Anderson v. Bailey’s Service Centre

Anderson v. Bailey’s Service Centre

The adjudicator found the inspection sticker was affixed by employee Louis Dechever without the employer's knowledge or authorization, that Dechever was not a licensed tester and acted intentionally in a wrongful manner not in furtherance of the employer's interests, and that those intentional acts were not sufficiently related to authorized conduct to impose vicarious liability on the defendant; accordingly the claimant's claim was dismissed.

Citation
2018 NSSM 28
Parties
Claimant: Alfred C. Anderson; Defendant (company): Bailey's Service Centre; Defendant (individual): Cliff Bailey
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision (hearing Held)
Outcome
Claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Inspection Regulations, Negligence, Fraud, License Suspension, Employer Liability
Source Language
English
Tort Motor Vehicle Law Employment Law Administrative Law Vicarious Liability Inspection Regulations Negligence Fraud +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred C. Anderson

Claimant

Bailey's Service Centre

Defendant (company)

Cliff Bailey

Defendant (individual)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision (hearing Held)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employer is vicariously liable for employee's wrongful act of affixing an inspection sticker to an unworthy vehicle
  2. 2 Whether the defendant authorized or ratified the employee's actions or is otherwise responsible for them
  3. 3 Whether the employee was a qualified tester under the Motor Vehicle Act and related regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator found the inspection sticker was affixed by employee Louis Dechever without the employer's knowledge or authorization, that Dechever was not a licensed tester and acted intentionally in a wrongful manner not in furtherance of the employer's interests, and that those intentional acts were not sufficiently related to authorized conduct to impose vicarious liability on the defendant; accordingly the claimant's claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed against the Defendants.
  • No order for costs.