The appellant attended a residential school run by the respondent Order.
He was sexually assaulted by a lay employee who worked as a baker and maintenance man.
The trial judge found the Order vicariously liable based on the operational characteristics of the school.
The Court of Appeal set aside the decision, finding insufficient connection between the employee's duties and the wrongful acts.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that vicarious liability requires a strong connection between the employer-created risk and the wrongful act, which was not established given the employee's limited duties and lack of authority over the students.
