|
Torts - Vicarious Liability (2). Hartin v. Hynes
In Hartin v. Hynes (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against "summary judgment in favour of the respondent" - the owner of the house in which a dog bite occured and for which the appellant sued:[2] The motion judge awarded summary judgment in favour of the respondent. She held that the respondent was neither directly nor vicariously liable for the dog bite. The respondent was not an “owner” for purposes of the Dog Owners' Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, and the respondent could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of her brother. We see no error in the motion judge’s analysis.
[3] On the question of vicarious liability, the motion judge found that there was no evidence of any agency relationship between the respondent and her brother, who met the definition of an “owner” of Blue at the material time. Her relationship was with her father, and she had no knowledge that her brother had moved into the home. Absent evidence that the respondent consented to her brother acting on her behalf, or impliedly represented that he had such authority, there could be no agency relationship and no basis for vicarious liability: Hav-A-Kar Leasing Ltd. v. Vekselshtein, 2012 ONCA 826, at para. 42.
[4] The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in failing to find that the respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of her brother Rick Bain. Essentially, she argues that Joseph Bain was an agent of the respondent, and that Joseph’s decision to allow Rick Bain to live in the residence made Rick Bain an agent of the respondent. We do not agree with this proposition. The fact that the respondent purchased the home for her father, and contemplated that her father would manage the property, did not suffice to create an agency relationship between Rick Bain and the respondent in relation to his activities with the dogs. Something more was required before such a finding could ensue. . Derenzis v. Ontario
In Derenzis v. Ontario (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal partially allowed an appeal, this brought against a number of different R21 striking pleading grounds in an MVA tort context.
The court illustrates an unsuccessful vicarious liability claim by a relative of the insured, here against a person alleged to be an investigator engaged by an auto insurer:2. Did the motion judge err in striking Da Silva’s claims?
[21] Da Silva alleges that the appellants were aggressively followed by Wright, an investigator employed by Whitehall. On October 31, 2017, he alleges that he approached Wright’s parked car asking him to identify himself. Wright fled and struck Da Silva with his car, injuring him. Da Silva claims that Wright, Whitehall, Gore, and Gore’s employees were negligent and should be held liable.
[22] The motion judge found that Da Silva’s claims against Gore and its employees and Rapid must fail because there was no immediate connection between these parties and the intentional application of force on Da Silva. I agree. To make out a successful claim for vicarious liability, the appellants must plead facts capable of establishing 1) “a sufficiently close relationship between the tortfeasor and the party against whom liability is sought”; and 2) a sufficient connection between the action giving rise to the tort and the tortfeasor’s assigned tasks such that the tort can be viewed as a materialization of the risks created by the tasks: Dunford v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2025 ONCA 438, at para. 7. Here, Wright was neither employed by Gore or its employees or Rapid nor assigned tasks by these corporations. The potentially tortious actions cannot therefore be connected to the respondents. Also, as found by the motion judge, even if Wright were found negligent, given that he was employed by Whitehall, the appellants did not plead a sufficient basis to hold Gore or Rapid liable since they are separately incorporated entities. It is plain and obvious that Da Silva’s claim cannot succeed. The motion judge did not err in striking it.
|
