← University
Employer Liability for Employee Conduct
0 of 4

A formal demand letter arrived at the head office of a building maintenance and janitorial services company operating across several municipalities in southwestern Ontario. The letter, sent by counsel for a commercial property management firm, alleged that an employee of the maintenance company had engaged in threatening and aggressive conduct toward a tenant during an after-hours service call at a retail plaza, and that the incident had caused the tenant significant emotional distress requiring medical attention. The demand sought substantial damages from the maintenance company on the basis that it bore responsibility for its employee's actions.

The maintenance company had operated for 11 years, growing from a sole proprietorship into an incorporated business employing approximately 45 full-time and part-time workers who provided cleaning, light repair, and general maintenance services to commercial and residential clients under contracts of varying duration. The employee in question had been hired 8 months earlier to perform evening and overnight cleaning shifts at client locations. At the time of hiring, the company had conducted a brief interview and checked 2 professional references provided by the applicant, both of which were favourable. No criminal record check had been performed, and the company had no written policy requiring such checks for any category of employee.

The incident at the retail plaza occurred during a routine service call when the employee, working alone, encountered a tenant who had returned to her business after closing hours. According to the tenant's account, the employee became verbally aggressive when she questioned his presence in the hallway, blocked her path, and made statements she interpreted as threats before eventually allowing her to leave. The employee later disputed this characterization, stating that a misunderstanding had escalated and that he had merely been explaining his work duties.

The maintenance company had a general employee handbook that included a brief section on professional conduct, but it had no specific policies addressing client-facing interactions, no formal complaint mechanism for clients to report employee behaviour, and no documented training program on workplace conduct expectations. Supervision of employees working at client sites was minimal, consisting primarily of periodic quality inspections of completed work. The company carried commercial general liability insurance and had never previously faced a claim arising from employee conduct. Following the demand letter, the company's principals sought to understand what legal obligations they may have breached, whether they could be held responsible for the employee's conduct, and what steps they should now consider to address both the immediate claim and their ongoing operational exposure.

Negligent Hiring and Supervision: The Employer's Independent Duty of Care

The law does not wait for harm to occur before imposing duties on employers. Long before an employee causes injury to a customer, damages a client's property, or engages in misconduct toward a colleague, the employer's obligations have already crystallized. These obligations exist independently of any wrongdoing by the employee and attach to the very act of bringing someone into the organization and directing their work. When courts speak of negligent hiring and negligent supervision, they are identifying breaches of the employer's own duty of care, separate and distinct from any fault of the employee. This represents one of the most significant sources of liability for Canadian business owners because it holds the employer accountable not for what the employee did, but for what the employer failed to do in selecting, monitoring, and managing that person.

The foundation of this liability rests on the general principles of negligence that govern Canadian tort law. In common law provinces, the courts recognize that where a person assumes a position that creates risks to others, that person must take reasonable steps to minimize those risks. When a business owner decides to hire employees, the owner is making a choice that will affect not only the business but everyone who comes into contact with those employees. Customers, clients, vendors, other employees, and members of the public may all interact with the people an employer selects. The employer, having made the decision to delegate tasks and responsibilities to others, cannot simply close their eyes to who those people are or how they perform. The duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring arises the moment the decision to employ someone is made, and the duty to supervise continues for as long as that employment relationship exists.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $79 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.