CONVERSION
Under Fridman’s formulation, transporting the Beaumont satisfied this element of conversion.
What is handling a chattel?
This individual falsely presented himself as having authority over the Beaumont and instructed Mundie’s to tow it.
Who is the rogue?
This intention was not required.
What is intention to convert?
Fridman uses this concept to distinguish genuine control over another’s goods from merely changing their physical location.
What is dominion?
This tort formed the basis of the Charbonneaus’ claim against Mundie’s.
What is conversion?
Conversion requires, at minimum, this form of intention, even where there is no intention to deprive the true owner.
What is the intention to perform the physical act?
This had already expired by the time the Charbonneaus commenced proceedings, preventing their negligence claim.
What is the two-year limitation period?
Mundie’s possessed the legally necessary form of intention despite lacking this knowledge.
What is knowledge that the caller was not the true owner of the Beaumont?
Under Osborne’s test, reaching this threshold indicates that interference is sufficiently serious to exceed mere-conduit status.
What is interference sufficiently serious to warrant a forced sale of the chattel to the defendant?
This was the key consequence of Mundie’s delivery of the Beaumont to Surrey.
What is the permanent loss of the vehicle?
This Supreme Court of Canada principle prevented Mundie’s from relying on the innocence of its mistake.
What is that conversion is a tort of strict liability?
Despite transporting the Beaumont, Mundie’s never did either of these two things with the vehicle.
What are detaining it at its impound yard and converting it to its own use?
A tow-truck driver accidentally releases the brake and the Beaumont rolls onto another property. This requirement for conversion may now be missing.
What is intentional physical act?
This legal relationship made Wiese v. Douglas distinguishable even though Sheptak, like Mundie’s, unknowingly transported property at a wrongdoer’s direction.
What is bailment?
This circumstance allowed the Beaumont to be removed without the Charbonneaus being present to object.
What is the Charbonneaus being away from home?
The Charbonneaus did not have to prove Mundie’s wanted the Beaumont to disappear; they could satisfy the disputed element through this feature of what actually occurred.
What is the effect of Mundie’s actions on the Charbonneaus’ title?
These were the two threshold legal issues Woods had to determine.
What are whether Mundie’s committed conversion and whether it qualified for the mere conduit exception?
This concept describes a deliberate interference that constitutes conversion despite the actor neither knowing nor intending its consequences for the owner.
What is inadvertent conversion?
Mundie’s argued that, although careless, it played this limited role in the rogue’s scheme.
What is an unwitting conduit?
This person alerted the claimant that Mundie’s had been seen towing the Beaumont.
Who is the neighbor?
These are Fridman's four essential features of conversion.
What are a wrongful act, involving a chattel, consisting of handling/disposal/destruction, with the intention or effect of denying or negating another's title?
Although Mundie’s did not intend this consequence, its deliberate conduct produced it.
What is the denial or negation of the Charbonneaus’ title to the vehicle?
The court rejected Mundie’s argument that conversion required this additional mental element beyond intending the physical act.
What is an intention to deny or deprive the true owner of their property?
Judge Woods found it “difficult, if not impossible” to reconcile the mere-conduit authorities with this aspect of conversion law.
What is the intention requirement for conversion?
Changing this aspect of the facts could have brought Mundie’s conduct closer to qualifying as a mere conduit.
No one correct answer