First Argument Even though it's non profit they still receive money. The Incident happened outside of working hours. John dobbs was encouraged to build a rapport with the kids a reasonable person the club created a high risk environment for tortious activity it is believed that Second argument - Dobbs was an employee. This is a fact. His responsibility was never to commit these heinous acts The nature of the job means to care for the kids and build a healthy relationship.

Vicarious liability case. A non-profit day-camp for children employed John Dobbs as Program Director. The Club required Dobbs to supervise volunteer staff and organize recreational activities and the occasional outing. Dobbs was also encouraged to form friendships and a positive rapport with the children. The Club completed annual police background checks on Dobbs, which all came back as "clear". Unfortunately, Dobbs sexually assaulted a male camper, "Tim X", who was only ten years of age, at Dobbs's home outside working hours. Unknown to the Club, this incident followed several lesser incidents, including one alleged incident of Dobbs sexually touching Tim in the Club van, which was never proved. Dobbs was immediately terminated by the Club when this was disclosed. A few years later, Dobbs pled guilty in criminal court to the sexual assault on Tim in his home outside work hours. Now, Tim (through his guardian) is suing Dobbs and also suing the Club for damages. (Dobbs admitted liability but is currently bankrupt.)

1. Summary of Ontario tort law for this case

2. strong a legal argument was presented?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 In this case the Ontario tort law would likely consider the following elements ... View the full answer