Corporate Law Assignment: Analysis of Torts in Edgars Case, LAW 2276

This assignment solution addresses two legal issues related to torts within a corporate context. The first issue concerns whether Edgars can pursue legal action against a former employee, Leon, for defamation based on false rumors about the company's hiring practices. The analysis applies the common law of torts, specifically defamation (slander), and relevant case law (Murphy v LaMarsh, Grant v Torstar) to establish the elements of defamation. The second issue examines whether an executive and their daughter, Ajanta, have recourse against a supermarket supervisor for false imprisonment. The analysis uses the tort of false imprisonment and the judgment of Scowby v Glendinning to determine if the supervisor's actions, which involved detaining employees without legal authority, constitute false imprisonment. The solution utilizes the IRAC method, providing a clear issue, rule, application, and conclusion for each scenario.

Running head: CORPORATE LAW
CORPORATE LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1CORPORATE LAW
1.
Issue
The main issue in the given scenario is whether Edgars can pursue any legal action
against Leon under the law of torts.
Law
Under the common law of tort defamation can be defined as any false statement of fact
either in written form or spoken that causes injury to and individuals reputations. Defamation in
a spoken form is called slander, and when defamation is done in written form it is called libel.
This has been established in the judgement of Murphy v LaMarsh (1970).
For establishing a defamation case the plaintiffs need to prove that there was a false and
defamatory statement made by the defendant against the plaintiff; the false statement has been
made to a third party; there was negligence for publishing the false and defamatory statement as
was established in the judgement of Grant v Torstar (2009).
Application
In the given scenario it can be seen that Leon, one of the former employees of Edgars',
spread false rumours about the hiring practices of the company. Applying the judgement of
Murphy v LaMarsh in this situation it can be said that Leon had spread defamation of slander
against Edgars.
Apply the judgement of Grant v Torstar in the given scenario it can be established that
the rumours spread by Leon about the hiring practices of Edgars was false and defamatory. The
statement was also made to the third parties. According to the management of the company the
rumours were harmful to the reputation of the company and this false allegation could lead up to
CIC investigation.

2CORPORATE LAW
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the above discussion that Edgars can take action for defamation
against Leon.
2.
Issue
The issue in the case is whether the executive and Ajanta have any type of recourse
against the store supervisor.
Law
Under the tort law false imprisonment is an act of defendant for confining the plaintiff in
unlawful way. False imprisonment is when an individual does not have any legal authority yet
restrains the ability of another individual to be moving freely in intentional way. This has been
established in the judgment of Scowby v Glendinning (1986).
Application
Applying the judgement of Scowby v Glendinning in the given scenario it can be
observed that Ajanta, daughter of one of the executive working in Edgars, work at super market
during the weekends. In the given case it was seen that in one day before the closing time of the
supermarket it was informed by the supervisor that there had been disappearance of stocks in an
alarming rate and it was further suspected that it was done by one of the casual employees. The
supervisor kept all the casual employees including Ajanta to the supermarket against their will,
even though he did not have any legal authority to do so. Therefore it is a false imprisonment of
the casual employees by the supervisor.
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the above discussion that the executive and Ajanta can bring an
action for false imprisonment against the supervisor.

3CORPORATE LAW
Reference
Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640
Murphy v. LaMarsh (1970), 73 W.W.R. 114
Scowby v Glendinning, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 226