The plaintiff hired the defendant to renovate the wooden wharf that the plaintiff owned in British Columbia. The wharf was part of the plaintiff’s grain-loading facility in Vancouver Harbour. During this renovation process, the wharf was seriously damaged by fire. The fire was started by molten slag from an oxyacetylene torch operated by the defendant’s employee. The defendant’s employee did not minimize the fire hazard created by the torch. Among other deficiencies, the defendant’s employees failed to wet the combustible surfaces before using the torch and failed to keep a proper fire watch during cutting operations so that any slag that landed could then be doused with water. When it came time to fight the fire, the defendant’s employee ran into difficulties because the plaintiff had not provided a fire protection system anywhere near the wharf in question, not even a fire extinguisher. The plaintiff claims damages in the amount of $1 million. Assuming that the defendant’s employee has been negligent in how he used the torch, what would a possible defence of the defendant be? Should the plaintiff recover all its damages or only a portion thereof? Is the defendant responsible for the tort of its employee? Why or why not?