# data[].attributes.body
This picture is self explanatory which shows when one is putting blame on others.
The picture shows to what extent an employee can be suffered mentally due to any kind of harassment. Though there is already a tort of intentional infliction of emotional stress, it also generates from another harm called harassment

# data[].attributes.body
The Unwanted touch is also a cause of concern.
The picture clearly shows sexual harassment at the workplace.  The tort law also qualifies sexual harassment as actionable. It is qualified to be a tort as it has the essential elements of malicious intention. A tort is an effective means for remedy in sexual harassment but very few civil matters are suited before the court for the action of sexual harassment

# data[].attributes.body
When we give unwanted harm to someone for our personal gains. These type of situations we often face in day to day life when we are being pressurized to complete unrealistic targets otherwise a strict punishments are given.
In tort law, assault is considered as an intentional tort as it includes the essential element of tort which is intentional harm of the plaintiff which results in some type of damage to the plaintiff. Assault is an act that causes another person (Plaintiff) to believe that pain by immediate and unlawful force on his person is about to occur. In the cases of assault, there are three essentials:

·         There must be an intention

·         The conduct of creating an atmosphere of assault or threat.

·         The reasonable fear on the part of the plaintiff.

Pointing a weapon but not loaded in an assault attracts tortious liability. The person in fear suffers from emotional as well as mental damage. The plaintiff may claim three types of damages in cases of civil assaults, i.e., Punitive, Compensatory and Nominal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Title: Assault as a tort and its Remedies : Overview and Analysis

# data[].attributes.body
The judge merely states that now the harassment and assault tort necessitates the creation of new obligations, that would only occur in exceptional situations.
As a result, the Canadian court of appeals reached an unfavorable conclusion.
The Court of Appeal in the Merrifield case did not create any liability for harassment; instead, it focused on the proper process for creating a new tort. Apart from anything specific to harassment, the Court negatived a “modern” approach to legal change through the courts: “Common law change is evolutionary in nature, and it proceeds slowly and incrementally rather than quickly and dramatically”. In other words, even if a certain change in the law is needed of the hour and changing times, it may not be appropriate for courts to adopt the change and, at least not immediately, well that is very against the nature of the law itself

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
“That Is Not How the Common Law Works”: Paths to Tort Liability for Harassment

# data[].attributes.body
The court reasoned that establishing responsibility for bullying necessitates the creation of a new tort, which a court could not do without extraordinary cases. The court found that it is not the type of legal change it can or should make, citing the progressive nature of ordinary law reform. I question the decision and the reasons behind it. While I recognize the epistemic and economic restrictions that call for caution, I believe the Court of Appeal erred in not exploring the potential of expanding current torts to include harassing
There might be some constraints politically that restrain a common-law court to establish a new tort. The institutional limits of courts, the nature of common law and the way of its change, and the absence of supportive judicial authority in support of liabilities for the tort of harassment do not minimise the extent of liability in the cases of harassment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
46 Pages Posted: 11 Nov 2020 Last revised: 4 Feb 2021

Date Written: September 21, 2020

Abstract

Can a common-law court create liability for harassment without a statute? A recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario answered this question negatively. The court reasoned that liability for harassment requires creating a new tort, which is not something a court could do in the absence of special circumstances. Emphasizing the incremental nature of common law change, the court concluded that this is not the kind of legal change it could, or should, effect. I challenge the decision and its reasoning. While acknowledging the epistemic and political constraints that warrant caution, I argue that the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the possibility of creating tort liability for harassment by extending existing torts. I consider six possible paths to such liability, four of which I conclude are possible but limited, and two others that are promising and should be adopt-ed.

Keywords: harassment, bullying, tort law, negligence, psychiatric injury

Priel, Dan, 'That is Not How the Common Law Works': Paths to Tort Liability for Harassment (September 21, 2020). Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper , 52 Ottawa Law Review 87, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3696961

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
'that is not how the common law works': paths to tort liability for harassment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'That is Not How the Common Law Works': Paths to Tort Liability for Harassment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
46 Pages Posted: 11 Nov 2020 Last revised: 4 Feb 2021 Date Written: September 21, 2020 Can a common-law court create liability for harassment without a statute? A recent decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario answered this question negatively.

# data[].attributes.body
The court simply says that the tort for harassment does require creating new liabilities which would just happen in special circumstances.
Hence, concluded from this the court of Canada replied in a very negative manner
Though the courts have recognised the fact that an act of harassment causes mental suffering, the courts have also observed that for an act to be established as a tort has to be established with the time. Without a statute, a common court cannot create a liability. If the liability for harassment has to be created, it will require a network. The court in the Case of Merrifield has answered this question that creating a new tort is not something that a common court could do. It requires special circumstances in existence.

But on another hand, one might oppose this opinion of the Court on the ground that something has to start at least from somewhere. Ignoring even a minor possibility would not be a solution

# data[].attributes.body
The boundaries of vicarious liability are defined by the legal system and state statutory law. Judges possess extensive flexibility in statutory interpretation to determine whether acts are prima facie indiscretions and, if so, which defenses will be utilized to defeat them
Harassment is an act that inflicts mental distress on a person. It can be actionable under tort law. But the authority precludes the stretch of tortious liability to recover the mental distress arising out of harassment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Concept of Unlawful Harassment (Tort Law)

# data[].attributes.body
The creation of a harassment tort is not supported by precedent. We were not furnished with any foreign judicial body that would support the introduction of a new tort. We were not really provided with any academic reference or compelling policy argument for recognising a new tort and its required qualities. The Ontario Judge stated, "In summary, the basis for creating the novel tort of harassment has not been established.
In the workplace, employers must protect employees from any kind of harassment.  in cases of harassment, the essentials of a tort are present which are:   An act, legal damage to the plaintiff and a legal remedy available in the form of damage or injunction. But there is no specific Tort of Sexual Harassment, the fugitives are held liable; under other torts such as assault, battery, mental suffering, false imprisonment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Workplace Harassment Allegations Against the Governor General of Canada

# data[].attributes.body
Tort law's main purposes are to compensate affected individuals for harms caused by many others, to make those responsible for the injury responsible, and to deter others from injuring others. Torts enable the burden of loss to be moved from the victim to the person who is at fault or better able to bear it. Typically, a person seeking tort law remedy will demand monetary recompense of damages. Two less common remedies are stay and compensation
Malicious prosecution is also a tort. It is the malicious initiation of futile criminal or bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings against another person without even a reasonable or probable cause. To prove a case of malicious prosecution the proceedings instituted against the defendant need to be proved wrong by the court of law and that they are futile being without a reasonable cause. The malicious intention of the defendant is a must.  The defendant's reputation will be cleared after the court declares the proceedings futile

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION|Tort Law(with case law) by Sheenam Kataria