Documentation:Torts/Denials

From UBC Wiki
TORT LAW
CASEBOOK
Introduction
Dignitary Torts
DefamationDiscriminationHarassmentIntentional infliction of mental sufferingInvasion of privacyTrespass to the person
Property Torts
Interference with goodsInterference with landNon-natural use of landPrivate nuisancePublic nuisance
Negligence Tort
Duty of careBreach of dutyDamageCausationRemoteness
Negligence Categories
EmploymentEnvironmental pollutionHarmful productsHosting patrons and guestsInfliction of mental injuryMisrepresentationOccupation of premisesProfessional servicesPublic authoritiesPure economic lossRelational economic lossRescuersShoddy goods or structuresTreatment of indigenous childrenUnborn children
Dishonesty & Abuse of Position Torts
Abuse of processBreach of confidenceConspiracyFraudInducing breach of contractInjurious falsehoodIntimidationMalicious prosecutionMisfeasance in public officePassing offSpoliationUnlawful interference with economic interests
Strict Liability
Keeping dangerous animalsNon-natural use of landUltrahazardous activitiesVicarious liability
Defences
Apportionment of liabilityConsentDefamation defencesDefence of propertyDenialsExcusesIllegalityLegal authorityLimitationNecessitySelf-defence
Remedies
ApologiesDamagesInjunctionsInsuranceLegal costsMitigationProprietary
Tort Law & Legal Systems
Charter valuesClass actionsConcurrent actionsConstitutional tortsIndigenous dispute resolutionNo-fault compensation schemes
Tort Theory
Instrumental theoriesConstructive theoriesCritical theoriesReflexive theories
Study Resources
1L strategyAnswer exercisesQuizzesBeswick's course siteOpening Up Tort Law Project
Index
80x15.png

Denials

A denial is not strictly speaking a defence, but rather a dispute about what actually happened. "A denial maintains that an actor has not committed the wrong(s) she is alleged to have committed."[1] The defendant denies that an element(s) of the alleged tort is made out.

Distinguishing between denials, justifications, and excuses
For an illustration of the difference between denials, justifications, and excuses, see 21:55 in this lecture by Professor John Goldberg.[2]

For example, "a tort defendant who is sued for battery and who argues that she acted without any intent to touch another person denies having committed that tort."[3]

A valid denial means that "there is no need to justify or excuse one’s conduct because it does not meet the definition of the legal wrong one is alleged to have committed."[3]

Procedure

Very broadly, a civil suit has three stages: pleadings, evidential discovery, and trial.[4] The suit is initiated by the plaintiff pleading their cause(s) of action in a statement of claim that is filed with the Court and served on the defendant. In reply, the defendant may file a statement of defence – "if she or he does not, the court will assume that the plaintiff's allegations are true."[4] This means that "[i]f an allegation contained in the Statement of Claim is not denied in the Statement of Defence, it is deemed to be admitted. If the Defendant’s version of the story diverges from the Plaintiff’s, they need to specifically lay out those facts."[5]

Even if the defendant denies what the plaintiff alleges, "it is [still] up to the plaintiff to present facts to support the claim against the defendant. In a civil suit, the plaintiff must prove that it is probable that the defendant is ... liable, because a civil case is decided on a balance of probabilities."[4]


  1. Goldberg, JCP (2015). "Inexcusable Wrongs". California L Rev. 103: 470. (§6.1).
  2. Harvard Law School (13 December 2013). "Prof John Goldberg on 'Inexcusable Wrongs'". YouTube.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Goldberg, JCP (2015). "Inexcusable Wrongs". California L Rev. 103: 471. (§6.1).
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 "Civil and criminal cases". Government of Canada. 1 September 2021.
  5. Andrew Monkhouse and Lexa Cutler, Rules of Civil Procedure Chapters, Pleadings, Rule 25 - Pleadings in Action in Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario, Noel Semple (ed.), Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2021 CanLIIDocs 2013.