Canadian Hospitality Law Prep
Practice Test

A. That the hotel owed the guest a duty of care ✓

B. That the hotel had adequate insurance

C. That the guest was not contributorily negligent

D. That the hotel violated a criminal statute

Correct — A. To succeed in negligence, the plaintiff must first establish that the defendant owed them a duty of care. Hotels owe a duty to guests as invitees to maintain reasonably safe premises.

A. Enforce it fully because the parties agreed to the terms freely

B. Strike it down or read it down as unreasonably broad in geographic scope, duration, and prohibited activities ✓

C. Enforce it only in the manager's home province

D. Convert it into an enforceable non-solicitation clause automatically

Correct — B. Restrictive covenants must be reasonable in scope, duration, and geography to be enforceable. A seven-year, pan-Canada prohibition on all hospitality work is almost certainly overbroad. Canadian courts apply strict scrutiny and will strike down or narrow unreasonably broad clauses.

A. Any private individual

B. Any seller where the buyer is a consumer

C. A seller only when the purchase price exceeds $500

D. A seller who deals in goods of that description in the course of business ✓

Correct — D. Provincial sale of goods acts imply a condition that goods are of merchantable (acceptable) quality when the seller deals in goods of that description, the goods were not examined by the buyer, and any defect would not be apparent on reasonable examination.

A. Caused by an action of the other contracting party

B. Unforeseeable, outside the operator's control, and prevented or delayed performance of the specific obligation ✓

C. Publicized less than 30 days before the contract was signed

D. A recognized disaster declared under federal emergency legislation

Correct — B. Force majeure clauses excuse non-performance when extraordinary events beyond the party's control prevent performance. The invoking party must typically show: the event was unforeseeable, outside their control, prevented performance, and they took reasonable mitigation steps.

A. A written document signed by both parties

B. Consideration exchanged between the parties ✓

C. Registration with a government authority

D. Approval by a lawyer

Correct — B. Consideration — something of value given by each party — is an essential element that distinguishes an enforceable contract from a gratuitous promise. Without consideration, the promise is generally unenforceable at common law.

A. Enforce it as freely negotiated between the parties

B. Reduce it to exactly the foreseeable loss automatically by statute

C. Strike it down as a penalty clause disproportionate to the foreseeable loss ✓

D. Declare the entire contract void for unconscionability

Correct — C. Canadian courts distinguish genuine pre-estimates of loss (liquidated damages, enforceable) from penalties (punitive and disproportionate). A $5,000 clause against $400 of foreseeable loss is likely a penalty and unenforceable.

A. Political party affiliation

B. Immigration status only

C. Employment history

D. Race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability ✓

Correct — D. Section 15 (Equality Rights) guarantees every individual equal benefit and protection of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and analogous grounds.

A. Unenforceable against the guest because insufficient notice was given before the contract was formed ✓

B. Fully enforceable because the guest signed the contract

C. Enforceable only against business clients, not consumers

D. Unenforceable because exclusion clauses are always void in hospitality contracts

Correct — A. For an onerous exclusion clause in a standard-form contract to be enforceable, the party relying on it must give reasonable notice to the other party before or at the time of contracting. Burying the clause without highlighting it is typically insufficient notice.