Is the Ministry of Health and Social Care vicariously liable for the acts authorized and unauthorized?

The question then arises as to whether or not, under those circumstances, the Ministry is vicariously liable for the acts authorized and unauthorized which are so connected with the authorized acts that they may be regarded as modes, although improper modes, of doing authorized acts. In Bazley v. Curry (1999), 1999 CanLII 692 (SCC), 174 D.L.R. (4th) 45, the court considered the issue in terms of the policies lying at the heart of vicarious liability. The court considered Fleming, The Law of Torts, in the context of the two fundamental concerns underlying the imposition of vicarious liability; the first, a provision of a just and practical remedy for the harm, and second, deterrence of future harm. McLachlin J. (as she then was) states at page 62, paragraphs 37 and 38: ... The question in each case is whether there is a connection or nexus between the employment enterprise and that wrong that justifies imposition of vicarious liability on the employer for the wrong, in terms of fair allocation of the consequences of the risk and/or deterrence. Where the risk is closely associated with the wrong that occurred, it seems just that the entity that engages in the enterprise (and in many cases profits from it) should internalize the full costs of operation, including potential torts. ... On the other hand, when the wrongful act lacks meaningful connection to the enterprise, liability ceases to flow.