The respondent lost its major customer due to a bribery scheme orchestrated by a consultant hired by the appellant, a rival supplier.
The respondent sued the appellant, arguing it was vicariously liable for the consultant's tortious conduct.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant was not vicariously liable because the consultant was an independent contractor, not an employee, based on a holistic assessment of the relationship.
The Court also held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to reopen the trial to admit fresh evidence from the consultant.
