Case Scenario:
Reverend Baldasaro, a gentleman in his late 50s, is a member of both the Church of the Universe and the Marijuana Party of Canada. He regards cannabis as part of the holy sacrament. He also hopes to be elected to Parliament during the current federal election. Two weeks ago, he visited Eastgate Square Shopping Mall in Hamilton with a view to attracting voters. A security guard employed by the mall told the Reverend that his activities were prohibited and asked him to leave. Reverend Baldasaro left without incident. Yesterday, however, he returned with a collection of pamphlets and buttons, and a col[1]league, Reverend Tucker (aged 72). The candidate and his friend were then approached by two security guards, who told them that they were trespassing and that they would be arrested if they did not leave immediately. The guards claim that Reverend Baldasaro replied, "Go ahead and arrest us because we're not leaving." The Reverend denies that statement and claims instead that he indicated that he would leave after Reverend Tucker had purchased a book from a nearby store. In either event, the security guards forcibly arrested both gentlemen and detained them in a mall office. A police officer, whom the security guards could have called as soon as they approached the two reverends, was already present in the office. He then assumed control of the situation and later escorted the two Reverends out of the mall. Reverend Baldasaro was not hurt during the incident, but the security guards' actions caused Reverend Tucker injury and considerable pain. Discuss the legal issues that are raised by the facts.terribly embarrassed at the time, but she is now angry. After she returned home, she remembered that she had purchased the jacket, a month earlier, at another branch of Stylz. That explains the presence of the security tag. Deb wants to sue. Which tort should she use? Whom should she sue? What are her chances of success? If she wins her case, what remedies might the court award?