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]
They unwittingly employed a paedophile, D1, who sexually abused one of the children in the home. The court, in a judgment delivered by McLachlin J, held D2 vicariously liable for the abuse. The issue related to stage 2. Could acts of sexual abuse properly be the subject of vicarious liability and, if so, on what basis?
After all, the sexual abuse was inextricably interwoven with the carrying out by the warden of his duties in Axeholme House. Matters of degree arise. But the present cases clearly fall on the side of vicarious liability. [10] This decision is significant in the Lords' assessment of the Salmond test for vicarious liability as inadequate. The ...
Finally, the elimination of employee liability will have no impact on the plaintiff's compensation in the vast majority of cases. The employee remains liable to the plaintiff for his independent torts. An independent tort may fall within or outside the range of the employer's liability under the vicarious liability regime.
The Supreme Court of Canada is the court of last resort and final appeal in Canada. Cases that are successfully appealed to the Court are generally of national importance. Once a case is decided the Court will publish written reasons for the decision that consist of one or more reasons from any number of the nine justice
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada from the formation of the Court in 1875 to the retirement of Gérald Fauteux in 1973. Note that the Privy Council heard appeals for criminal cases until 1933 and for civil cases until 1949. Also between 1888 and 1926, no criminal appeals were allowed to the ...
Strict liability offences R v Gruenke [1991] 3 SCR 263 October 24, 1991 case-by-case privilege. R v Stinchcombe [1991] 3 SCR 326 November 7, 1991 disclosure of evidence R v Goltz [1991] 3 SCR 485 November 14, 1991 cruel and unusual punishment, section 12 R v Broyles [1991] 3 SCR 595 November 28, 1991 Right to silence
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.