Free NCA Remedies Practice Questions

Sample Practice Questions

Try these 10 sample questions from the NCA Remedies practice bank. Each includes the answer and explanation. Continue with the interactive practice above to review the full question set.

1. 1A court awards money to give a promisee the value of the performance that was promised. Which measure of relief does this illustrate?

   1. A.Expectation damagesCorrect answer: A
   2. B.Restitution of benefits
   3. C.Aggravated damages
   4. D.Nominal damages

   Explanation: Fuller and Perdue describe the expectation measure by the "value of this performance". It puts the promisee in the promised-performance position. Restitution reverses a benefit received by the promisor, aggravated damages compensate intangible aggravated injury, and nominal damages recognize breach without substantial compensation.

   Reference: Fuller and Perdue, The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages: I — p. 54, The Purposes Pursued in Awarding Contract Damages

2. 2A commercial contract is breached. When is reasonable contemplation assessed for the contractual remoteness inquiry?

   1. A.When the breach is discovered
   2. B.When the parties form the contractCorrect answer: B
   3. C.When proceedings are commenced
   4. D.When the court assesses damages

   Explanation: Fidler bases recovery on "what was in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contract formation". Discovery, commencement of proceedings and assessment are later events, not the governing time for this inquiry.

   Reference: Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada — para. 54

3. 3An ordinary delivery van is damaged by negligence. An equally serviceable replacement costs $12,000; repairing the van would cost $29,000. There is no special adaptation or other reason why a replacement would be inadequate. Which amount is the appropriate starting point for the vehicle loss, excluding salvage and consequential loss?

   1. A.The $29,000 repair estimate.
   2. B.The $12,000 replacement price.Correct answer: B
   3. C.The $17,000 difference between the two.
   4. D.The $20,500 average of the two.

   Explanation: Pennycuick J states: "Where the cost of repairs would exceed the market value of the article, and in the absence of special circumstances, the reasonable method must be to purchase a comparable article." An available equivalent makes $12,000 the reasonable vehicle-loss starting point. Neither the excess of the repair estimate nor an average measures that loss.

   Reference: Darbishire v Warran — Judgment of Pennycuick J, paragraph beginning 'The basic measure of damage'

4. 4Which level of misconduct satisfies the exceptional threshold for punitive damages described in Whiten?

   1. A.Deliberate non-performance without a marked departure from decent standards.
   2. B.An innocent performance error causing an exceptionally large financial loss.
   3. C.Malicious or oppressive conduct markedly departing from decent behaviour.Correct answer: C
   4. D.A promptly corrected technical default causing serious but compensated loss.

   Explanation: Whiten states: "The test thus limits the award to misconduct that represents a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour." The threshold concerns the character of misconduct, not merely breach or the size of compensatory loss. Neither innocent error nor a promptly corrected technical breach establishes that exceptional standard.

   Reference: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co. — para. 36

5. 5A defendant alleges that the claimant failed to mitigate contractual loss. Which proof is required under Southcott?

   1. A.Unreasonable mitigation efforts and a realistically available means of reducing loss.Correct answer: A
   2. B.The claimant's failure to purchase the defendant's preferred substitute, without more.
   3. C.The claimant's inability to prove that every conceivable substitute was unavailable.
   4. D.An alternative opportunity, regardless of whether pursuing it was reasonable.

   Explanation: The judgment explains: "the burden of proof is on the defendant, who needs to prove both that the plaintiff has failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate and that mitigation was possible" Both unreasonable failure and possible mitigation must be proved by the defendant. A preferred alternative alone does not establish either; the claimant does not bear an initial burden to rule out every hypothetical opportunity.

   Reference: Southcott Estates Inc. v Toronto Catholic District School Board — para. 24

6. 6Why are damages for non-delivery of readily replaceable goods normally assessed using their value at the date of breach?

   1. A.That date permits the buyer to obtain an equivalent replacement.Correct answer: A
   2. B.That date necessarily produces the largest possible award.
   3. C.The contract's formation date is legally treated as the breach date.
   4. D.Later market evidence is inadmissible in every contract case.

   Explanation: The judgment states: "the purchaser can turn around and purchase identical or equivalent goods." The breach-date rule serves compensation by enabling equivalent replacement. It is not designed to maximize recovery, equate formation with breach, or impose an absolute evidentiary ban.

   Reference: Semelhago v Paramadevan — para. 13

7. 7A purchaser claims specific performance solely because the contract concerns land. Under Lucas and Semelhago, what further showing is needed?

   1. A.Proof that all land is legally irreplaceable.
   2. B.A fair and substantial justification showing damages are inadequate.Correct answer: B
   3. C.Proof that the vendor owns no other assets.
   4. D.A prior unsuccessful action to enforce a damages judgment.

   Explanation: Lucas explains: "a party seeking specific performance must establish a fair, real, and substantial justification by showing that damages would be inadequate" Land does not automatically establish entitlement. The claimant must demonstrate inadequacy of monetary relief in the actual circumstances, not vendor insolvency or prior unsuccessful collection.

   Reference: Lucas v 1858793 Ontario Inc. (Howard Park) — para. 69

8. 8A claimant seeks a final injunction after the merits can be determined. What is required under Buckley, rather than merely applying the interlocutory serious-issue test?

   1. A.A showing that its allegations are not frivolous, without determining rights.
   2. B.A showing that the defendant has fewer assets than the claimant.
   3. C.Established legal rights and a final decision that an injunction is appropriate.Correct answer: C
   4. D.An undertaking to pay damages in place of proving an enforceable right.

   Explanation: The judgment states: "In order to obtain final injunctive relief, a party is required to establish its legal rights." Final relief requires established rights and a discretionary remedial assessment. The interlocutory framework addresses uncertainty before final adjudication; neither relative wealth nor an undertaking substitutes for proving the right.

   Reference: 1711811 Ontario Ltd. v Buckley Insurance Brokers Ltd. — paras. 79–80

9. 9A claimant fears that any eventual judgment may be difficult to collect but produces no evidence of threatened asset dissipation or disappearance. What requirement identified in Aetna remains unestablished?

   1. A.An admission by the defendant that the claim will succeed.
   2. B.A genuine risk that assets will disappear so as to frustrate enforcement.Correct answer: B
   3. C.Proof that the defendant has already been declared bankrupt.
   4. D.Proof that the defendant has no solicitor in the jurisdiction.

   Explanation: Aetna refers to "genuine risk of disappearance of assets" Mareva relief is exceptional protection against threatened frustration of enforcement. Ordinary collection anxiety does not itself establish a genuine dissipation risk; admission, bankruptcy and lack of counsel are not the stated conditions.

   Reference: Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v Feigelman — p. 25

10. 10What is the fundamental purpose of an Anton Piller order?

    1. A.To award the claimant the defendant's property before trial.
    2. B.To determine the truth of the underlying allegations without a hearing.
    3. C.To preserve relevant evidence at risk of destruction.Correct answer: C
    4. D.To establish the claimant's priority over other unsecured creditors.

    Explanation: The judgment endorses the limited purpose to "preserve evidence, not to use it." The order safeguards relevant material threatened with destruction while ordinary adjudication proceeds. It does not decide liability, transfer ownership or establish creditor priority.

    Reference: Celanese Canada Inc. v Murray Demolition Corp. — para. 52, quotation of the motions judge