In April 1966, the foundation employed Leslie Charles Curry to work in its Vancouver home, where he was hired as a childcare counsellor practising "total intervention" in the lives of the children he was caring for.

There were two questions before the court: May employers be held vicariously liable for sexual assaults on clients or persons within their care?

McLachlin J surveyed a number of possible policy reasons for the imposition of vicarious liability and adopted two of J. G. Fleming's policy rationales: In determining if an employer can be found vicariously liable, courts will often use the Salmond test, which will find an employer liable for the actions of an employee which are: The Supreme Court here seems to express frustration at this test.

In this case, because Curry was left alone for long periods of time unsupervised with his victims, was expected to bathe them and was placed by the foundation in a position of power over them, it can be said that there was a strong connection between what the employer was asking the employee to do and the wrongful act committed.

But given that a choice must be made, it is fairer to place the loss on the party that introduced the risk and had the better opportunity to control it.The appeal was dismissed and the matter was sent back to trial to determine costs.