Agency - Basics. 1346134 Ontario Limited v. Wright
In 1346134 Ontario Limited v. Wright (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered the SOR for findings of agency:
 The appellants argue that the trial judge erred in finding that OAL was 134’s agent. The existence of an agency relationship is a question of fact: 1195303 Ontario Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc., 2015 ONCA 580, 337 O.A.C. 85, at para. 82. It is therefore entitled to deference, absent palpable and overriding error: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33,  2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 10.. 1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.
In 1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc. (Ont CA, 2015) the court cites the definition of agency as follows:
 An oft-cited definition of agency comes from Gerald Fridman, in Canadian Agency Law, 2d ed. (Markham: LexisNexis, 2012), at p. 4:. 1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc.
Agency is the relationship that exists between two persons when one, called the agent, is considered in law to represent the other, called the principal, in such a way as to be able to affect the principal’s legal position by the making of contracts or the disposition of property.See also Applewood Place Inc. v. Peel Condominium Corp. No. 516 (2003), 11 R.P.R. (4th) 253 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 35.
In 1196303 Inc. v. Glen Grove Suites Inc. (Ont CA, 2015) the court discusses the formation of an agency relationship:
 In order for a consensual agency relationship to exist, both principal and agent must agree to the relationship, and the principal must give the agent the authority to affect the latter’s legal position: Fridman, at pp. 4-5; see also Applewood, at para. 35.
 While agency is often created by an express contract, setting out the scope of the agent’s authority, the creation of an agency relationship may be implied from the conduct or situation of the parties: see Francis v. Dingman (1983), 1983 CanLII 1985 (ON CA), 2 D.L.R. (4th) 244 (Ont. C.A.), per Lacourciere J.A., at p. 250, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, (1984) 23 B.L.R. 234n. Whether an agency relationship exists is ultimately a question of fact, to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances: Ogdensburg Bridge & Port Authority et al. v. Edwardsburg (Township) (1966), 1966 CanLII 223 (ON CA), 59 D.L.R. (2d) 537 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 542, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused (1967), 59 D.L.R. (2d) 546n.