What is the test for a tort of misfeasance in a public office?

The Act was a bad law, poorly crafted and based on uncertain genetics. That said, I do not think it is enough for the appellants to show that the superintendents had administered a bad law. The appellants must prove the existence of the ingredients of the tort of misfeasance in a public office. The two elements of the tort are described by Mr. Justice Iacobucci for the court in the leading case of Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, 2003 SCC 69 at para. 32: To summarize, I am of the opinion that the tort of misfeasance in a public office is an intentional tort whose distinguishing elements are twofold: (i) deliberate unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions; and (ii) awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the plaintiff. Alongside deliberate unlawful conduct and the requisite knowledge, a plaintiff must also prove the other requirements common to all torts. More specifically, the plaintiff must prove that the tortious conduct was the legal cause of his or her injuries, and that the injuries suffered are compensable in tort law.