Thanks very much for noting these. I am particularly interested in the vicarious liability decisions.

In Brink's the question is that of VL for the tort of conversion committed by an employee. The company Igrox were engaged to fumigate a container intended for overseas shipment, containing silver bars. One of their employees took the opportunity created when the container was supposed to be fumigated to steal some of the bars. The court considers the application of the principles concerning VL for intentional torts which have developed since Lister v Hesley Hall and holds that the company was liable for the theft committed by the employee. In doing so they say that a previous decision,  Heasmans v Clarity Cleaning Co. Ltd [1987] I.C.R. 949  (where a cleaning company was found not liable for the cost of expensive overseas phone calls made from an office by one of its cleaners) would probably be decided differently today.

I personally think one of the most helpful discussions of the scope of VL for intentional torts in recent years is that of Paula       Giliker in “Making the right connection: Vicarious liability and institutional responsibility” (2009) 17 Torts Law Jnl 35-54. She suggests that there should be VL only where an "employee is entrusted to protect the employer’s property, customers, employees, or specific individuals for whom the employer has taken responsibility" (at 53-54). While this case is not precisely in that category I think it is sufficiently close for her analysis to support the decision. I am less sure that Heasmans should have been over-ruled, as while it seems arguable that being entrusted with someone's goods for fumigation purposes is pretty close to a bailment relationship, sending someone to clean a building does not really give authority over their telephones.

Those interested in such matters should also consult the South Australian Full Court decision in Ffrench v Sestili [2007] SASC 241. Ms Sestili ran a personal carer's service for disabled persons; Ms Ffrench was unable to care for herself, and a Ms Brown was engaged by Sestili to look after her. Having been given access to Ms Ffrench's ATM card for shopping, Ms Brown managed to steal some $35,000 over some months (by taking it in chunks out of ATM's). Sestili as the employer of Brown was found vicariously liable for the theft.