Law Society of Ontario (LSO) Paralegal Practice Exam 2025 - Free Paralegal Practice Questions and Study Guide

Provocation is recognized as a partial defense to the tort of intentional interference with the person because it acknowledges the circumstances that may have led an individual to act in a manner that would otherwise be considered intentional interference. When a person is provoked, their actions may be seen as a response to that provocation, which can mitigate their liability. This is especially true in situations involving assault or battery, where the law is more forgiving when the aggrieved party has instigated the incident to some extent.

In contrast, invalid consent does not serve as a defense because if consent is deemed invalid, it cannot be used to justify the interference. Involuntary action would not be considered a defense for intentional torts, as intentional interference specifically requires volitional conduct by the actor. Lastly, negligence pertains to unintentional harm and is not applicable in the context of intentional torts, where the focus is on deliberate actions rather than a failure to exercise reasonable care. Thus, provocation stands out as the correct response, as it can lessen the culpability of the actor in situations involving intentional interference with the person.