANK YOU
AND CONGRATULATIONS FOR
PLAYING.
MELANIE IS IN MISSISSAUGA.
HELLO, MELANIE.

Melanie says HI.
HOW ARE YOU?

Maureen says I'M FINE.
OKAY.
YOU GET CASE NUMBER 9.
YOU READY?

Melanie says I'M READY.

A text reads “Case 9. The Sheriff is being sued as a result of the brutal assault upon a 9 year old girl by an escapee from the jail which the Sheriff supervised. The Sheriff knew that the accused had a known propensity for violence and that he was incarcerated to protect the public. It was known to the Correctional authorities and the Sheriff that the accused posed a foreseeable particular risk of repeating his brutal offenses if he escaped. In the circumstances of this case, the escapee committed the assault some 13 days after the escape and some 750 miles from the jail. The girl and her family are seeking substantial damages for the negligence of the Sheriff in allowing the escape. It appears that the failure to properly maintain the cell locking mechanism allowed the cell door to remain unlocked and allowed the escapee to easily flee the jail. Was the family and the girl successful in their claim for damages?”

Melanie says BOY, THAT'S A
TOUGHY.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE SHERIFF IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCK
MECHANISMS.
I MEAN, WOULDN'T THAT HAVE
SOMETHING TO DO WITH LIKE,
MAINTENANCE OR PEOPLE
VERIFYING IF DOORS ARE LOCKED.

Phil says LET'S ASSUME
FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR ANSWER
THE SHERIFF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE ENTIRE MAINTENANCE OF THE
JAIL.

Melanie says OKAY.
I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW
IF THE FAMILY WOULD BE ABLE TO
WIN, BECAUSE IT WAS THE
ESCAPEE WHO COMMITTED THE
CRIME, AND THE SHERIFF -- THE
SHERIFF WASN'T AROUND TO
PREVENT THE CRIME FROM
HAPPENING.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE HE WOULD BE
HELD RESPONSIBLE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE FAMILY
WOULD BE ABLE TO WIN AGAINST
THE SHERIFF IN THIS CASE.

Maureen says OKAY.
PHIL?

Phil says IT'S NOT THE
RIGHT REASON --

Maureen says BUT IT'S THE RIGHT
ANSWER.

Phil says IT'S
CERTAINLY NOT THE RIGHT
REASON.

Maureen says CHRISTINE IS NEXT.

Christine says HI.

Maureen says WH

Christine says I THINK THEY WOULD
BE ABLE -- THEY WOULD
BASICALLY HAVE TO PROVE THAT
IT WAS HIS FAULT DIRECTLY, AND
THAT HE PLAYED A ROLE, AND
BASICALLY THE ESCAPEE ESCAPED
FROM HIS JAIL, HE HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THE
JAIL AND, THEREFORE, EVEN
THOUGH HE ESCAPED FROM THAT
PARTICULAR JAIL, HE WOULD BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING SOME
750 MILES AWAY.

Maureen says YOU'RE SAYING THE
SHERIFF WAS RESPONSIBLE AND
THE FAMILY CAN SUE HIM.

Christine says YES.

Phil says FRANKLY, IF I
WERE THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE,
THAT'S THE RESULT I WOULD HAVE
COME TO.
THIS INVOLVES US IN THE
CONSIDERATION OF UNDERSTANDING
THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE.
AND THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE
REQUIRES THAT THERE BE A
BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE TO
SOMEONE WHO IS WITHIN WHAT WE
CALL THE AM BIT OF THE RISK.
IT WAS LIKELY TO BE INJURED BY
THE BREACH OF THE DUTY OF
CARE.
IN THIS CASE WE HAVE THE
SHERIFF WHO BREACHES THE DUTY
OF CARE.
HE DOES NOT MAINTAIN HIS JAIL
FACILITY IN A PROPER FASHION.
AND YOU WOULD NORMALLY THINK
THAT SOMEONE WHO WAS ASSAULTED
WAS WITHIN THE AM BIT OF THE
RISK, BECAUSE A VIOLENT
ESCAPEE GETS OUT, SOMEONE IS
LIKELY TO BE HURT.
THE COURT HELD IN THIS CASE
THE OFFENSE, WHICH OCCURRED 13
DAYS LATER AND 750 MILES AWAY
WAS TOO -- WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY
PROXIMATE TO THE RELEASE OF
THE CRIMINAL FROM JAIL.
IF IT HAPPENED THE NEXT DAY
WITHIN 50 MILES THEY WOULD
HAVE HELD THE SHERIFF LIABLE.
THEY FOUND THAT YOU CANNOT BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR UNLIMITED TIME
AND UNLIMITED DISTANCE.
FRANKLY I DON'T CONSIDER 13
DAYS FOR SOMEONE ON THE LAMB
AND 750 MILES IN TODAY'S
MODERN TRANSPORTATION ERA TO
BE OUTSIDE THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE.
BUT THEY DID, AND THEREFORE
THEY DISMISSED THE CLAIM.
SO THE LESSON IN ALL OF THIS
IS COURTS ARE ALWAYS ENTITLED
TO LOOK AT WHO'S WITHIN THE
AMBIT OF THE RISK.
THAT'S SOMETIMES IN THE EYES
OF THE BEHOLDER.
DIFFERENT JUDGES AGREE ON
DIFFERENT DAYS.
WHEN YOU HAVE A KNOWN CRIMINAL
WITH A PROPENSITY FOR VIOLENCE
AND YOU DON'T MAINTAIN HIM
PROPERLY IN A JAIL, YOU KNOW,
I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT 6
MONTHS AND 5,000 MILES WOULD
HAVE BEEN CLOSE ENOUGH.

Maureen says I WAS GOING TO
GIVE THAT ANSWER BUT NOT FOR
THAT REASON.
IN CANADA, WE DON'T PUT PEOPLE
IN CHAINS AGAINST THE WALL.
YOU KNOW, PRISONERS -- ALL
PRISONERS ARE ALLOWED SOME
FREEDOM TO WALK AROUND.
YOU HAVE TO EXPECT ONCE IN A
WHILE THERE WILL BE AN ESCAPE.

Phil says WE DON'T HAVE
THAT KIND OF STANDARD.
IF SOMEBODY TUNNELS OUT, GETS
THROUGH A FENCE AND GETS AWAY,
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE
WHETHER THAT WAS NEGLECT.
WAS THERE A FAILURE TO INSPECT
THE CELL.
WAS THE LOCKING MECHANISM NOT
SECURE.
WAS THE FENCE'S LECHFICATION
NOT SECURE?
THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE
MADE THAT SOMEBODY IS
NEGLIGENT.
A GUARD WAS SLEEPING OR DIDN'T
CHECK.
THERE'S A LATIN PRINCIPLE THAT
THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
IF YOU ARE THE VICTIM OF AN
ESCAPED CRIMINAL, IT'S THE
ONUS ON THE JAILER TO PROVE
THERE WASN'T NEGLIGENCE.
PEOPLE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO
ESCAPE.
USUALLY SOMEBODY HAS TO LET
DOWN BEFORE SOMEBODY CAN
ESCAPE.

Maureen says THE JUDGE SAYS
HE'S NOT LIABLE.

Phil says TOO FAR.

Maureen says GET OUR NEXT
CONTESTANT.
RASHID IS IN BRAMPTON.

Rashid says HOW ARE YOU TODAY?

Maureen says FINE THANK YOU.
CASE NUMBER 10, READY?

Rashid says YEP.

A text reads “Case 10. Miranda is an avid hockey fan. She took her daughter Caroline to a recent hockey game and, as luck would have it, they were able to get front row seats. Because they were near the players' bench, the seats were not protected by the glass and, accordingly, they had a very good view of the game. In the second period a fight broke out between 2 players and one player grabbed the other's stick and swung it at the other player. The player ducked and Caroline was struck in the eye, causing her serious injury. She has decided to sue the owners of the arena and the players involved in the fight. Will she be successful?”

Rashid says I WOULD THINK SHE
WILL, YEAH.

Maureen says WHY?

Rashid says WELL, SHE'S BEING
HARMED BY THE PLAYERS.
SHE'S BEEN HURT SO I THINK SHE
SHOULD BE SUCCESSFUL.

Phil says SHE'S HARMED
BY THE PLAYERS, BUT WHY DOES
SHE HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST THE
OWNERS OF THE ARENA?

Rashid says THE OWNERS OF THE
ARENA IS RENTING THE PLACE TO
THE PLAYERS.
HE'S LIABLE.

Phil says FOR ANYTHING
THAT TAKES PLACE IN THE ARENA.

Rashid says YEAH.
I BELIEVE SO, YEAH.
THAT'S WHAT I THINK.

Phil says OKAY.
SO THE ANSWER -- THAT'S VERY
CLOSE TO BEING THE RIGHT
ANSWER, BUT NOT COMPLETELY THE
CORRECT ANSWER.

Maureen says SO YOU WANT TO TRY
IT AGAIN WITH ANOTHER CALLER?

Phil says YEAH.

Maureen says THANK YOU,
RASHEED.
BETH IS IN BOWMANVILLE.
HI, BETH.

Beth says HI.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
I THINK MAYBE IT HAS SOMETHING
TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT SHE
PAID FOR THE TICKET.
AND MAYBE, THEREFORE, PUTTING
HERSELF AT THEIR --

Phil says SHE ASSUMED
THE RISK.

Beth says SHE ASSUMED THE
RISK, THEREFORE SHE WAS ABLE
TO -- NOT ABLE TO COLLECT ON
THAT LAWSUIT.

Phil says I THINK
THAT'S CLOSE ENOUGH.
THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT
ISSUE.
NORMALLY SPEAKING IF YOU'RE
SITTING IN PART OF THE STANDS
THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
PROTECTED BY GLASS AND IT
WASN'T, THEN THE ARENA COULD
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR
DAMAGES.
THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE A MESH
SCREEN BEHIND HOME PLATE.
THEY KNOW FOUL BALLS ARE GOING
TO GO BACK VERY QUICKLY, BUT
THEY DON'T HAVE THEM
EVERYWHERE.
IF YOU'RE SITTING BESIDE THE
PLAYERS BENCH, YOU CAN'T HAVE
GLASS BECAUSE THE PLAYERS HAVE
TO JUMP ON THE ICE.
THE OWNER OF THE ARENA IS NOT
LIABLE BECAUSE THE OWNER DID
NOT CREATE A NEGLIGENT
SITUATION.
THERE WAS NOTHING HE IS THE
OWNER COULD HAVE DONE.

Maureen says I DISAGREE.
WHY PUT SEATS THERE AT ALL?

Phil says THAT'S
ACTUALLY A GOOD ARGUMENT WHY
PUT SEATS THERE AT ALL.
PERHAPS THERE SHOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN SEATS AT ALL.
PERHAPS THAT WASN'T ARGUED.
JUDGES ONLY DECIDE.
THEY FOUND THE PLAYERS LIABLE.
THEY KNOW THERE'S NO CLASS.
THEY SWING STICKS AT EACH
OTHER AND THEY HIT SOMEONE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF FIGHTING
IS PERMITTED IN THE NATIONAL
HOCKEY LEAGUE OR ELSEWHERE.
IF THEY'RE BANGING WITH STICKS
AT EACH OTHER.
IF THEY HIT A BYSTANDER.
NOBODY CARED TOO MUCH ABOUT
WHETHER THEY KNICKED THE ARENA
AS WELL BECAUSE YOU GET FULL
DAMAGES FROM THE PLAYERS.

Maureen says INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS
CAN'T SUE ONE ANOTHER WHEN
THEY'RE HURT, RIGHT?

Phil says THAT ALSO IS
A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION
AND MAY ARISE LATER THIS YEAR
BECAUSE OF THE INCIDENT THAT
OCCURRED NEAR THE END OF THE
SEASON WHEN ONE OF THE PLAYERS
WAS STRUCK BY A STICK IN AN
ASSAULT.
THERE'S A LINE YOU CAN CROSS.
PICK UP A BASEBALL BAT AND
WHACK SOMEBODY OVER THE HEAD,
THAT'S AN ASSAULT.
YOU'RE NOT PROTECTED BY THE
FACT YOU WERE PLAYING A GAME.
IT'S EXPECTED THAT IN A HOCKEY
GAME, THERE WILL BE SOME
DEGREE OF FIGHTING.
BOTH PARTIES HAVE ASSUMED THE
RISK OF THAT.
IT'S NOT EXPECTED THAT YOU
WILL BE BLINDSIDED IN THE BACK,
STRUCK OVER THE HEAD WITH A
HOCKEY STICK.
THAT'S PROBABLY ACTIONABLE AND
A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CAN
PROBABLY BE SUCCESSFULLY MADE.

Maureen says THERE ARE CASES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY WHERE
ARENAS MAY HAVE PUT SOME GLASS,
BUT HAVEN'T GONE TO A
REGULATION HEIGHT.
I EXPECT THERE WILL BE CASES
AROUND THOSE INJURIES.

Phil says I REMEMBER IN
THE OLD MAPLE LEAF GARDENS IF
YOU SAT BEHIND THE PLAYERS
THERE WASN'T GLASS.
I THOUGHT THE OLD ARENA WAS
VERY DANGEROUS, AND THE
GARDENS WAS AT RISK.
IN THE LAST FEW YEARS BEFORE
THEY CLOSED, THEY INSERTED
GLASS BEHIND THE PLAYERS'
BENCH BECAUSE IN THAT WHOLE
AREA, PUCKS COME FLYING
AROUND.
I NOTICED SOMEONE WAS KILLED
WITH A BASEBALL IN THE HEAD.
THERE'S CERTAIN RISKS YOU
ASSUME.
IF YOU'RE WELL UP IN THE FANS,
YOU ASSUME YOU KEEP YOUR EYE
OUT.
SITTING BEHIND HOME PLATE, YOU
EXPECT THAT SCREEN TO PROTECT
YOU.

Maureen says VERY INTERESTING.
WE WILL PUT BETH IN.
SHE WAS PRETTY CLOSE.
IAN IN BARRIE.
HI, IAN.

Ian says HAPPY ANNIVERSARY.

Maureen says I DIDN'T GET THAT
THIS MORNING, THAT'S WHY I'M
LOOKING FOR IT HERE.
HERE'S YOUR CASE.
IT'S KIND OF LONG.

A text reads “Case 11. Susan was 83 years old and doted on her granddaughter Carole. Carole had been playing the piano quite brilliantly since she was about 6 years old. Susan wanted Carole to have her piano and she continually told Carole's parents that she intended to make a gift of the piano to Carole. Thereafter, Susan referred to the piano as Carole's piano and always enjoyed it when Carole came to her house to play. Carole continued to play this grand piano for about 4 years at Susan's house and she too thought of it as her piano. In fact, she arranged, from time to time, to have a tuner come in and keep the piano properly tuned and from time to time, she would even polish it. Susan passed away quietly in her sleep last week and Carole's parents called the executor of the estate in order to arrange to pick up the piano. They executor indicated that he deeply regretted that he was unable to let Carole have the piano because Susan had left her entire estate to charity. He proposed to sell the piano and give the proceeds to the Salvation Army as required by Susan's will. Carole, through her parents, took the position that the piano was not part of Susan's estate or covered by the will since a gift of it had been made 4 years earlier. Carole's parents, reluctantly, have sued the estate to recover the piano. Who wins and why?”

Ian says I THINK THAT CAROLE
AND HER PARENTS WOULD WIN
BECAUSE THERE WAS A VERBAL
PROMISE TO -- THAT IT WOULD BE
A GIFT.
IT WAS PROMISED TO HER, SO IT
WAS A GIFT THAT WAS GIVEN TO
HER.

Maureen says YOU AGREE WITH
CAROLE AND HER PARENTS.

Ian says YES.

Phil says IN FACT THE
VIEWER HAS PICKED THE VERY
WORDING AS TO WHY CAROLE ISN'T
GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

Maureen says THE VERY WORDING.

Phil says LET'S SEE IF
THE NEXT VIEWER PICKS IT UP.

Maureen says THANKS, IAN, FOR
PLAYING.
RON IS IN VERMILION BAY.

Ron says HI.

Maureen says WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Ron says I THINK THE GIRL
LOSES BECAUSE THE AUNT OR
WHATEVER HAD A WILL.
SO THE PIANO WASN'T IN THE
WILL SAYING THAT SHE WAS GOING
TO GET IT.
SO I THINK THE KID LOSES THE
PIANO.

Phil says PRETTY HARSH
RESULT, EH, RON?

Ron says YEAH.

Phil says THAT'S THE
TECHNICALLY CORRECT ANSWER,
BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER THE FIRST
VIEWER SAID THAT IT WAS A
PROMISED TO BE GIVEN TO HER.
YOU CAN'T GIVE A GIFT THAT
WAY.
YOU EITHER -- YOU HAVE TO GIVE
THE GIFT, AND THE GIFT HAS TO
BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE DEATH
OF SUSAN.
IF SUSAN PLACED HER HAND ON
THE PIANO AND SAID THIS PIANO
IS YOURS.
IT CAN STAY IN MY HOUSE BUT
IT'S YOUR PIANO, THAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN A PERFECTED GIFT BY
DELIVERY.
BUT THE TRICK IN THIS QUESTION
IS SUSAN HAD ALWAYS SAID SHE
INTENDED TO MAKE A GIFT.
AN INTENTION TO MAKE A GIFT IS
DEFEATED BY A WILL AND
UNFORTUNATELY THE WILL GOVERNS
AND THE GIFT IS DEFEATED.
YOU CANNOT MAKE CONDITIONAL
GIFTS.
YOU CANNOT MAKE PROMISES TO
MAKE GIFTS IF YOU WANT THEM
EFFECTIVE.
A GIFT HAS TO INCLUDE
DELIVERY.
GIFT IS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL
THERE'S DELIVERY.
WHEN YOU HAVE A PIANO, HOW DO
YOU DELIVER A PIANO.
YOU PUT YOUR HAND ON THE PIANO
AND SAY, “CAROLE, THIS IS YOUR
PIANO.”

Maureen says EVEN THOUGH CAROLE
POLISHED IT, HAD HER HANDS ON
IT.

Phil says THAT
INTENTION COULD ALWAYS BE
CHANGED.

Maureen says THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, RON.
RIGHT ANSWER.
WE WILL PUT YOU IN THE DRAW.
I THINK WE HAVE TIME FOR ONE
MORE BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE ONE
MORE.
MARJORIE IS IN SMITHS FALLS.
HERE'S YOURS, ALL RIGHT?

Marjorie says OKAY.

A text reads “Case 12. Joe was delivering gas to a gas station and, regrettably, lit a cigarette while he was filling the gas tanks. A fire started and people started running in all directions. Susanne, in her home 50 feet from the gas station, heard the shouts and saw the fire. She turned to get her 2 year old child, who was playing on the floor and fell over a misplaced chair. As a result of the fall she suffered a miscarriage. On the advice of a lawyer, she has sued Joe and the gas station for damages. Does she succeed?”

Marjorie says I WOULD THINK SHE
COULD SUE THE GAS STATION.
I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD BE
LIABLE FOR ANY SITUATIONS THAT
HAPPEN ON THEIR PROPERTY.
BUT I DON'T THINK
THEY COULD -- NOT JOE.
I BELIEVE THE GAS STATION AND
THEIR INSURANCE WOULD BE
LIABLE.

Maureen says OKAY.

Phil says UNFORTUNATELY
NOT CORRECT.

Maureen says WE HAVE TIME FOR
ONE MORE.
THANKS, MARJORIE, FOR PLAYING.
SHARON WILL TRY.
HI, SHARON.

Sharon says HI.
I DIDN'T QUITE CATCH ALL OF
THAT.

Maureen says I DON'T HAVE TIME
TO READ THE WHOLE THING
UNFORTUNATELY.
SHE FELL OVER A MISPLACED
CHAIR, SUFFERED A MISCARRIAGE.
SHE WANTS TO SUE JOE AND THE
GAS STATION FOR THE FIRE
SAYING THAT CAUSED HER TO
FALL.

Sharon says I DON'T BELIEVE SHE
COULD SUE.

Phil says WHY NOT?

Sharon says BECAUSE IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. SHE'S THE ONE THAT
TRIPPED OVER THE CHAIR.
THEY DIDN'T CAUSE THAT.

Phil says THAT'S CLOSE
TO THE RIGHT ANSWER.
THE FACT IT'S AN ACCIDENT IS
IRRELEVANT.
ACCIDENTS ARE USUALLY CAUSED
BY NEGLIGENT BEHAVIOUR.
JOE'S BEHAVIOUR WAS NEGLIGENT
LIGHTING A CIGARETTE.
REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT THE
AMBIT OF THE RISK?
THIS IS TOO REMOTE.
THE FACT SHE FELL OVER A
MISPLACED CHAIR AND HAD A
MISCARRIAGE IS NOT WITHIN THE
CONTEMPLATION OF JOE WHEN HE
LIGHTS THE CIGARETTE.
IT'S TOO REMOTE.

Maureen says THAT'S A COUPLE
TIMES.
YOU HAVE BEEN TOO REMOTE.
COME BACK AGAIN SOMETIME SOON.
DON'T BE A STRANGER.
THANK YOU ALL FOR PLAYING.
PHIL EPSTEIN PRACTICES FAMILY
LAW AND CIVIL LITIGATION AT
EPSTEIN COLE.
WE HAVE 5 LUCKY WINNERS TODAY: STEVE, MARY, PATTY,
RON AND BETH.
WE'LL SEND THEM EACH A COPY OF
“DANCING WITH LAWYERS: HOW TO
GET BETTER RESULTS FOR LESS.” IT'S PUBLISHED BY RANDOM HOUSE CANADA. AND THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR TODAY. THANKS FOR WATCHING AND TUNE IN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AT 1 O'CLOCK.

A text reads “The advice given in the preceding program is of a general n
ature only. Viewers should consult their own legal advisor for legal advice specific to their circumstances.

Watch: U B The Judge