Employers may be found liable for the wrongful actions of their employees under certain conditions. The wrong must be tortious – this is a wrongful action that can be brought to civil court – which includes torts such as trespassing, assault, theft, negligence and so forth. There are certain factors established by the courts in determining whether the employer is vicariously liable for the wrongful act(s) of their employee. These factors are analyzed thought the ‘Salmond’ test established by common law.
Salmond Test – Vicarious Liability
The ‘Salmond’ test seeks to establish whether the employer created an opportunity for the employee to commit the wrongful action through the duties required for the position. If the act was related to such duties, then the employer can be found liable. The test seeks to analyze the following:

• The opportunity the employer gave the employee
• The extent to which the wrongful act may have furthered the employer’s aims (i.e. making this action more likely to be committed by the employee)
• The extent to which the wrongful act was related to friction, confrontation or intimacy inherent to the position/business
• The power conferred on the employee in relation to the victim
• The vulnerability of the victims in relation to the employee’s power

In general terms, the principle underlying the ‘Salmond’ test is whether the duties required gave an enhanced opportunity for actions of wrongdoing. This can be examined though a combination of the above factors in the ‘Salmond’ test. Employers are encouraged to seek an employment law expert for a full understanding of any situation raising concern. The above is by no means comprehensive.
An example that illustrates the relevant principles is Bazley v. Curry (SCC 1999). This case established that vicarious liability extends to enterprise risk. Simply, this can be viewed as the necessary duties employees are given to conduct business in the specific industry. This means that employers can be found liable for the risks inherent in the job itself, and not just acts that are authorized by the employer.
Bazley v Curry Example
In Bazley v. Curry, the employer was a child care facility. Employees here were caretakers of mentally disabled children. The nature of this business required caregivers to have a relationship of total intervention – bathing, preparing children for bed, and so on. Mr. Curry was the caregiver and Bazley was the child subjected to abuse by Mr. Curry. The employer here was found to be vicariously liable for the wrongdoing. In simple terms, this was because Mr. Curry was put in a position that made the abuse more likely when examining the duties of the job. The focus here is on the enterprise risk.  The nature of the business made these actions by Mr. Curry more likely to occur; the employer was therefore vicariously liable.
Final Thoughts
The courts place an increased responsibility on employers for the actions of their employees for two reasons. The employer has the means to compensate potential victims for the wrongdoing of their employees. Also, the court recognizes the employer’s ability to deter their employees from committing such wrongful acts. This may include performing criminal background tests or placing third-party supervision as deemed necessary for the position and enterprise, as this will mitigate risk and deter employee wrongdoing. It is important for employers to be diligent and take the necessary precautions to prevent wrongful actions by employees.