Reason for change to elements

I found the cited SKCA case when looking for how courts defined "direct" & noticed it actually spelled out the elements and expanded on them.

When I followed up with it, the case has been fairly widely cited recently. Notably, a BCSC decision quoted the whole section about the elements (2021 BCSC 1495) & the case our midterm was based on actually cited it regarding how it defined continued trespass. Similar elements were also used in a NSSC case in 2023 (but they were attributed to a different textbook) (2023 NSSC 128). The elements were also cited in a fn of the trespass section of the Canadian Encyclopedic Digest.

It isn't as classic of a case as Entick v. Carrington, but it does still seem to reflect the same elements (just more clearly stated) & also aligns with Fitzpatrick (and explains the note about conduct being "intentional or negligent" in para 135 of Fitzpatrick)