In Sataur v. Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2017 ONCA 1017 (“Sataur”), the appellant, Abigail Sataur, alleged that she was injured when a barista at a Starbucks in Brampton poured scalding hot water on her hands. Ms. Sataur sued Starbucks, the barista (Jane Doe), and the store manager, Danielle Bovenberg, for negligence. She claimed that each of the two individual defendants owed her a duty of care and was personally liable for breaching that duty.
On appeal from a motion in which the motion judge had struck the statement of claim against the two individual defendants, the Court of Appeal concluded that the motion judge had incorrectly comingled two distinct concepts: the employer’s vicarious liability for its employees acting within the scope of employment, and the employees’ own personal liability for negligence committed while acting within the scope of their employment. The Court of Appeal held that there is no general rule in Canada that an employee who is acting in the course of their employment cannot be sued personally for breaching a duty of care owed to a customer.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal relied on London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd., 1992 CanLII 41 (SCC), where the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that a plaintiff has the right to sue the individual who committed the negligent act, regardless of whether the individual was acting as an employee at the time. In other words, the existence of an employment relationship does not, on its own, shield an employee from personal liability in negligence.