Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses vicarious liability in regards to when companies can and cannot be held accountable or responsible for the actions of their employees.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week, and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
Who is responsible when a person is assaulted? Is it the individual who committed the assault? Or the company that employed the individual who committed the assault while on duty?
In law there is a concept called vicarious liability. If someone puts somebody in a position of power or authority, that makes them vicariously liable for that person in certain circumstances.
In the case of Tanja Ivic, she was sexually assaulted by a taxi driver. Although she was successful in suing the driver personally, she was unsuccessful in suing the taxi company because technically the driver is an independent contractor meaning the company cannot be held accountable for his actions. Shouldn’t a company that is hiring people to deal with individuals that could potentially be vulnerable, screen and be more vigilant during the hiring process to weed out any bad potential employees? Shouldn’t the company be responsible for not taking enough steps to ensure that their passengers will be safe with the driver and that their fares are protected?
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to enter the discussion and set the record straight about who should be liable in these situations, and what obligations employers have to individuals who come to them for their services.
See more
vancouvercriminallaw.com/category/video/
Follow Kyla on Twitter
twitter.com/irplawyer
Read more about Kyla
vancouvercriminallaw.com/criminal-lawyers-vancouver-richmond-surrey-victoria/kyla-lee/