Show Notes:

N/A

Lecture Slides:

Welcome to YouCounsel.

Can a landlord be held liable for the wrongdoing of its tenant which caused some injury or damage to a third party? This is the question that we’re going to address in this lecture and the answer to that question is: in certain circumstances, the answer is yes.  If you want to hear more about how and why I will explain that in the lecture.

We begin with our usual disclaimer that this lecture is not legal advice.  If you have any specific questions, you should contact a lawyer or a paralegal or the Law Society of Ontario for any referral.

Now this question was brought to the Ontario Court of Appeal in this case called Youssef v. Misselbrook. The decision just recently came out in early February 2020.  The case is quite relevant for landlords with respect to their liabilities or potential liabilities to third parties.

What happened in this case? The landlord own a farm property. It rented the farm property to a tenant.  The purpose was that it could use it as a farm to raise domestic animals.  The tenant had kept 5 donkeys (5 mules) on the property.  The property had a fence and a gate and the gate was unlocked. One could pry the gate open by force.  In this case, one police officer was able to push the gate open alone and so that was the circumstances of the gate. The 5 donkeys which were owned by the tenant escaped from the farm through that gate and onto the adjacent road. And the plaintiff, Youssef in this case, was riding his motorcycle in that area.  It was early in the morning around 3 am and he struck one of the donkeys and sustained very serious injuries. Youssef then ended up suing the tenant and the landlord for damages.

What did the landlord say? Prior to this case it is well-known that it is rarely that a landlord would be held liable for the wrongdoing of its tenant, especially, when the landlord is not on the property.  The landlord does not have the day-to-day control of the premises. The tenant is the only one using the property.  But in this case the landlord admitted responsibility for the maintenance of the fence—that was a fact that they admitted and they never withdrew that admission.  Having said that, they argued that keeping the gates locked and preventing the animals from escaping was solely the responsibility of the tenant because those were the tenant’s donkeys and the tenant had the use and control of the premises.

The Landlord said that they had no presence on the property and so accordingly the landlord argued that they had no duty of care. Remember, the concept of duty of care that we have explained in our lectures on tort?  It’s the same concept.  They argued that they have no duty of care and they have no statutory obligations—only the tenant ought to be held liable.  With respect to duty of care there was a subsidiary argument.  The Motion’s judge, who had made the decision earlier, held that the lease was governed by the Residential Tenancies Act.  And the Residential Tenancies Act has a provision that requires landlord to be responsible for the maintenance of fence and certain other areas of the property.  But the landlord argued that this was a matter – this was a commercial lease – that it was governed by commercial tenancy and not residential tenancy. And therefore the duty of care that was held to be on part of the landlord was incorrect.

What did the court say?  The court ruling was—the court first confirmed that Landlord admitted the responsibility for the condition of the fence. That was the primary admission. And then this responsibility required the landlord to conduct regular inspections and repairs. In fact there was evidence from the past that the landlord did in fact inspect the property and the fence on certain occasions and had carried out certain repairs as well.  Then the court held that the landlord failed to notice that the gate adjacent to a road was unlocked. And, then finally, because the landlord had admitted responsibility for the condition of the fence, the court held that it made no difference whether the lease was residential or commercial because they had that obligation.  On that basis the court held that the landlord is liable even though it was the tenant’s donkeys that caused injuries to Mr. Youssef.

Now, what is it that you want to take away from this lecture? Number one, obviously that there could be circumstances in which, if you are the landlord and you’re not on the property and you’re giving the control of property entirely to the tenant, there may be circumstances in which because of the tenants that you may be held liable or you may have direct duty of care obligations towards a third party.  You also want to notice that if you read the Residential Tenancies Act, it does impose certain obligations on the landlord for the maintenance of its property; specifically fences and some other areas of the property. That obligation cannot be passed on to the tenant.  It is the landlord’s obligation. If there is an injury to a third party because of the landlord’s failure to maintain the property or those areas of property, then the landlord will be held liable to the third parties—something to note. Also what you want to make sure is that in leases, if there are responsibilities divided between landlord and tenant within the statutory framework, then those responsibilities are clearly defined and if you require indemnification from the tenant in certain circumstances, then those clauses are there. Those kind of clauses are usually already present in commercial leases.. I also believe that it will make sense for the landlord to monitor the rental property appropriately for its usage. Because of this case, there may be circumstances where if the landlord is not monitoring the property and there is some damage to a third party, it may be held liable.  Finally, if there are ways to obtain insurance coverage for certain cases like these, then it may be a good idea to explore those.  I don’t know if insurance covers can be provided in some circumstances but something to explore and see if you have appropriate insurance coverage for your property.

Thank-you for watching.

Show Notes:

N/A

Lecture Slides:

Welcome to YouCounsel.

In our previous lecture we talked about some of the avenues resulting in family law disputes. In today’s lecture will talk about the applicable legislation. If you have a family law dispute and you need to go to court what are some of the different legislations that may apply to your scenario.

We begin with our usual disclaimer that this lecture is not legal advice. If you have any specific questions regarding your issues you should contact a lawyer or a paralegal or the Law Society of Ontario for a referral.

What are the legislations that impacts family law in Ontario? There are 4 pieces of legislation.

A. Family Law Act: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-f3/latest/

B. Divorce Act: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp/latest/rsc-1985-c-3-2nd-supp.html

C. Children’s Law Reform Act: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c12/latest/rso-1990-c-c12.html

D. Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2017-c-14-sch-1/latest/so-2017-c-14-sch-1.html

A. Family Law Act: is a provincial legislation and what does it cover? It covers the division of family property; it covers the issues relating to matrimonial home; it deals with support obligations regarding child and spousal support, both; it deals with domestic contracts and then it deals with dependents claims for damages. I have provided the link here and I will also post it in the youtube posting. I’ll post the link so you can access this.

This is what the Family Law Act looks like. It says R.S.O1990 cF. 3. RSO means revised statute of Ontario. When there is an “O”, that indicates that it’s an Ontario statute. If it said “RSC”, that means revised statute of Canada. So, this is a provincial legislation. And you will see here that it has separate, different parts. One part deals with family property, the matrimonial home, support obligations, domestic contracts.

(a) Domestic contracts. Is dealt with here because it deals with all kinds of domestic contracts—marriage contract, cohabitation agreement and separation agreement. What it does is: this legislation provides certain clauses that deal with those marriage contracts. For example, in marriage contracts parties can enter into a marriage agreement. But when a marriage contract deals with the matrimonial home or its disposition, then that clause is unenforceable in a marriage contract pursuant to this legislation. So, it’s important to understand what is the framework of domestic contracts that is permissible for parties to enter into.

(b) Then there is dependents claim for damages: what this section or this part allows, is it allows dependents of certain people to claim damages. For example, if a person was injured because of the negligence of another person or died because of the negligence of another person, then the person who was injured or the person who died, his or her spouse, children, parents, grandparents or siblings may have certain rights to claim damages against the person who caused—who was negligent and who caused the injury or death. This is the part of the Family Law Act which allows that kind of a claim to be made in a personal injury, by a negligent client.

(c) Now it is important to note that the Family Law Act does not deal with custody and access issues. It does not deal with custody and excess and it does not deal with divorce. It is dealing with division of family property, matrimonial home, support obligations but no information, no guidance, no legislation on custody and access in the Family Law Act.

B. Now we will figure out where we find legislation with respect to custody and access. The second legislation I want to talk about is Divorce Act. Divorce Act is a federal statute. It deals with divorce. Couples who are married legally married they can obtain the wars under the under the Divorce Act. A common-law couple does not need to seek a divorce. They do not need to seek any court order for their separation—with respect to the separation itself. Now because the Divorce Act deals with married couples, it does provide for child and support obligations but this is only for married couples. Remember I showed you in Family Law Act that people can seek child and spousal support. So Family Law Act would apply to either married or common-law couples but Divorce Act only applies to people who are married. Under this Act only married people can seek child and spousal support.

Similarly, this Act provides for custody and access and again it only applies to married couples. Family Law Act deals with either married or common law couples—it deals with their spousal support and child support obligations. Family Law Act does not deal with custody and access. Divorce Act deals with only for married couples.

C. The third legislation that comes into discussion is Children’s Law Reform Act. And again, this is a provincial statute and this statute deals with custody and access issues for all parents. I’m going to quickly show you the Divorce Act. Again this is RSC—revised statute of Canada. It deals with divorce—and under the Corollary Relief Section, it deals with child and support orders, spousal support orders and then custody orders. These are people who are married. Then with respect to Children’s Law Reform Act, again, which is an Ontario statute, it deals with custody, access and guardianship and provides for the custody and access orders. Custody and access for all parents can be dealt with by Children’s Law Reform Act. There’s a section about parenting which explains—it actually indicates what is a parent under law. There are also issues of guardianship of a child’s property—if a child owns certain property—then who is to be the guardian of that property—that is also dealt with under this legislation. Then if a child’s property needs to be disposed off, then what are the laws with respect to that, is dealt in this statute.

D. The final legislation that I want to talk about today is called Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which is right here. Again, it’s an Ontario statute. Essentially, this provincial statute deals with the rights of children and youth. It specifies what are their rights. And deals with child protection matters—Children’s Aid Society, Foster Parenting—all of these are covered under this particular legislation. What is also important to know is that all adoption matters are also dealt with under this specific legislation.

These are the four legislations that you may be dealing with, with respect to a family law dispute depending upon your circumstances. It is important for you to understand which specific legislation applies to your circumstances. In our previous lecture we discussed which specific court would have jurisdiction to deal with your matter. If you go to the wrong court, you will not be able to get the relief that you are seeking because the court does not have jurisdiction. Similarly, when you’re asking for a legal relief you need to know which specific legislation applies to your case and the specific circumstances of your case and there is some overlap between these legislations. It’s not one legislation that deals with that. Ideally, everyone would have preferred that there was a one-stop-shop—one legislation that could have dealt with all family law matters—but there are reasons for having these different legislations. Federal government has certain jurisdiction to deal with marriages and divorce. Provincial government has certain jurisdiction. All of that comes into play and then each of these legislations has different functions and their basis for creation is slightly different from each other. That’s why there is an overlap and you need to understand all of that. Also it is important to understand the contents of these legislations so you know in the specific circumstances of your case, how this legislation would apply.

Hopefully, that gives you an understanding of the legislation in Ontario. This is only for Ontario. Just to keep in mind that if you’re dealing with these matters in another province then the Divorce Act will apply to all provinces and territories of Canada but the Family Law Act would differ from province to province. Make sure that you review those legislations as well.

Thank-you for watching.

Show Notes:

N/A

Lecture Slides:

Welcome to YouCounsel.

In today’s lecture we will explain to you what are some of the disputes/issues that are the domain of family law in Ontario.  And, then, what are some of the avenues through which you are able to resolve these disputes in Ontario.

We begin with our usual disclaimer that this lecture is not legal advice.  If you have any specific questions regarding your issues you should contact a family law lawyer or a paralegal or the Law Society of Ontario for a referral.

What are some of the disputes that are the domain of family law? Essentially, Family Law deals with the rights and obligations of spouses, parents and children.  Those are the 3 parties—if they have any issues with respect to each other’s rights and obligations—that will be considered a family law issue.  Some of the examples of these issues are prenuptial agreements, marriage agreements, cohabitation agreements (cohabitation agreements are when you are living as a couple, as common law not just as roommates), separation agreement, mediation and arbitration agreement (again in the context of these issues), separation and divorce matters, child custody and access issues, child support, spousal support, family law property division, trust issues, restraining orders, issues of domestic abuse and adoptions.  These are some of the examples of issues.  If you have those issues then you should know that these are family law matters and will be dealt with under the Family Law Rules.

Now what are some of the avenues of resolving family disputes?  There are a few ways that you can resolve these disputes.

1. Number one obviously is by direct negotiation. In this case the parties talk to each other directly and come to an agreement.  Then that agreement they write it up, they sign it and then they follow it.  They don’t need involvement of any 3rd party or courts or anyone else to resolve their issues.
2. A lot of times it is unlikely because the relationship is soured and it is not possible for parties to have direct negotiations. So if they are unable to resolve issues directly they can always go to mediation. A mediator is a person, often a retired judge or a senior lawyer or a psychologist or a social worker.  Any of these people could be a mediator.  Their goal is to be neutral and objective and help parties come to a resolution.  Oftentimes a lot of mediations are successful in family disputes.
3. Third approach is called collaborative family law. Essentially, in this approach the parties make a commitment to each other that they will collaborate with respect to the resolution of their issues.  They will talk to each other and come to mutual agreements. Sometimes collaborative family law matters may result in no resolution and that’s possible.  When you engage in collaborative family law and if there is no resolution and you have to get into a court (get into litigation), then you will have to change your lawyer.  You have to find another lawyer. The collaborative family lawyer will no longer represent you.

4. Fourth option is arbitration. This is an option where parties hire someone like a retired judge or a senior person who is considered an arbitrator. There are specific rules and regulations for how an arbitration is conducted.  This is not a court process.  This is a process that is outside of the court system.  Parties hire—they pay the arbitrators fee they hire an arbitrator and then the arbitrator listens to the case and provides a decision.  An arbitrator’s decision is binding.  It is enforced by courts or it is as good as a decision that you get from a court.  

The advantages of arbitration process (arbitral process) is that it is more expedient.  You are able to retain an arbitrator quickly, you can have your matter resolved quickly. The obvious disadvantage is because you are paying for the process and you’re paying for the arbitrator, oftentimes the process is expensive.

5. And, if none of those 4 avenues work for you, then you can always go to court and have your family law dispute resolved in court.

What is the court structure for family law in Ontario? There are three different kinds of courts in Ontario that deal with family law matters.

1. Number one is called Family Court, which is a branch of Superior Court of Justice but it’s called Family Court;
2. Number 2 is Ontario Court of Justice; and
3. Number 3 is the Superior Court of Justice.

 and we will discuss one by one what each of these court do.

1. Family Court: There are 25 Family Courts across Ontario from Barrie, Belleville, Bracebridge, Brockville, Cayuga, Cobourg, Cornwall, Hamilton, Kingston, Kitchener, Lindsay, L’Original, London, Napanee, Newmarket, Oshawa, Ottawa, Pembroke, Perth, Peterborough, Picton, Simcoe, St. Catharines, St. Thomas, Welland. The list is here. But there are 25 Family Courts in Ontario. The advantage of family courts is that they deal with all our family law matters.  Everything that I just explained to you—could be a dispute relating to family law—they’re all under the jurisdiction of family court. It’s a one-stop-shop. You can go to family court and get those resolved. 
2. If you don’t have a family court in your municipality, if you’re not in one of these municipalities, then a family matter is divided between Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court of Justice.  There is some overlap but there are some things that a Court of Justice will not do and some things that a Superior Court of Justice will not do.  You need to have a clear understanding that if you don’t have a family law court in your region (in your municipality), then you need to have an understanding of whether your matter is with the Ontario Court of Justice or Superior Court of Justice.
3. What does Ontario Court of Justice do? It deals with matters relating to custody, access, child and spousal support, adoption and child protection applications, enforcement of child or spousal support in a domestic contract, and spousal support either it’s in a domestic contract or a court order.

In all of these scenarios you are able to go to Ontario Court of Justice and seek relief. What Ontario Court of Justice does not deal with is divorce and division of property matters. These are 2 important issues but if your issue relates to divorce or division of property then you won’t be able to get relief from Ontario Court of Justice because they do not have jurisdiction.

3. Superior Court of Justice: What are the issues that Superior Court of Justice deals with? Obviously, divorce and division of property because Ontario Court of Justice does not deal with it. Claims relating to family home, trust claims and claims for unjust enrichment, child and spousal support, custody and access, applications and appeals relating to family arbitration.

If you had engaged an arbitrator and a decision was made and you are dissatisfied that it was not a just decision/a just resolution, you have the ability to appeal that decision with the Superior Court of Justice.  Superior Court of Justice does not deal with adoption matters or child protection matters.  It deals with child protection matters only when there is an appeal but otherwise it does not deal with all of these issues.  

Once you have that basic understanding, then if you go into court you are able to choose which court to go to. You need to know: number one whether your specific dispute—does it come under the umbrella of family law issues.  I hope that you have some basic understanding of that. I hope you have some clarity on what are the different options that you can exercise to resolve your dispute and if you have to go to court, then you need to figure out which court you have to go to so that your dispute is in the right court and you’re not wasting your time and money in the wrong court and then you are able to get your issue resolved expeditiously.

Thank-you for watching.

Show Notes:

N/A

Lecture Slides:

Welcome to YouCounsel.

This is our 4th lecture in this series—where we had initially posed the question whether any tort liability could arise from a wrongdoing in the virtual world.  We discussed this in our first 3 lectures. We talked about how virtual reality operates.  What is the kind of interaction that a real person can have in the virtual world? What kind of impact a real person experiences from any conduct in the virtual world? We talked about the reality of damages or harm, especially the mental trauma that one can suffer because of the wrongdoing in the virtual world.  Then in the 3rd lecture we talked about some of the aspects of tort of negligence—there were 5 elements of tort of negligence that we talked about. We emphasized our discussion on the duty of care – which is the most important point in the tort of negligence—especially when you’re looking for a new duty of care towards the defendant.  We explore that. 

 In today’s lecture we will talk about the rest of the factors in the tort of negligence and see whether there is a real chance that a tort liability may follow from wrongdoing tortious conduct in the virtual world.

We begin our lecture with our usual disclaimer that this lecture is not legal advice. If you have any specific questions regarding the issues that you may be facing you should contact a lawyer or a paralegal or the Law Society of Ontario for a referral.

We talked about the elements of tort of negligence. These are 5 elements that the defendant owes to the plaintiff’s duty of care.  As I said we spend significant time in the last lecture talking about whether there is a duty of care for the online virtual world providers – whether there is a duty of care for the person who uses an avatar to commit a wrongdoing to another avatar, could there be a duty of care.  We discussed that in the previous lecture. 

The 2nd element is whether the defendant breached the standard of care and the standard of care is a reasonable person’s standard. We will talk about that today and whether the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury or loss which is causation.  The injury or harm – whether that was foreseeable or not. And, then finally, did the plaintiff actually suffer harm or loss. Let’s go over these one by one.

Standard of care: It’s called also called “reasonable person’s standard”. It is defined as what a reasonable person would have done in those circumstances – where the circumstances means that specific act that we believe is the tortious conduct, is the wrongdoing.

An example of this could be when a person sues a surgeon for not performing a surgery correctly. Then the court will consider what another reasonably qualified surgeon would have done in those circumstances.  The court has to determine 1st what is the standard of care that that person (the defendant) ought to have followed.  

Again, because it’s a reasonable person standard, the court objectively looks at what another reasonable person with the same qualifications would have done. In case of surgery, the court will determine, for example, what are the guidelines of the college (the regulatory college) for the physicians. What are the guidelines? What is it that another surgeon would have done in the similar situation and then determine whether the conduct in question, whether that conduct in fact breached that standard or not.  If a reasonably qualified surgeon would have done the same thing that this surgeon had done, then, obviously the court will conclude that the standard was not breached by the surgeon.  So there will be no tort liability.

Now in case of online gaming industry, virtual world, we’re talking about Roblox and because Roblox or other similar gaming present itself as imagination platforms, the question is what would another reasonably imaginative platform what would they have done in terms of the creation of that imagination part. We are restricting ourselves to Roblox because Roblox presents itself as an imagination platform that targets kids as young as 6,7 years old. What a reasonable company that is creating imagination platforms for young kids 6,7 year olds, would they create an imagination platform that allows for example, pornography to be shown to the young children. The answer would be no. Would it allow young children to be exposed to sexual conduct or misconduct in that imagination platform?  The answer will be no. Would it allow online bullying through virtual world and the answer would be most likely be no.  

The question then – the standard of care – when the court is considering this question is that if it’s an imagination platform, would there be certain limits to that imagination platform that ought to be put in place.  That question is dependent upon who is the user of platform, what is the purpose of platform, this is not a platform for sexual games, it is a platform for children to play ordinary games.  Those are the things that the court will determine: what a reasonable company that would have created that platform would have done in similar circumstances.

The next question is, obviously, even if there is harm, was the harm actually caused by the defendant’s breach.  In our example and we took the example of that 7 year old that experienced virtual sexual assault in Roblox while playing a game.  If the harm is mental trauma, the question for the court to consider is, was that mental trauma caused by the specific wrongdoing (in our case the virtual sexual assault), is that what caused that injury or harm or loss.  Because there could be other circumstances that may have caused mental trauma.  The child may have been experiencing some difficulties at home, maybe her parents are going through some difficult times, maybe the child has experienced the loss of a loved one – any of those circumstances.  Even though there is trauma or harm, what actually caused that trauma is a question.  If the harm or trauma was not caused by the defendant’s brief then the causation is not established.  

It’s a difficult question, especially when you’re dealing with mental trauma and issues of mental suffering.  It is easier to show causation, for example, in a motor vehicle accident where you know prior to the accident your legs were fine, your arms were fine but due to the accident you suffered a broken bone or something.  That’s easier to show because it is visual. It can be shown by evidence that you were fine before the accident and after the accident you have suffered this kind of thing. Even though causation itself can get complicated but let’s not get into that discussion at this stage.  The point is that causation needs to be shown as an element of negligence in our scenario.

The 4th element is foreseeability.  In foreseeability, could a reasonable person foresee or anticipate the injury or harm.  Was it just a freak accident or is it something that could be foreseen? Can it be foreseen that if you conduct yourself or someone conducts herself or himself in such a way in the virtual world that conduct, that wrongdoing may cause real harm to somebody? Is that foreseeable?

Foreseeability is an interesting thing.  Foreseeability is based on common sense but it is also based upon our experiences.  If you pose this question or if you had posed this question 20 or 30 years ago when the virtual reality was just coming into existence, a lot of people may not have foreseen that the conduct of this nature may cause real harm.  Some people may have been anticipated it but a lot of people may not have.  As we experience or as we will experience more injury more harm, unfortunately, it will be easier for us to recognize the foreseeability of the conduct and the harm.  Foreseeability is also dependent upon our experiences.

Another example that I can give you is with respect to toys. Right now we live in an age where we have so many toys and all kinds of toys for children and you will notice that the boxes have labels on toys and it would indicate that certain toys are suitable for, let’s say, children of 7 years and older. It indicates or suggests that: number one, the toys may not be suitable because the younger kids or toddlers may not have the capacity to play with that toy.  Also, that the children, the younger children, the toddlers may experience some hazards, some risks.

For example we know that if you give anything of small size to toddlers, the first thing they do is they pick it up and put it in their mouth. Choking hazard toys are an example of that. There are age restrictions on that.  Our foreseeability of the toddler will picking up anything and putting it in his mouth and could cause choking is based on our experience. Children, young children in various circumstances suffered these choking issues and then the law became aware of the foreseeability of the harm – which resulted in certain labels and warnings on these toys and our education on these issues.  Foreseeability is again another element that needs to be proven with respect to the tort of negligence.

Final element is proving damages.  We need to show to the court what was the harm or loss.  In our example the harm or loss is mental trauma or mental suffering.  Then the next element is how do you prove it.  You have to prove that. As I said it is easier to show physical harm because you can see, you can visualize a broken bone a broken finger and the harm is easy to visualize.  In cases of mental trauma even though courts have awarded damages for a long time on mental suffering and mental trauma, they always struggle with it because it is not easy to understand someone’s mental trauma or suffering.  It is not usual. You have to rely on medical evidence. You have to rely on circumstantial evidence.

In one of the examples that we had given in our Lecture 1, there was a 7-year old child who was groomed in this online game, also in Roblox, through a 3rd party app, to send his sexually explicit images to other people.  His parents recognized issues because the child was socially withdrawn from family activities.  He was constantly withdrawn from them. When you are showing mental trauma or mental suffering in those cases, then there is circumstantial evidence that you can bring—inability to interact socially or isolation and all of these things.  It is possible to do that.  Point is that regardless whatever damage one person is claiming at the end of the day you have to prove those damages to the court to be able to get remedy from them.

In conclusion, what we have done in these 4 lectures is, I have proposed and at least in that discussion that wrongdoing in the virtual world, it is possible it will lead to a liability in the real world because the harm is real; if the harm is real then it is easy to foresee, that that sort of conduct could cause those harms—if the harm is real then, obviously, it is foreseeable that this will cause it.  We had that discussion but that’s not the end of discussion because there are many defenses to tort liability. 

This is where the rubber hits the road—because it is in those defenses that a lot of defendants will try to get away from tort liability.  One example of those defenses is contractual waivers.  We have all seen those, all the time, all around us. You go to a park you sign a contractual waiver, you go to skiing you sign a contractual waiver, which indicates that if you get injured in skiing the ski resort is not liable.  These contractual waivers are pretty strong.  They have a way for the defendant to avoid liability.

In the U.S. there is the First Amendment in the Constitution.  There are cases that indicate that online gaming is considered an expression and so they’re protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution in United States. What we will do, we will cover these defenses in our next lecture and see what are the kind of defences that are available to the virtual world providers and people who may use virtual world to do certain wrongdoings in the virtual world, what kind of defenses they may have and then we’ll discuss whether those defences would make sense in the coming months or years when these issues will come forth to the court.  Please stay tuned.  We will have another lecture shortly.

Thank-you for watching.