ontario
How can a sole employee allege 1. &#39;not acting in the course of employment&#39; and 2. &#39;acting without real or apparent authority&#39;?
<p><sub>Source: <a href="https://store.lexisnexis.ca/en/categories/shop-by-jurisdiction/ontario-10/ontario-small-claims-court-a-practical-guide-skusku-cad-00935/details" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Ontario Small Claims Court - A Practical Guide</em></a> (2011).</sub></p>

<p>I transcribed only the relevant of the <a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/wWwtI.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">entire Pleading (that I scanned)</a>.</p>

<p>p. 82 Bottom - 83 Top</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="2">
  <li>The plaintiff, Samivel Veller, is an individual residing in the City of Toronto. </li>
  <li>The defendant, Jonathan Trigg &amp; co. Inc. ("Trigg &amp; Co."), is a corporation, incorporated under the laws of Ontario and carrying on business in the City of Toronto.</li>
  <li>The defendant, Jonathan Trigg, is sole director, president, and sole shareholder of Trigg &amp; Co. </li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>p. 113 Middle.</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="11">
  <li>The defendants deny the existence of the conversation between Messrs. 
  Veller and Trigg described in paragraph 18 of the Plaintiffs Claim, and, 
  therefore, deny that Mr. Trigg committed any misrepresentation of fact. In 
  the alternative, if such conversation and consequent misrepresentation did 
  take place, Trigg &amp; Co. would not be liable directly or vicariously as Mr. 
  <strong>[11.1.] Trigg was not acting in the course of employment or [11.2.] was acting without real 
  or apparent authority.</strong> </li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>How are defenses 11.1 and 11.2 plausible? </p>

<p>11.1. Trigg was clearly working when he was interacting with Vellers? </p>

<p>11.2. Per 4, Trigg is the only employee of his corporation.</p>

<p><strong>It isn't</strong></p>

<p>The lawyers are probably using a standard form as a starting point for the defence and missed the inconsistency.</p>

<p>By the way, it doesn't say he is the sole (or indeed "an") employee, however, as director he has ostensible authority to bind the company.</p>
