|
Torts - Vicarious Liability (2). 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.
|
