8 Oct 2026 · The OntarioBarExam.com tutors

Case-based questions: one fact pattern, several ways to lose a mark

Both examinations mix two kinds of questions: independent items, and case-based sets where several questions share one fact pattern. Candidates lose marks on case sets in ways that have nothing to do with knowing the law, which makes those marks cheap to recover once you see the traps.

OntarioBarExam.comQuestion 1 of 160|1 answered4:12:09

Question 1, Civil Litigation

Priya Raman sued her former business partner in the Superior Court of Justice in Barrie for $310,000 in damages. Seven weeks before trial she served an offer to settle under Rule 49 for $180,000 plus costs, expressed to remain open until the commencement of trial. Three days before trial the defendant served his own offer of $120,000, which was not accepted. At trial, Priya obtained judgment for $205,000. Both parties now seek costs. Absent a reason for the court to order otherwise, which of the following best describes the costs consequences that Rule 49 attaches to these offers?

APriya is entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date her offer was served and substantial indemnity costs from that date, because her offer was served at least seven days before the hearing, was not withdrawn and did not expire before the hearing began, and the judgment was as favourable as or more favourable than its terms.

BPriya is entitled to substantial indemnity costs of the whole action, because the judgment exceeded both offers and the defendant's late offer shows he knew the claim had merit.

CPriya is entitled to partial indemnity costs throughout; the defendant's offer displaces the consequences of hers because it was the later offer on the table when the trial began.

DEach party bears its own costs from the date of the defendant's offer, because a plaintiff's failure to respond to a reasonable offer made in good faith is conduct the court sanctions under Rule 49.

Question 2, Civil Litigation

Kessler Steel Ltd. sued Halvorsen Construction Inc. in the Superior Court of Justice in Guelph for $240,000 in unpaid invoices for structural steel. Halvorsen's office manager forwarded the statement of claim to the company's lawyer the day it was served, but the lawyer's assistant misfiled it and no defence was delivered. Kessler had Halvorsen noted in default, and the registrar signed default judgment. Halvorsen learned of the judgment three weeks later, when its bank account was garnished, and moved at once to set it aside, filing a metallurgist's report stating that most of the steel failed the project's specifications. Which of the following best describes how the court should decide the motion?

AHalvorsen must satisfy each of three requirements, a prompt motion, a plausible excuse for the default and a defence likely to succeed at trial; the lawyer's misfiling is an excuse, but a metallurgist's report cannot show the defence will succeed, so the motion fails.

BThe court asks whether Halvorsen moved as soon as it learned of the judgment, explained the default and has a defence on the merits raising a genuine issue for trial; a lawyer's inadvertence can explain a default, so the judgment should be set aside on terms.

CBecause the registrar signed the judgment on a liquidated claim, it can be set aside only for an irregularity in obtaining it, such as defective service or a claim that was not truly liquidated; a regularly obtained judgment stands, whatever defence Halvorsen may have.

DThe motion should be dismissed: a party is bound by the defaults of the lawyer it retains, so the assistant's misfiling cannot excuse Halvorsen, whose remedy for the lost opportunity to defend lies in a claim against the lawyer rather than relief from the judgment.

Flag for reviewFlaggedPreviousNext

Sections

Civil LitigationFamily LawCriminal LawPublic Law

Questions

123456789101112131415161718192021222324

Demo account; the question shown was written for this page.

Read it once, properly

The false economy is skimming the fact pattern and diving into question one, planning to come back for details. Now you read the pattern badly once and then partially three more times, and somewhere in the middle you answer a question using a fact you half-remembered wrong.

Spend the time up front. One careful read, noting who the parties are, what each one wants, and any dates or amounts, because if a date or an amount appears in a fact pattern it is usually there to matter. Then the questions become quick, which is where the time comes back.

Each question stands alone

The set shares facts. It does not share answers. Question two might turn on a completely different area of the pattern than question one, and the most common case-set error is momentum: carrying your reasoning from one question into the next because they feel like one story.

Treat each question as if it arrived alone, attached to the same facts. And remember there is no rule that your answers across a set must form a consistent narrative. Answer each on its own terms.

A miss is one point, not four

Getting question one of a set wrong tells you nothing about questions two to four; each is marked on its own, one point each like everything else on the paper. So a bad feeling about a fact pattern must never bleed forward. Candidates who decide mid-set that they "don't get this one" start half-guessing the rest of the set, converting one miss into three.

If the pattern truly baffles you, answer what you can, guess what you cannot, flag the set, and move. Distance fixes more confusion than staring does, and there is no penalty for a wrong answer while you wait for the return trip.

On your practice reports, case sets are also where reading gaps show up most clearly: if your review keeps showing misses clustered inside sets while your independent questions hold up, the law is not your problem. The reading is. That is good news, because reading habits fix faster than knowledge gaps.

Case-based questions: one fact pattern, several ways to lose a mark

Read it once, properly

Each question stands alone

A miss is one point, not four

Read next