The Plaintiff sued Starbucks and two individual employes for spilling hot water on her. Starbucks brought a motion to strike the claims against the individual Defendants on the basis that the Statement of Claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against either individual. The motion judge agreed and struck the claims against the individual Defendants on the basis that they were not liable for actions taken within the scope of their authority and on behalf of their corporation. On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision finding that the Statement of Claim set out specific alleged acts of negligence against each individual Defendant (e.g. the pouring of hot water and the failure to supervise) for which each may be found personally liable. The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge had conflated two separate concepts: an employer’s vicarious liability for its employees acting within the scope of their employment and employees’ personal liability for their own negligence while acting within the scope of their employment.