Bazley+v.+Curry


 * Facts**: Children's Foundation (= appellant, non-profit organization) hired Mr. Curry (= pedophile). He sexually abused Patrick Bazley (= child at the Foundation) and has since died. Bazley is suing the Foundation. At trial, the court found that the Foundation was vicariously liable. CA dismissed the appeal. Foundation says it was at no fault in hiring Curry.


 * Issues**: Is the Foundation vicariously liable for its employee's sexual assault of a child in its care? May employers be held vicariously liable (and if so, should non-profit employers be exempted)?


 * Held**: Appeal dismissed.

- Policy considerations: 1) concern to provide a just and practical remedy to victims: this includes both effective compensation for the victim and fairness to the person being held liable. Here, vicarious liability is fair. 2) deterrence of future harm: "Holding the employer vicariousloy liable for the wrongs of its employee may encourage the employer to take ...steps" that reduce teh risk that the employer has introduced to the community
 * Reasoning/Ratio (McLachlin J.):**


 * The test for vicarious liability for an employee's sexual abuse of a client should focus on whether the employer's enterprise and empowerment of the employee materially increased the risk of sexual assault and hence the harm. (This is the common thread between precedents.)**

- test must not be applied mechanically, but in light of and with sensitivity to policy considerations and specific circumstances of each case. Factors to consider may include, for example, the existence of a power or dependency relationship (often so in child abuse cases).