Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of vicarious liability where the Court held that a non-profit organization may be held vicariously liable in tort law for sexual misconduct by one of its employees. The decision has widely influenced jurisprudence on vicarious liability outside of Canada. [2]
Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability, or duty to control" the activities of a violator.
The action against the employer is based on the theory of vicarious liability in which a party can be held liable for the acts of a different party. The employer–employee relationship is the most common area respondeat superior is applied, but the doctrine is also used in the agency relationship. Then, the principal becomes liable for the ...
However, in the case of vicarious liability, the employer is liable without personal fault. The fault in question is the employee's. The employer thus stands fully in the shoes of the negligent employee as regards both aspects of responsibility: see Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd [2002] UKHL 48, [2003] 2 AC 366 at paras 47 and 160. 85.
An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or higher) authority over the employee, subject to an affirmative defense when no tangible employment action is taken. Court membership; Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices
Ahani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002 SCC 2 January 11, 2002 Constitutional challenge of deportation Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 v Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156, 2002 SCC 8 January 24, 2002 Freedom of expression; secondary picketing
vicarious liability: Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute) [1999] 2 SCR 625 June 17, 1999 Mental disorder and criminal law; Charter Dobson (Litigation guardian of) v Dobson [1999] 2 SCR 753 July 9, 1999 Pregnancy and torts Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1999] 2 SCR 817 July 9, 1999 Judicial review
Vicarious liability is a separate theory of liability, which provides that an employer is liable for the torts of an employee under an agency theory, even if the employer did nothing wrong. The principle is that the acts of an agent of the company are assumed, by law, to be the acts of the company itself, provided the tortfeasor was acting ...