The appellant hired, through his corporation, a bookkeeper whose responsibilities included payroll remittances, which enabled him to do the essential travel he needed to carry on the corporate business. After having trained the bookkeeper, the appellant on a number of occasions discovered lapses in the corporation's remittances - then he would supervise her closely and then "step back" based on the situation now apparently having been remedied. After her subsequent departure, he discovered that she had not sent cheques and documentation as instructed, had failed to bring deficiency notices to the appellant's attention, and had even attempted to erase sensitive financial information when she quit.
Campbell J found (at para. 32) that the appellant "could not reasonably have known or be expected to have known that the bookkeeper would engage in fraudulent and misleading actions." After noting that the due diligence standard takes the personal circumstances of the subject into account, she observed (at para. 29) the "backdrop" of the appellant's need to be away from the office frequently at construction sites.