PracticeVideosBlogFlashcardsEspañol
All Practice Exams

100+ Free NCA Torts Practice Questions

NCA Canadian Tort Law Examination practice questions are available now; exam metadata is being verified.

✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately
Varies by sitting Pass Rate
100+ Questions
100% Free
1 / 100
Question 1
Score: 0/0

What is the purpose of aggravated damages, and how do they differ from punitive damages?

A
B
C
D
to track
Same family resources

Explore More NCA Canadian Law Exams

Continue into nearby exams from the same family. Each card keeps practice questions, study guides, flashcards, videos, and articles in one place.

NCA Canadian Administrative Law

Practice Questions

NCA Canadian Business Organizations

Practice Questions

NCA Canadian Constitutional Law

Practice Questions

NCA Canadian Contract Law

Practice Questions

NCA Canadian Criminal Law

Practice Questions

NCA Canadian Family Law

Practice Questions
2026 Statistics

Key Facts: NCA Torts Exam

$500 CAD

Fee Per NCA Exam (plus taxes)

Federation of Law Societies of Canada (2025-2026)

3 hours

Maximum Exam Duration

National Committee on Accreditation

Open-book

Exam Format (fact-based, written)

National Committee on Accreditation

50%

Passing Grade (pass/fail)

National Committee on Accreditation

3 attempts

Maximum Attempts Per Subject

National Committee on Accreditation

100+

Practice Questions Here

OpenExamPrep question bank

The NCA Canadian Tort Law exam is a substantive subject requirement that internationally trained lawyers may be assigned when qualifying to practise in a Canadian common-law province. Administered by the National Committee on Accreditation under the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, it is open-book, fact-based, and up to three hours, with short-answer, essay, and problem questions graded pass/fail (50%). The substantive content covers negligence (the Anns/Cooper v Hobart duty test, standard of care, 'but for' and Clements v Clements material-contribution causation, and Mustapha v Culligan remoteness), pure economic loss and negligent misstatement (Hedley Byrne; Queen v Cognos), the intentional torts and defences (contributory negligence apportionment, volenti, illegality under Hall v Hebert), vicarious liability (Bazley v Curry), occupiers' liability, defamation (Grant v Torstar responsible communication), nuisance (Antrim Truck Centre), strict liability (Rylands v Fletcher), and damages. The exam fee is $500 CAD plus taxes. This free OpenExamPrep bank provides 100 multiple-choice knowledge-prep questions built on real Canadian cases; note the real exam uses written answers, not multiple choice.

Sample NCA Torts Practice Questions

Try these sample questions to test your NCA Torts exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.

1A plaintiff alleges a novel duty of care in negligence against a regulator. Under Canadian law, what is the correct framework a court must apply to decide whether a duty of care exists?
A.The Anns/Cooper v Hobart two-stage test: stage one asks foreseeability and proximity; stage two asks residual policy considerations
B.The single-stage 'neighbour' principle from Donoghue v Stevenson alone
C.The Caparo v Dickman three-stage English test applied verbatim
D.A pure foreseeability test with no proximity or policy inquiry
Explanation: In Cooper v Hobart, 2001 SCC 79, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the modified Anns test. Stage one asks whether harm was reasonably foreseeable and whether there is sufficient proximity to establish a prima facie duty; stage two asks whether residual policy considerations negate or limit that duty. This is the governing Canadian framework for novel duty questions.
2In Cooper v Hobart, what role do policy considerations play in the proximity analysis at the first stage of the test?
A.Policy is irrelevant at stage one and considered only at stage two
B.Proximity at stage one may itself involve policy factors that arise from the relationship between the parties, distinct from the residual policy concerns at stage two
C.All policy considerations are collapsed into a single stage
D.Proximity is determined solely by physical closeness of the parties
Explanation: Cooper v Hobart clarified that proximity at stage one can encompass policy factors flowing from the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, while stage two addresses residual policy considerations affecting society more broadly (such as indeterminate liability or the chilling of conduct). The two categories of policy are analytically distinct.
3A homeowner's claim falls squarely within a previously recognized category of duty (a careless driver injuring a pedestrian). What must the court do at the duty stage?
A.Conduct the full two-stage Anns/Cooper analysis from scratch
B.Refuse to find any duty because each case is unique
C.Recognize that the case falls within or is analogous to an established category, so a duty is established without a full novel-duty analysis
D.Apply only the residual policy stage
Explanation: Cooper v Hobart instructs courts first to ask whether the case falls within, or is analogous to, an established category of duty. If it does, a duty is recognized and the full Anns/Cooper analysis is unnecessary; the novel-duty test is reserved for genuinely new situations.
4What is the standard of care that a defendant must meet in an ordinary negligence action in Canada?
A.The care a perfectly cautious person would take
B.Strict liability regardless of fault
C.The subjective best efforts of the particular defendant
D.The care a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the circumstances
Explanation: The standard of care is objective: the conduct expected of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence in the defendant's circumstances. The factfinder weighs the probability and severity of harm against the burden of taking precautions and the social utility of the conduct.
5A defendant is a professional engineer. How is the standard of care adjusted when assessing a professional's conduct?
A.The professional is held to the standard of a reasonably competent member of that profession
B.The standard is lowered because professionals face complex tasks
C.The professional is held to the subjective standard of their own training
D.The professional is strictly liable for any error of judgment
Explanation: A person who holds out specialized skill is judged by the standard of a reasonably competent member of that profession or trade, exercising the knowledge and skill normally possessed by such practitioners. An honest error of judgment is not necessarily negligence if it accords with accepted professional practice.
6A nine-year-old child negligently injures another while playing. By what standard is the child's conduct measured in Canadian negligence law?
A.The standard of a reasonable adult
B.The standard of a reasonable child of like age, intelligence, and experience
C.Children can never be liable in negligence
D.Strict liability for any harm caused by a child
Explanation: Canadian courts apply a modified objective standard to children: the care expected of a reasonable child of like age, intelligence, and experience. A recognized exception applies where the child engages in an inherently dangerous adult activity, in which case the adult standard governs.
7In Canadian negligence law, what is the general test for factual causation?
A.The 'material contribution to risk' test applied in every case
B.The 'substantial factor' test imported from the United States
C.The 'but for' test: the plaintiff must show that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligence
D.Proof that the defendant's act was the sole cause of the injury
Explanation: In Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the default test for factual causation is the 'but for' test, proven on a balance of probabilities. The plaintiff must establish that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant's negligence.
8According to Clements v Clements, when may a court resort to the 'material contribution to risk' test instead of the 'but for' test?
A.Whenever the plaintiff finds 'but for' causation difficult to prove
B.Only where the defendant admits liability
C.In every multi-defendant case automatically
D.Where it is impossible to prove 'but for' causation because of multiple tortious actors, and global but-for causation is established but the plaintiff cannot show which defendant caused the harm
Explanation: Clements confined the material contribution to risk approach to exceptional cases: where the plaintiff, through no fault of their own, cannot prove 'but for' causation because multiple negligent actors each created a risk and it is impossible to say which one in fact caused the injury, even though it is clear one of them did. It is a narrow, policy-driven exception.
9Clements v Clements describes 'material contribution to risk' as what kind of rule?
A.A policy-driven rule of law that imposes liability despite the plaintiff's inability to prove factual causation
B.A factual test of causation identical to 'but for'
C.A rule that reverses the burden of proof onto the defendant in all cases
D.An evidentiary presumption available in any personal-injury claim
Explanation: In Clements, Chief Justice McLachlin described 'but for' causation and material contribution to risk as 'two different beasts.' Material contribution is not a test of factual causation at all; it is a policy-driven rule of law that permits recovery in narrow circumstances where factual causation cannot be proven.
10A plaintiff suffers an injury more severe than expected because of a pre-existing vulnerability. How does Canadian tort law treat this situation?
A.Damages are reduced to reflect the plaintiff's vulnerability
B.The thin-skull rule applies: the defendant takes the victim as found and is liable for the full extent of the injury
C.The defendant is not liable for any aggravated injury
D.Liability is capped at the injury an ordinary person would have suffered
Explanation: Under the thin-skull (or eggshell-skull) rule, a defendant who negligently causes injury is liable for the full extent of the harm even where a pre-existing condition makes the consequences unusually severe. The rule concerns the extent of damages once a foreseeable type of injury has occurred.

About the NCA Torts Practice Questions

Verified exam format metadata for NCA Canadian Tort Law Examination is pending. The practice questions above remain available while official exam length, timing, passing score, fee, and administrator details are reviewed.